Child Benefit

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The purpose of this short debate is to use the force of argument to put further pressure on the Government to abandon their policy of taking child benefit away from children who have a parent who is a higher rate taxpayer. I also wish to address the alternative approaches if the Government wish to raise even more money from higher rate taxpayers.

Last Thursday, the lead in The Daily Telegraph was, “Penalty for paying off student loan early is lifted.” The following words were attributed to a Downing street source:

“This is hopefully good news for tens of thousands of families, as well as many Conservative MPs who had raised concerns about the penalties.”

I congratulate and thank the Prime Minister for having responded to those concerns, which I and many others had expressed on that issue. I hope a similar response will be forthcoming to the even greater and more widespread concerns that are the subject of this short debate.

I recognise that a substantive response may have to wait until the Chancellor’s Budget speech next month. I can assure him that all MPs will be raising their papers if he is able to use similar phraseology about good news for families and Conservative MPs. One essential difference between the two issues is that the removal of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers is something that concerns many more MPs, not just Conservative MPs but MPs right across the house. Many more families are affected as well—anything between 1.5 million and 1.8 million families with, collectively, about 3 million children.

There are relatively few political issues on which, over the generations, there has been a cross-party consensus. One issue is the support for the principle of a universal, non-taxable cash payment for families with children. That is now known as child benefit, which was initially introduced in 1977. Child benefit replaced child tax allowances, which dated back to 1909, and family allowances, which were introduced following the Beveridge report in 1946.

Beveridge regarded a universal system of children’s allowances as a fundamental plank of the welfare state, providing

“help to parents in meeting their responsibilities, and as an acceptance of new responsibilities by the community.”

Beveridge did not support the means-testing of children’s allowances any more than he supported means-testing for access to NHS services.

When child benefit was introduced by the Labour Government, it enjoyed all-party support. Indeed, its introduction proceeded despite the desperate financial crisis at that time, in 1976-77, when this country was under the cosh of the IMF—the IMF was effectively running the Treasury. No politician at that time made the argument that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the House on 20 October 2010. He said:

“The debts of the last Labour Government, and the need to ensure that the better-off in society also make a fair contribution, make this choice”—

the removal of child benefit for families with a higher rate taxpayer—

“unavoidable.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 959.]

We have afforded universal benefits for children in families from 1976 to the present day. The state has grown in size since then. Why are we talking about removing this universal benefit at this stage? In my submission, it is avoidable, and must be avoided.

To emphasise just how far the Government are now proposing to go to destroy the previous consensus, it is worth noting that the Child Poverty Action Group, which supports universal child benefit, says:

“Those with children have higher costs than those without and they need additional support at whatever level of income they live on.”

Margaret Thatcher’s Government described child benefit as simple, well understood and popular. Indeed, it has a take-up rate of over 97%.

There was no hint at the last general election that the consensus would be broken. Conservative party policy was set in stone. Indeed, the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, made this boast:

“I want the next Government to be the most family friendly Government we’ve ever had in this country.”

At a public meeting in Bolton on 5 March 2010, he said that he would not “change child benefit”. He was undoubtedly taking a leaf out of the then shadow Chancellor’s book who addressed the matter at the Conservative party conference on 6 October 2009. He said:

“We will preserve child benefit”.

The early decisions of the coalition Government announced in the June 2010 Budget were consistent with those promises. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that

“we have decided to freeze child benefit for the next three years. This is a tough decision, but I believe that it strikes the right balance between keeping intact this popular universal benefit, while ensuring that everyone across the income scale makes a contribution to helping our country reduce its debts.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 173.]

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Chope]

I will not give way. I want to put my points on record, and it is a very short debate. If I have time later on, I will take some interventions.

The Prime Minister and his predecessors have so frequently professed their support for “hard-working families” that the expression has become a political cliché. How extraordinary, therefore, that the Government are still persisting with a policy that will undermine those hard-working families, especially those families in the squeezed middle. What families could be more hard working than those 55,000 or 60,000 single parent families where the lone parent works long hours in a demanding job to earn more than £43,000 a year, thereby qualifying as a higher rate taxpayer and a victim of this policy? Such families also often have very high child care costs. In the league table of hard-working families, they are closely followed by two-parent families where the breadwinner supports a spouse who cannot work, whether because of disability, long-term sickness or the need to support a child who is disabled or sick.

A family in the last category came to my constituency surgery in autumn 2010 and impressed on me the utter folly of the Government’s proposals. I then engaged in correspondence with the Treasury. On 18 January 2011, the Exchequer Secretary responded to my letter of 16 October—the fact that it took three months to get a response indicates something—in which I had specifically asked the Chancellor about the impact of his policy on those in receipt of carer’s allowance. My constituent’s wife earns slightly above the higher rate threshold, while he stays at home to look after his two children, one of whom has Down’s syndrome. The point that I wished the Chancellor to address was my constituents’ concern that in households where, through circumstance rather than choice, only one parent is able to work, the higher rate tax payer is normally compensating for the lack of earning capacity of the other. As my constituents said:

“This penalises families of those who live the true spirit of social responsibility each and every day.”

After a three-month delay, I received my reply; I had hoped for a better response. It merely asserted that the policy is tough but fair and that affected families are within the top 20% of the income distribution of all families. I immediately wrote back asking my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to address specifically how the impact of the proposals on families such as that of my constituent could be regarded as fair. I am sorry to say that it was another three months—on 12 April—before my hon. Friend replied. He said:

“Inevitably, introducing a simple change to a universal system can create some difficult cases and it would unfortunately be difficult to create an exception for families where one partner is a carer.”

He repeated the assertion that the Government believed the policy to be fair, but how can it be fair to target such families, by asking them to make a greater contribution to reducing the deficit, while exempting families with earnings of up to £84,000 a year that are spread equally between both parents?

Fewer than one in 10 of the families from whom child benefit is to be taken away contain two higher rate taxpayers; I think that the number is 130,000 families. Almost all the remainder, therefore, will or may be in a weaker position to bear such a loss of benefit than those households with two persons earning up to £84,000 a year between them.

When I corresponded with the Treasury, the threshold for higher rate tax was £43,876. Since then, despite rising inflation—there has been a 3.1% increase in the retail prices index in the last year—the starting rate for higher rate tax has been reduced by £1,400, while the threshold for 2013-14 is still unspecified. Therefore, even more families will be affected by this change than was originally envisaged.

The policy that we are discussing today has never been properly thought through. By all accounts, it was included in the Chancellor’s speech at the 2010 party conference at the last minute, after an earlier plan to announce the withdrawal of child benefit from all children over the age of 16 was scrapped. That is why the early estimate of the contribution that this policy will make towards reducing the deficit was £1 billion. That early estimate was wrong, but in typical Treasury fashion the Government now say that anyone who opposes the withdrawal of child benefit must come up with an alternative means of producing £2.4 billion a year to go towards deficit reduction.

It is worth reminding ourselves that families are already contributing to the reduction of the deficit through the freezing of child benefit. That policy alone will save about £1 billion in 2013-14 and the total contribution that it will make during the three-year freeze is about £3 billion. In addition, many of the families who are affected by withdrawal of child benefit will lose £550 a year in basic child tax credit from this April onwards.

In responding to this debate, I expect the Minister to argue that he is in pre-Budget purdah and that he will treat what I have said as a representation, but I want him to say specifically why the Government’s proposal to increase the tax burden on hard-working families is not being defined as a tax increase but as an expenditure reduction. We know that the Chancellor has always been keen to present his deficit reduction plan in terms of achieving a fair balance between Government expenditure reductions and tax increases. Without getting into an argument about the extent to which the original target of expenditure reductions has been missed, I must ask: is it not disingenuous to regard the withdrawal of child benefit in terms other than a tax increase? After all, the antecedents of child benefit lie in the concept that there should be a higher tax allowance for those with dependent children than for those without dependent children. In essence, the Government’s policy is to remove that tax allowance and thereby increase the tax burden.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he share my inclination to believe that the Government might be able to extricate themselves from the set of powerful problems that he describes through some combination of a transferrable child tax allowance and the universal credit system?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Many of us thought, because we went into a general election committed to having transferrable tax allowances and to promoting family values, that those allowances would be implemented. Although there was provision in the coalition agreement for the Liberal Democrats to abstain or vote against those allowances, it was expected that the Conservatives would introduce them and that the House would have an opportunity to judge them.

A lot of the difficulties that have been brought about as a result of the analysis of the proposal to remove child benefit come from the fact that we have abandoned the idea of using the tax system to say, “Well, if you’ve got two equivalent families, one with three or four children and the other without any children then the costs of the family with children must be greater than those of the family without children, and therefore there should be a greater tax allowance for the family with children than for the family without children.” That is the basic principle. We could have restored it or indeed enhanced it by having transferrable tax allowances, which was a commitment in our manifesto.

What depresses me, however, is that in the 16 months since October 2010, when the original proposal was made by the Chancellor, nothing seems to have been done to take forward those issues and to try to find a fair solution. Obviously, implementing something like transferrable tax allowances would take some time; we would need to have draft legislation and any such allowances probably could not be implemented by January 2013, when the Government have committed themselves to impose this burden on higher rate taxpaying families.

The Government have missed a big opportunity on transferrable tax allowances, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have time to explain why that happened—because, as I have said, introducing those allowances was a Government policy that had been announced—and also why the Government recently reconfirmed that they have no intention whatsoever of proceeding with transferrable tax allowances.

I will give my hon. Friend the Minister some time to respond to this debate, but I should like to make some other points. I think that the Liberal Democrats are rather in favour of the policy of withdrawing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers, because they want to remove as many tax benefits from higher rate taxpayers as possible. But of course the Liberal Democrats would also like that policy to be dressed up as an expenditure reduction, because that expenditure reduction would be balanced with a tax increase and therefore there could be an additional tax increase on top of removing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers. That would also take the pressure off finding genuine reductions in expenditure, which would be achieved by reducing the size of the state.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can address that issue in his response to the debate, because there is a real definitional problem here. The way that the Government are proposing to introduce this tax penalty on higher rate taxpayers with children is effectively to require the family to declare whether or not the taxpayer or their partner are in receipt of child benefit, and then the taxpayer would be taxed 100% on that child benefit. Surely, that is a tax increase rather than an expenditure reduction.

As a contribution to this debate, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a devastating but none the less very useful report, and I hope that some of the issues identified in that report, which my hon. Friend the Minister will probably have been studying closely since it was published about a fortnight ago, will be addressed in his response to this debate.

Why do the Government want higher rate taxpayers with children to make a greater contribution towards deficit reduction than higher rate taxpayers without children? Surely, it would be fairer if all higher rate taxpayers contributed equally towards deficit reduction. Any changes in the higher rate tax band needed to achieve that aim would be simple, fair, easy to collect and difficult to avoid. In other words, they would meet all the original objectives of a good tax, unlike the Government’s current proposals, which, as I have said, have been the subject of withering criticism from the IFS. In its report, the IFS estimates that £90 million of the supposed yield from this new policy would be uncollectable, that £60 million would be lost through non-compliance, that £280 million would leak through what is described as tax planning and that, in addition, there would be administrative costs and a need for extra Inland Revenue staff. There has not been a defined estimate of those additional administrative and staff costs, but a rough estimate of at least £130 million has been proposed.

Could anyone think of a more absurd and ludicrous policy to introduce than this one? It increases the complexity of the tax system; it adds to the demand for more civil servants in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to examine the changes that will be made; it encourages people to fiddle their arrangements; and it exacerbates the problem of what happens when people live together during a year without declaring it. The Government were committed to reducing the couple penalty, but this proposal will actually exacerbate it. I do not think that there is anything commendable or sensible about this policy, and there are alternatives to it.

I asked the Library if it would be possible to come up with an alternative. I do not take this view myself, but if one thought that the way to deal with this issue was to say, “If there are two higher rate taxpayers in a family, they should forfeit their child benefit”, that change would affect only 130,000 families. It would not generate much income, but it would apply to those 130,000 families who definitely have a joint income that is greater than the £84,000 to which I referred earlier.

I asked the expert in the Library whether it would be possible to have a system whereby people could claim relief against loss of child benefit by certifying that the total gross income of their household did not exceed £85,000. The answer was that, in principle, that would be possible, but that it would require joint filing for households with at least one higher rate taxpayer. One presumes that having made a return at the end of the year showing total joint income was no more than £85,000, child benefit would not be withdrawn from that household.

There are ways of generating some income in the context of this policy, but I do not think it is worth the candle, because it cuts across the dearly and long-held principle that we should have a universal benefit for families with children.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Thank you, Mr Dobbin. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing the debate.

Government policy towards higher rate taxpayers and welfare go to the very heart of the challenge to tackle the tough economic circumstances that we face today. It is right and fair that we support hard-working families through these difficult times, and it is vital to ensure that all parts of society contribute to tackling the economic legacy that the Government have inherited.

When we came to government, we had been through the deepest recession since the war. We inherited an economy crippled by the biggest financial crisis in almost 100 years and the largest budget deficit in our modern history. Tackling that deficit is the vital precondition of sustainable growth. Only by tackling the deficit can we provide the certainty, stability and low interest rates that are critical to our recovery and renewing our prosperity across the country. Cutting the deficit is a vital precondition of growth. It has meant that we have had to make some very difficult choices to tackle the profligacy of the previous Government and target spending where it is most effective.

The Government believe that the welfare system must remain fair and affordable while protecting the most vulnerable, and that work must pay. To achieve that, we have had to make tough decisions such as raising the state pension age to 67 between April 2026 and April 2028, not going ahead with the planned £110 above inflation increase to the child element of the child tax credit, and not uprating the couple and lone parent elements of the working tax credit in 2012-13. Those are tough decisions to make, but we have sought to make sure that they are fair across income distribution. That is why the Government have, for the first time, undertaken and published a distributional analysis of the impacts of the autumn statement 2011 and previous fiscal events.

After combining the impact of tax, tax credit and benefit and public service spending changes introduced at the autumn statement 2011 and previous fiscal events, the analysis demonstrates that the top 20% of households will make the greatest contribution towards reducing the deficit as a percentage of their income and benefits in kind from public services. It is fair that higher rate taxpayers, who are better off, make a greater contribution to those savings. We are committed to the same approach as we reform child benefits.

Let me start by saying that we fully understand how important child benefit is to millions of families across the country. For many families, it provides a vital income boost to parent income, recognising the extra costs that they face compared with non-parents. Currently, child benefit is paid to around 7.5 million people, around 95% of whom are women, in respect of 13 million children and young people. Child benefit is paid at a rate of £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for each subsequent child. It is a substantial income boost to families, but it also comes at a substantial cost to the Exchequer. Child benefit already makes up around 7% of total social security and tax credits spending, and each year those spending levels rise.

Furthermore, we already pay more than £2 billion pounds a year in child benefit to higher rate taxpayers. At a time when we face constrained resources, we have to focus the resources that we have where they are needed the most.

[Mr Chope]

If that is so, why was that not said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the June 2010 Budget? Why did he say that he was going to freeze child benefit? Why did he not say what my hon. Friend is now saying? It seems that the Government—perhaps because of the minority party in the coalition—have now shifted their ground and are reneging on a pre-election promise not to interfere with child benefit.

[Mr Gauke]

As I said earlier, we were conscious that we had to take difficult decisions in the run-up to the comprehensive spending review in October 2010. We had to come up with spending decisions that would enable the Government to have plans that met fiscal targets. In the process of preparing for the spending review, tough decisions had to be made. When faced with the various options, the Chancellor decided that it was necessary to look again at child benefit and to ensure that that spending was targeted as best as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful, because I want to respond directly on that point. The Government, as stated in the coalition agreement, want to recognise marriage in the tax system. We remain committed to that and we will introduce proposals at an appropriate time, as is consistent with the coalition agreement. We remain committed to what is in the coalition agreement.

[Mr Chope]

Does the Minister mean at a time when the Liberal Democrats have left the coalition?

[Mr Gauke]

No, I mean within this Parliament, which I assume does not mean what my hon. Friend suggests.

I appreciate that there are a number of concerns about how this policy will be implemented and how it will impact on hard-working families. We have been clear that the reform needs to be as simple as possible. That is why we have sought to withdraw child benefit from households with the higher rate taxpayer and not pursue a complex means-testing regime that would require Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to contact 7.8 million households in receipt of child benefit.

From a customer perspective, this delivery option does not place a burden on all child benefit claimants and it limits the impact on households containing a higher rate taxpayer. The Chancellor and I will be working closely with our officials to scrutinise the available options as to how we will implement this policy and find a sensible way forward. Plans for implementation will be set out in the next few months.

Remuneration of EU Staff

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I think I will cover all those points in my speech, although I am grateful to my extremely well-informed hon. Friend for his prompt to do so.

Let me turn now to the 2011 EU salary adjustment. The Commission’s attitude towards EU staff pay adjustments is another clear indication of its estrangement from reality. In the UK, the public sector pay bill makes up more than half of departmental resource spending, so action on pay is inevitably part of the Government’s fiscal consolidation strategy. Accordingly, the Government have announced a two-year public sector pay freeze for those earning above £21,000, with pay awards following that averaging only 1%. Those measures are estimated to save around £3.3 billion a year by 2014-15.

At EU level, on the contrary, staff remunerations counted for 69% of the Commission’s budget in 2011, which means that EU annual salary adjustments have important implications for the size of EU administrative costs. However, rather than taking action to reduce its wage bill the Commission proposed to increase it by 1.7%, representing an extra €39 million, in the year from July 2011, despite the fact that the vast majority of EU officials earn significantly more than most public officials in the UK and many other member states.

I turn now to the position of the UK and the Council. Clearly, any pay increase for EU staff is unacceptable. In conjunction with other member states, the Government called on the Commission to lower its proposals, taking into account the economic situation and the policy measures in many member states to curb public wage bills. The request was made not once but twice, first in December 2010 and again in November 2011. The requests were made by invoking the so-called exception clause—article 10 of the 11th annex to the EU staff regulations—the only means for seeking to alter the mechanistic salary adjustment process under the current system.

Each time, the Commission has stubbornly refused to reduce growth in EU staff pay. Its defence for its inaction has been internally inconsistent, self-serving and, as the European Scrutiny Committee observed, one-sided. By claiming that there has been no

“sudden and serious deterioration in the economic and social situation”

in the EU, the Commission has undertaken faulty analysis. For example, it based its rosy evaluation on forecast indicators that did not pertain to the period defined for its assessment.

More seriously, the Commission ignored the huge number of important fiscal consolidation measures adopted and implemented by member states during the period under review. The Commission itself has strongly advocated such measures, yet incredibly it used stabilising debt and deficit levels to justify higher pay for its own staff.

Most seriously of all, the Commission has manipulated the current system to deprive member states of the opportunity to evaluate the situation independently and to adopt appropriate measures, at a time when it is evident to us all that taking immediate action to curb growth in EU staff pay is the right thing to do. That is why the UK and the wider Council rejected the 1.7% pay increase in December. It is also why we have blocked reductions in EU staff contribution rates to their pension scheme. In addition, the Council has lodged a court case against the Commission for mishandling the 2011 salary adjustment.

The Council’s decision to proceed with legal action against the Commission indicates the seriousness with which we treat the issue. Should the Council lose the case, it will simply add weight to our view that the current process is defunct and cannot adapt properly to difficult economic circumstances. In any event, reform of the salary adjustment system is urgent. The ongoing review of the EU staff regulations, which set out the rules in this area, provides an important opportunity to make that happen.

Delivering a subtler and more responsive way of setting EU staff pay, which empowers the Council to make suitable adjustments in times of economic distress and more generally, is an important objective. One part of the Government’s broader agenda to achieve efficiency gains and financial savings in the EU budget is via reform of the staff regulations that determine such a high level of the EU’s administrative budget.

Overall, the potential for savings is high. This dossier is subject to qualified majority voting and co-decision with the European Parliament. Our success will depend on building firm alliances, so the Government are already working closely with other member states to agree cost- saving ideas that can command broad support in Council.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of co-decision with the European Parliament is that its Members already have their fingers in the till and are giving themselves a substantial pay increase for the coming year?

[Miss Smith]

I certainly agree that everybody associated with European institutions needs to show restraint at this time, as I think the debate will show in some detail, so I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. He will be reassured that alongside the measures I have already laid out, we intend to pursue the modernisation of EU institutions, in order to help them become more effective, and to encourage a better geographical spread of EU officials from across member states.

Regional Pay (Public Sector)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams]

Indeed. The hon. Lady’s point is pertinent to the debate.

When cuts were made to wider public sector budgets, the effects were largely on the public sector, of course, but also on the para-private sector—companies that have contracts with the public sector—which is integral to local economies. Similarly, those whose livelihoods depend on services to those in employment will be at risk from the proposals. As well as the local economy, a whole host of small companies that service the public sector in our regions will be affected.

I have great sympathy with Labour Members—I am pleased to see some of them here today—but I appreciate that they will be fighting the proposals with one hand tied behind their backs. It does not please me to make the point about the introduction of regional pay by the previous Government, but the Labour Government promoted the idea. They floated it in 2003, and they introduced it in the Courts Service in England and Wales in 2008, when it was not entirely successful. The Public and Commercial Services Union has told me that regional and local pay in the Ministry of Justice has not been a success, and that with the introduction of local pay in the Courts Service in 2007, there were problems with regional pay zones in the Ministry of Justice. The policy created inequalities and tensions, and it was ultimately unsuccessful and had to be reformed. I hope that lessons have been learned, but I worry that the wrong ones might have been learned.

I conclude by saying that the effect of regional pay will be far-reaching and negative and that it will not improve the private sector. There is a strong likelihood that it will lead to institutionalisation of low pay in some places, and it will certainly make it much more difficult to attract new workers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr has said. The Treasury must reconsider its stance, and I will certainly contribute to the debate as it develops, as will my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).

I apologise if my final point sounds light. I am pleased to see that Conservatives in Wales are represented here. The comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) were interesting. I appreciate that Scottish Tories may have problems in mustering manpower. It has been said that there are more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs, and if the London Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government push the regional pay issue through, Tory MSPs in Edinburgh will be rarer than polar bears on the Clyde.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Some hon. Members have indicated to me informally that they wish to participate in the debate. However, I will not call anyone if they do not rise and seek to catch my eye. This is the new year, a time to exercise the muscles and become fitter, so perhaps hon. Members who wish to speak will rise in their place.

Eurozone Crisis

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Baron]

I agree to a certain extent, but my hon. Friend cannot deny that we had the ability to devalue. The currency markets could take the strain and, to a certain extent, they did. If we look at the strength of the pound since the second world war, we see that it has been a sorry tale of devaluation. Had that devaluation not taken place and had we been locked into a system that did not allow devaluation, my goodness me, the austerity packages introduced to compensate for that lack of competitiveness would have been very severe indeed.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I share my hon. Friend’s scepticism about the role of the IMF in the treaty that establishes the European stability mechanism. Does he recognise that that treaty is littered with references to the IMF, even to the extent of including a provision that says that no application can be made for a loan unless a similar application has been made to the IMF first?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The IMF is an integral part of the rescue package for the eurozone, but that is something that the Government are, at least publicly, not willing to acknowledge, which is very wrong indeed.

I question why the IMF is getting involved in these bail-outs. The eurozone is a currency union. If a state within the United States got into trouble, the IMF would not be expected to ride to the rescue. The same should be true of the eurozone. I contend that Greece is not economically sovereign: it has no central bank, it cannot set interest rates, it has no currency, and it cannot devalue. I would go so far as to question whether Greece is even politically sovereign. At least in the United States, the people can elect the governor of individual states. That is not happening in Greece and Italy. In some cases, we do not even have a Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on his good sense in calling for it. It is fantastically well attended, and it is a pity that it is not longer.

At business questions on Thursday, I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the loan to Ireland. He said that he would tell the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of my interest in the subject, and that my hon. Friend would come to this debate with the answers to my questions. I hope that he has had due warning.

The loan to Ireland goes to the heart of the issue of trust, to which my hon. Friends have referred. The people in this country do not understand what is happening in their name. The Chancellor announced that we would give a £3 billion loan to Ireland. That is £50 a head for every member of the UK population. He announced that the rate of interest would be about 6%, in round figures, and that that would give the British taxpayer a healthy profit.

It then emerged in late July that the interest rate was likely to be lower, but had not yet been decided. The first tranche of the loan was paid to Ireland on 14 October. Even as we speak, the rate of interest on that loan has not been agreed. It is still being negotiated downwards. At the same time, the Irish bond rate has remained pretty constant, at more than 8%. Why are we negotiating the rate downwards? Why, indeed, are we lending all that money to Ireland when our own small businesses are crying out for money?

[Mark Reckless]

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not just the interest rate that is uncertain but the priority of the loan? When addressing the Committee considering the Ireland and Portugal bail-outs and loans, the Financial Secretary stated that the loan to Ireland ranked broadly the same as those of the IMF and other international institutions, when actually it ranks below the IMF and the EFSF.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We were told that the IMF would help Ireland and that we could help Ireland and influence its economic policy through the IMF. We were also told that we needed to give Ireland a £3 billion loan so that we could have even more influence, but I do not think that it is written in any agreement that to have yet more influence we need to reduce the interest below the rate agreed at the outset. The fact that the Irish have drawn down on the loan shows that they do not look a gift horse in the mouth. They realise that this is a great opportunity.

Let us consider the opportunities in Ireland. I got my assistant to research the interest rates available to small businesses in Ireland at the moment, so this information is from yesterday. Allied Irish Banks is offering loans of up to €100,000 to small businesses at a “competitive rate” of 4.4% variable. New and early-stage businesses under three years old can get that money. Now, I do not know what it is like for my hon. Friends, but in my constituency it is almost impossible for businesses to get a loan from the bank at a rate of 4.4%, if they can get one at all. We know that Allied Irish Banks is the beneficiary of a £3.5 billion bail-out. We are giving Ireland money that it is using to subsidise its banks, which in turn are subsidising its small businesses to compete unfavourably against ours.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that it is actually far worse? The Irish state bank, the National Asset Management Agency, holds £14 billion of property in this city, which it can dispose of any time it wants and put the money back into its own national coffers. Is it not time that we had a Select Committee inquiry into NAMA’s activities in the United Kingdom jurisdiction?

[Mr Chope]

That sounds to me like a good point. People should start selling their assets. That is what families must do if they get into difficulties. We have to think about selling assets, which is what countries in debt should be doing.

Another example is the Bank of Ireland, which received €5.2 billion in the banking bail-out, and which is offering interest rates of 5.24%. More than half of all loan decisions are made on the spot and 87% of applications are approved. Would that we had similar arrangements in the United Kingdom. By comparison, HSBC was offering small business loans yesterday with a starting interest rate of 7.9%, which is obviously only for the most favoured customers.

Can the Government explain why we are reducing the rate of interest on the Irish loan? When the Bill went through the House, I voted against it, but it passed on the basis that we would make a significant profit on the interest. Now that the Irish are drawing down on the loan, surely we should know what the interest rate is. Is there any other organisation that can go to the bank and get a loan while the bank manager says, “Don’t worry, we’ll agree the interest rate later”? It seems reckless in the extreme.

My final point deals with the treaty establishing the European stability mechanism. Most people do not realise that the European stability mechanism is a new international financial institution that will have international immunity, and that it will be funded by the 17 members of the European Union. What will Ireland pay? Its subscription will be €11.145 billion, which is about £10 billion. Another way of putting it is that we are lending money to Ireland so that Ireland can, in turn, pay its subscription to the European stability mechanism. It is a farce.

Eurozone Crisis

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As the Foreign Secretary used to say at the time, he wrote his own speeches, and I write my speeches today—and those who have written my speeches before me have got themselves into the House of Commons, which is a good thing.

The serious point that I would make to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is this. I completely reject his idea that Britain has been marginalised. We have actually insisted that such matters be discussed at the European Council and ECOFIN. A key component of today’s agreement is the banking package, which is the area where there is most detail. There was a 10-hour negotiation to achieve the banking package last Saturday which Britain was right at the heart of, so we are at the centre of things. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that his party’s Front-Bench policy to marginalise us from the IMF would also see us leaving that key negotiating table.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals for a financial transaction tax are now dead in the water?

[Mr Osborne]

I cannot confirm that they are dead in the water, because the eurozone is determined to pursue a financial transaction tax and talks about that in its statement. However, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that Britain will not accept a financial transaction tax at an EU27 level while other jurisdictions in the world do not impose one. We are not opposed to financial transaction taxes in principle—after all, we have stamp duty on shares in this country—but we will not have a financial transaction tax at a European Union level while countries such as America, China, Singapore and others do not have one. As their having one is a long way off, we will be waiting a long time—perhaps for ever—for a European Union financial transaction tax.

Renovation of Empty Property (VAT)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

I wanted to secure this debate because of the pressure to build on the green spaces and the green belt in Sefton and elsewhere. Sefton council is consulting on its core strategy and, using the figures in the regional spatial strategy, it says it needs 480 new homes each year. To achieve that target, the council has suggested three options, two of which imply significant incursion into the green belt. The draft national planning policy framework does not continue the brownfield-first policy, and councils are not allowed to include windfall development sites, such as the Maghull prison site in my constituency, which would deliver several hundred homes. In addition, empty homes cannot be counted towards a council’s target, and so the 6,000 such properties across Sefton are not included in the figures. All that means that councils need an alternative strategy for building the homes that we—especially our young people—need. Affordable housing is in such short supply. A sustainable policy is needed, and a cut in VAT on the renovation and refurbishment of empty properties would contribute significantly to delivering the housing targets at the same time as protecting the green belt and important urban green space.

The VAT regime perversely incentivises new build on greenfield land because it attracts 0% VAT. A cut in VAT to 5% on the renovation and reuse of existing buildings would allow greater emphasis to be placed on urban regeneration, on which VAT is levied at 20%. The “Cut the VAT” campaign has a wide coalition of support; it is run by the Federation of Master Builders and supported by many organisations, including the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and the Federation of Small Businesses. There would be many benefits to reducing VAT on building repairs and conversions, and there are strong environmental, economic and social grounds for doing so. In general, subjecting repairs and conversions to VAT is damaging, because it acts as a deterrent to urban regeneration, the proper maintenance of buildings and our caring for the historic environment.

The differential between VAT rates on new build and on repair creates a perverse incentive to leave properties in a state of disrepair or to demolish sound buildings, rather than encouraging their effective use and maintenance. The differential adds to the cost of bringing buildings back into use through repair, renovation or conversion, and contributes to a cycle of decline, because run-down areas are generally a less attractive proposition for investors and developers, even though they might present significant opportunities. I believe that the Government would agree with that analysis. I am looking for the Economic Secretary to nod—she is not doing so.

The additional cost that VAT adds to repairs and refurbishment distorts the market in favour of new build over reuse and refurbishment, which means that developers are incentivised to bring forward new development on greenfield sites before attempting to bring existing resources back into useful occupation. As well as assisting regeneration, making productive use of existing buildings can play an important role in conserving scarce resources such as the land, energy and building materials bound up in the properties, and such an approach also contributes to reducing waste. Government statistics indicate that there are more than 750,000 empty houses in England, and there are many other empty and underused buildings. That is an enormous waste of resources, and a reduction in VAT on refurbishment to create a level playing field between refurbishment and new build would, therefore, make a lot of sense.

Historically, it has been argued that a VAT reduction is not possible because of EU laws. However, the European Commission’s Economic and Financial Affairs Council agreed in March 2009 to allow member states to reduce VAT on housing repair and maintenance, so that barrier appears to have been lifted. The cut in VAT on renovation is now an option that would promote regeneration, bring empty buildings back into use and minimise the use of greenfield land.

Turning to the impact on the construction industry, a VAT cut from 20% to 5% would reduce rogue traders’ competitive advantage and help rescue many legitimate local firms from the brink of collapse. Dozens of small and medium-sized businesses would benefit considerably from a VAT cut on home repair, maintenance and improvement work, and that is why the campaign I mentioned has the support of the Federation of Master Builders. Given these tough economic times, a cut would make a huge difference to many small firms, certainly in constituencies such as mine. It would also make important home repairs more affordable, and help protect consumers from cowboy builders who currently flourish by evading VAT. It is a logical step to help boost the economy, and I call on the Government to take it as a matter of urgency.

The UK economy is facing a weak recovery from the recent recession. Output in the construction industry shrank faster than the economy as a whole during the recession, and recent forecasts suggest there will be no significant sign of recovery in the industry until 2014. Successful trials in a number of EU countries strongly suggest that a cut in VAT on home repair and improvement work would reap economic benefits for the UK. Independent research by Experian, based on a standard VAT rate of 17.5%, suggests that the total stimulus effect of reducing VAT in the sector would be in the region of £1.4 billion in the first year alone.

According to the Office for National Statistics, 249,000 work force jobs have been lost in the construction sector alone since 2007, and that has had a big effect on the Government’s finances as well as a considerable human impact. We know from independent research that a cut in VAT on home repair and improvement work would create thousands of new jobs in the construction sector and the wider economy. Again, independent Experian research based on a standard VAT rate of 17.5% suggests that 24,200 extra construction jobs could be created in the first year alone if VAT on home improvements was cut to 5%. According to the same research, such growth in the construction industry would also lead to 31,000 new jobs in the wider economy.

Those significant job losses—249,000—risk creating a major skills shortage in future years, unless the industry can recruit and train sufficient numbers of people now. The number of construction apprenticeship starts fell by 4,010 between 2008-09 and 2009-10. Almost 1 million people under the age of 25 are currently unemployed, but when the construction industry returns to more sustainable levels of growth there will not be a sufficient number of people equipped with the right skills to meet demand. It will be difficult for employers to make more apprenticeship places available unless there is an increase in construction activity.

We are building fewer than half the number of new homes needed to match the rate of household growth in the UK, and it is therefore shocking that there are up to 750,000 empty homes. Many of those homes require considerable repair work before they can be lived in, and the high rate of VAT makes that a very costly activity for private owners, landlords and local authorities, who could otherwise renovate more existing properties to help ease the pressure on housing supply. Making home repair and improvement work more affordable would encourage the use of existing structures, rather than continuing the urban sprawl and the possible building on green belt land.

Existing homes contribute about 27% of the UK’s total CO₂ emissions, and there is a vast amount of work to be done if the UK is to meet the legally binding emission-reduction targets. A simple, single cut in VAT on home repair and maintenance work would help millions of households to upgrade their homes and make them more energy efficient. Without help to reduce energy use, the number of households living in fuel poverty will continue to grow, as they struggle to protect themselves against rising fuel prices.

According to trading standards organisations, rogue traders steal a staggering £170 million each year from unsuspecting home owners across Britain, and cause significant damage to law-abiding businesses. Rogue traders flourish by evading VAT in order to offer a cheap deal. However, all too often, the deal comes without a proper written contract or any kind of paperwork, making the enforcement of consumer rights almost impossible if something goes wrong.

Again, a simple, single action to cut VAT to 5% on home repair and improvement work would protect consumers and legitimate businesses by significantly reducing rogue traders’ competitive advantage. By charging 20% VAT on all home repair, maintenance and improvement work, the Government are exacerbating numerous serious social, economic and environmental problems. Introducing a reduced rate of VAT for all home repair and improvement work is a simple plan to relieve the country of many of those problems.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

May I give our newest Minister a warm welcome from the Chair?

Finance Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

Given that we are told by the Conservative party that money is tight, is this a sensible way of spending scarce resources? The measure would cost about £440 million a year and I would sooner that those scarce resources went into the NHS, which benefits everyone in the general population. I do not think that the idea will fly even on the Government Front Benches. As I said in my opening, it is nice to see, in relation to this and the other amendments in this group proposed by Conservative Back Benchers, that the true face of conservatism is not dead in this place.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am delighted to be regarded as the true face of the Conservative party, but I am also very pleased that there are lots of other true faces of the Conservative party present to listen to this debate. Not everyone recalls the great excitement that there was in the Conservative party and on the Conservative Benches back in 1989 when the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now the Justice Secretary, said that he was going to introduce tax relief for health insurance premiums. That policy, which was announced in a health White Paper and then put into practice in the 1990 Budget by Nigel Lawson, was the action of a self-confident Conservative Government. That same self-confidence carried on through the years when John Major was Prime Minister, and right up to 2001, when a proposal to restore the relief, which had been taken away by the mean Labour Government, was in our manifesto. Since then, we seem to have rather lost our way.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of losing his way, but can he remember why the Labour Government did that? It was not just because the relief was unfair but because they went on to use part of the money to reduce the VAT on heating fuel.

[Mr Chope]

That was the excuse put forward at the time, but I doubt whether it was the real justification. I suspect that the real justification was a feeling on the part of a lot of socialists—people on the Labour side of the House—who resented the idea that the health service should in any way be funded by the private sector. The problem we have in this country is that although our health service is funded by taxpayer money to the extent of most health services across the G7 or G8 countries, we lag behind those other countries in that we do not have enough private sector contributions to the health service. That is why the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is brilliant, because it sends out a very strong signal to people that we want to encourage them to participate in and contribute to the cost of their health care.

It is good for people to contribute to the cost of their health care, and that of their family, if they can afford so to do. Some people who can afford to do that pay for their health care outright: in a sense, they pay as they go. Others who can afford to do that pay through insurance policies. Yet others who can afford to do that do not make a contribution at all, because they believe that it is in the national interest that the whole cost of their health care should be borne by other taxpayers, many of whom are less well-off than they are. Those are the three categories, and we should try to move more people from the category of those who could afford to pay for, or contribute towards, their health care but do not, into the category of those who do contribute.

[Mr Jones]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I understand where he is coming from. However, the scheme introduced in the 1980s did not do what he wants. It basically just gave a tax cut to about 500,000 people who already had private plans, so it did not work the last time it was tried.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously, the Treasury will always say that there is what is described as a dead-weight cost associated with such initiatives, in that people who would be paying for health insurance anyway would get the tax relief—but that is looking at only part of the issue. What I am trying to do—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley in his new clause—is to encourage more people to come into that category, so that we grow that cohort of people. We certainly do not want to allow that cohort to be reduced, as it inevitably is when people who were on schemes provided by their employers retire and lose that provision. Taking on that burden, or responsibility, for themselves is a significant expense; my hon. Friend’s new clause would not eliminate that cost, but it would reduce it by a useful amount.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell us how, in the current financial situation, we could pay for any dead-weight costs? Where would the money come from?

[Mr Chope]

It is a matter of seeing what the countervailing benefits would be, because obviously, if as a result of my hon. Friend’s new clause a lot more people who are not contributing anything towards the cost of their health care started to do so, thereby reducing the burden on the NHS, the dead-weight cost that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentions would be exceeded by the overall benefits, and a reduction in the overall burden of taxation. More people who are getting health care in this country would be paying for it, or contributing to its cost, rather than relying on the state and the taxpayer to do so.

[Mr Leigh]

The dead-weight cost argument is always used against ideas such as school vouchers or tax relief for health insurance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of such proposals is to help the people in the middle? Quite rightly, Parliament is concerned about the people at the bottom of the heap, and the rich can always buy their way out, but this part of the Conservative party should help the people who struggle all their lives, and pay tax all their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a lot of resentment about the fact that people who arrive in this country can latch on to the health service, at no cost to themselves, when they have not made any contribution at all. The new clause would give people who have been making a contribution, either through their employers or by paying insurance premiums themselves, a bit of help in the form of tax relief when they retire. We are talking about modest sums, but that would send a useful message and be an incentive.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

If we were designing a system to increase the number of people with private health insurance, would not this proposal be a very inefficient way of doing it? I must draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and King’s Fund report, which showed that when the scheme was abolished, 0.7% of people—4,000 people—gave up their policy. It strikes me that for most people, the scheme was a not a great incentive to buy health insurance.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman quotes figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that go back, I think, to 2001—10 years ago. What concerns me is that there has been no update of those figures. If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench, comes forward with up-to-date statistics that show that the Government have been considering the issue seriously, obviously I will listen to his arguments, as I always do.

I am concerned that the issue has become one that the coalition Government do not want to discuss, and they are not prepared to commission research into it. They are not prepared to consider the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and myself that our proposal would generate more private sources of income for the health service. The Government are going for the simplistic version and concentrating on the idea that there would be an up-front dead-weight cost. There might be, but that would be outweighed by the other benefits.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the individual making the payment should not make it out of resources provided by another person for the purpose of enabling it to be made? If he can explain that, does he not believe that it would require a desperately intrusive large state to undertake investigations to ensure that the provisions in the new clause were adhered to?

[Mr Chope]

The new clauses being considered together are a word-for-word recital of the original legislation. The hon. Gentleman may have some good points, but I hope that those will not be taken by the Minister, because they would be points against the measures that followed the 1990 Budget.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am simply trying to establish the extent of Government intrusion that would be required in order to enforce the clauses that he supports. The Government would have to intervene and find out whether the funds being made available for the premium had been supplied by a third party—perhaps children who wanted to help their ageing parents. How would the restriction be enforced?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

In the same way as it was enforced before, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley says. As the insurance companies will be the beneficiaries, in a sense, because more business will be created for them, the provisions of the new clauses require those insurance companies, in effect, to participate in a regulatory regime supervised by the Treasury. That is the reasonable safeguard that we had before, and it would be a reasonable safeguard in the future. I am delighted if the hon. Gentleman’s only objection to the new clause is that whingeing technical objection, because that must mean that he is in favour of the substance of it.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. I am puzzled that Labour Members oppose the new clause as creeping privatisation, because when they were in office they privatised large sections of the NHS, with the independent sector treatment centre programme. I do not see how those two views sit together.

[Mr Chope]

As so often, my hon. Friend makes a telling point, which has got Opposition Members back on their haunches as a result of that good intervention.

Let us look at the total contribution made to health spending in this country by the private sector. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) quoted from the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that came out in 2001. It said:

“Despite the increase in use of the private sector, private spending on health care makes up only 16.3 per cent of total health spending in the UK, which is lower than in any other G7 country.”

It goes on to describe how low health spending was as a percentage of gross domestic product. I concede, and am pleased, that since then health spending as a percentage of GDP has increased, but the percentage of private contributions to health care has not increased commensurately, as it should have done.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

That has been used as an argument against privatising the national health service, because the reason why the United States spends such a high proportion of its GDP on health care is that there is a completely free market there. The hon. Gentleman is actually making an argument for the national health service.

[Mr Chope]

I certainly support the national health service, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands my point. My point is that even in very socialistic countries, such as Sweden, the other Scandinavian countries and others in Europe—quite apart from the United States—the proportion of total health spending that comes from the private sector is much higher than it is in this country. I think that it would be much better if a higher proportion of our total health spending came from the private sector and from individuals and companies.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a powerful speech. Will he explain why some people think that not having private money gives us a better health service? Our European colleagues have better outcomes when they have more private money.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think, and some of the research suggests, that when people contribute directly to the cost of their health care they take a greater interest in outcomes and hold the health service to account to a greater extent than when they can be told, “It’s all free, so what do you expect?” We talk about the health service being free at the point of delivery, which of course it is, but I want a health service that is available at the point of need, and the two things are very different. That is the gap that exists at the moment. A little more private sector resource, which would relieve some of the burden on the taxpayer or complement taxpayer resources, would be a good thing.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Where is the evidence for that? The old scheme that the hon. Gentleman says was so great clearly did not do that, for example in relation to waiting lists. It would cost £140 million, and it would be far better if that money went into the health service to improve care for all, rather than to the small section of society that he is trying to benefit.

[Mr Chope]

Of course, the original scheme was brought in on the basis that it would apply to everyone over the age of 60, and initially would give full tax relief to higher-rate taxpayers, so the figures would be nothing like as high under the new clause, because its proposals would apply only to people over 65, and would give only 20% in tax relief.

[Mr Leigh]

Is my hon. Friend not being very moderate? Surely there is an argument for giving everyone tax relief, which is how we would move to a continental-type system with much better health outcomes, and blur the boundaries between the private and public sectors. That is what we, as Conservatives, should believe in.

[Mr Chope]

I absolutely agree, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who tabled the new clauses, is a gradualist by nature; that goes back to his time as leader of Wandsworth council, when he was preparing for his time in Parliament and knew that things could not be done immediately but must be done gradually. He can speak for himself when he contributes to the debate, but perhaps that gradualism is part of his thinking.

I will finish soon, because many Members wish to contribute, but let us first put this suggestion in perspective by thinking about roughly how much it would cost. Let us suppose that an average health premium is about £2,000, which a pensioner or pensioner family would be faced with paying, and which previously their employer had paid as part of a contributory or non-contributory occupational scheme. Many pensioners would not pay that, but if we gave them the tax relief, which would amount to more than £400, I submit that many of them would carry on paying for their insurance, thereby contributing towards the cost of the health service, which would be a benefit.

The last time I spoke in a debate on a Finance Bill on Report it was about insurance premium tax. The insurance premiums paid for health insurance are already subject to tax, which the Treasury keeps increasing, so an alternative way forward might be to abolish the insurance premium tax paid on health insurance contributions. That is a separate argument and not the subject of this group of new clauses, but it serves as an example. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury would obviously say that we could not afford that—but does he realise that if we increased the number of people taking out health insurance, the Treasury would receive a lot more in insurance premium tax? I am sure that he will take that into account when he—in due course, having done the proper research—tells us the costs and benefits of the proposals in the new clauses.

We should not forget that the dynamic effect of these taxation changes could deliver great benefits and dividends. It is important to send a strong message to those who can afford to contribute towards their health care costs but who currently do not do so, that this would enable them to contribute at a lower cost than would otherwise be the case. I think that it is a well-rounded and sensible proposal, and I am delighted that it is getting so much support from colleagues on the Government side of the House.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I am sure that people across the country would be astonished to discover that the first priority of Back-Bench Tories on health spending is to give a tax concession to people who pay, on average, £2,000 a year towards health insurance, because most people over 65 are in no position to pay such a sum towards health insurance. Most people across the country, including many pensioners, and perhaps even those pensioners who have private health insurance, think that the first priority for spending should be to avoid some of the cuts that the Government are already introducing and to direct spending to the national health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is interesting that there are now far fewer adverts for private health care. He is right that part of the reason for that is that we have a superb national health service. Having served in the House for longer than I, he should take a great deal of credit for the fact that we have a first-class health service. The second reason why I suspect private health companies are not advertising is that thanks to the policies of the Government parties, people cannot afford to have private health care. Of course, many people are losing their jobs. I will return to that point shortly.

The other huge issue about burden is that the private health system is a burden on the national health service, because it takes doctors, nurses and other medical professionals away from it.

[Mr Chope]

indicated dissent.

[Thomas Docherty]

Now the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. There are many highly paid consultants who split their time between their private practice, their golf course and the national health service. The time that they spend in private practice is clearly time that is not available to the national health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; there are times when I am happy to accept congratulations from the other side of the House. We want to ensure, especially given the constraints that we are working under in these times of fiscal austerity, that measures can be well justified.

An Institute for Fiscal Studies report published in 2001 questioned how far the take-up of private medical insurance would ever respond to tax relief. It also suggested that the dead-weight cost would make it unlikely that tax relief could be self-financing.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend was not in the House in 1989, but is he saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was Secretary of State for Health at the time, was wrong to say that introducing this self-same measure would

“reduce the pressure on the NHS from the very age group most likely to require elective surgery, freeing resources for those who need it most”?—[Official Report, 31 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 169.]

[Mr Hoban]

Loth as I am to suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend could ever be wrong on any measure, I want to make a point about the chances of a reduction of pressure on the NHS exceeding the cost of the tax relief. There is no evidence that there would be a net positive outcome for the Exchequer. When a similar relief existed in the 1990s, it had little apparent effect, and the IFS report from 2001 concluded that it was unlikely that such a subsidy for private medical insurance would ever be self-financing.

I appreciate the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has put forward his argument for the new clause, but I do not think that there is sufficient evidence at this point to justify the relief. There is no evidence that it would represent good value for money for the taxpayer, particularly at a time when our efforts should be focused on reducing the deficit and tackling the problems left by the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The proposal is not subtle at all and his personal example is a good one. Why should someone who loses a spouse in an accident or through natural causes be penalised because, through no fault of their own, they have lost their spouse? That is the problem with trying to use tax in relation to marriage. As I have said, the measure is very different from what was put forward in the Conservative manifesto because it does not include civil partnerships. It clearly is not what Conservative Back Benchers have read in their own manifesto.

[Mr Chope]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point was put succinctly in a Daily Telegraph editorial of 11 July 2007, which asked

“why should favouring married couples be an unacceptable interference when favouring single ones, as this Government does, is not?”

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman knows that there are always winners and losers in any tax system. I am very surprised at him because I know that he has very libertarian views on a whole host of subjects, which we have heard on many occasions in the Chamber. Is he really suggesting that we should use the tax system socially to engineer society by saying that people should marry rather than cohabiting or, as has been mentioned, becoming single through separation or bereavement? I am surprised at him because I thought he was very much against the state doing anything, but the measure has the state wanting to determine or influence exactly what an ideal society should be. I am sorry, but the statistics just do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman proposes. If such tax measures worked as a way of bolstering marriage and keeping families together, we would have expected marriages to rise with the married man’s tax allowance through the 1960s and 1970s, but they did exactly the opposite—we had record levels of divorce and separation. Hon. Members should look at the facts. Tax measures have not succeeded in doing that in the past, and I doubt whether they will in future. They certainly will not encourage anyone to get married for a small financial benefit.

It is important to dispel one myth, which has been put forward again by the Conservative party—the fact that a wicked Labour Government somehow did away with the married couple’s tax allowance and that Labour is responsible for the degeneration of society that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions describes in his report. It is important to recognise what the previous Conservative Government did on this. It was Chancellor Norman Lamont in the 1993 Budget who proposed that the married couple’s tax allowance should be restricted to 20% from April 1994. That was the first time that happened for the basic MCA, which for a couple under 65 was then £1,720, so it was worth something like £608 for those who were on marginal rates of 40%, but only £344 for those on marginal rates of 20%. We then had the argument that it was unfair to have different amounts for people on higher tax rates than for those on lower tax rates. The then Chancellor said:

“There is no good reason why an allowance intended to recognise the responsibilities of marriage should give least to those on low incomes and most to those right at the top of the income scale.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 182.]

In the November 1993 Budget, the current Justice Secretary confirmed that change and went on to announce that the MCA would be further restricted to 15% from April 1995, so there was a slow change in the system. The provision restricting the MCA was made in section 77 of the Finance Act 1994. When this was debated in Committee, there was general support for the idea that the MCA should be the same across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a key point and I understand why she makes it. This goes right back to when income tax was introduced in the 1790s, when a spouse’s income was the property of the husband. That was the basis on which income tax was brought in and it continued for centuries. There was no recognition that even within marriages people might have separate tax affairs or sources of income that needed to be recognised.

It is interesting to look back at the debate that took place about the MCA. Baroness Maddock, who was then a Member of this House, argued that the MCA was

“a relic of the days when a husband was taxed on his wife’s income as well as on his own. It contravenes the principle that marriage should be tax neutral.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 344.]

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman quotes my predecessor, the then hon. Member for Christchurch, but in order to emphasise how out of touch her opinions are, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no longer a single Liberal Democrat councillor in the whole of my constituency?

[Mr Jones]

I am very pleased to hear that but I am not sure that that is very good news for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) to whom I understand the Baroness is now married. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Interestingly, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Michael Portillo, concurred with Mrs Maddock’s view. The then Chancellor, who is now the Justice Secretary, recognised that and announced in his Budget speech that there would be a two-stage restriction of the MCA, stating:

“Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently—one of the best taxation reforms in recent years—the married couple's allowance is a bit of an anomaly.”—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 935.]

The important thing that this demonstrates is that change was taking place under a Conservative Government, and that it was not the wicked previous Labour Government who came up with this idea. However, the change did set off the forces who were arguing that the changes were wrecking marriages. In 1995, a major paper called “Farewell to the Family” appeared. It made much of the fact that the measure would change families and discourage people from marrying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

In making a brief contribution to this very important debate, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on getting it going. It came as a bit of surprise when my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) did not speak to the new clause, but I am delighted that she subsequently joined the debate to speak in support of it.

I come at this subject on the basis that the Prime Minister supports exactly what I support: recognising marriage in the tax system. He promised that the Government would recognise marriage in the tax system after the general election, and this debate rightly puts the focus on how that commitment will be implemented. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will say exactly when that is going to happen. Over a year ago, on 2 June 2010, the Prime Minister said:

“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]

Those were excellent words from my right hon. Friend. Then, some three or four months later—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Chope]

No, I am not going to allow anybody to interfere with the words of the Prime Minister.

On 5 October 2010, the Prime Minister said:

“I have always supported the idea of supporting marriage through the tax system, specifically supporting the idea of a transferable tax allowance. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the coalition agreement.”

That is where my hon. Friend’s new clause comes in, because it calls for just that. One is entitled to ask why, having had two Budgets since the general election, we still do not have proposals to implement that very important pledge.

Labour Members are misrepresenting this proposal as an attempt to build new privileges for those who are in a marital relationship, but, as has been brought out time and again during the debate, the question is what we are going to do to prevent those who are married from suffering disadvantage under the tax system. That is what we are trying to put right with the new clause.

[Helen Goodman]

Labour Members would be far more sympathetic to the case that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are making in saying that they do not have negative attitudes towards single-parent families if they had not voted for the Welfare Reform Bill, which requires lone parents to pay to get the services of the Child Support Agency.

[Mr Chope]

Speaking for myself, I do not have negative attitudes towards single-parent families, but I do feel that single-parent families should not be advantaged in the tax system as compared with married families. That is the problem that we have at the moment, and that is what we are trying to put right in the new clause.

I am lucky in that my constituency is in an area described thus in a headline in last week’s local paper: “East Dorset is a place for love and marriage”. The article says:

“Married couples in East Dorset stick together. Latest…figures show that 65 per cent of marriages in the area last, well above the national average”,

with the seventh highest rate of marriage survival in the country. Even so, fewer than two out of three marriages survive, but that is a lot better than in many other parts of the country.

I am not suggesting that the tax system is causing marital breakdown, but I am saying that we should follow the very strong lead of our Prime Minister and put pressure on the coalition Government to implement their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Is not the real issue the calibration of the compromise? Most new Government Back Benchers recognise that in a coalition there has to be compromise. At the same time as we see moves forward on the individual allowance for our Liberal Democrat colleagues, we need to see some progress along the lines that my hon. Friend is setting out. The key issue is that there appears to be an imbalance in the compromise.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking a route towards a destination. The Prime Minister set out the clear destination, but so far we do not seem to have made any progress towards achieving it. What was set out in detail on the Conservative website at the time of the election was a very modest proposal, which talked about a small proportion of the tax allowance being transferable, with quite a tight maximum income threshold in order for people to be eligible. Even that modest proposal has not yet been put forward by the Government in the Finance Bill so that we can support it and implement it.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about the Prime Minister’s support for this proposal. Does he recognise that the Prime Minister included civil partnerships in what he said? If we agreed to this proposal tonight, civil partnerships would be excluded, which is clearly at odds with what the Prime Minister wants.

[Mr Chope]

If there is a defect in the wording of the new clause and it fails to recognise everything that the Prime Minister said—he certainly referred specifically to civil partnerships—the hon. Gentleman may have a point about that, but he does not have a point about much else, in my submission.

[Mr Leigh]

I am happy to make the concession to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who spoke at some length on this point, that if the new clause is defective, I am happy to withdraw it and for the Government to bring back a new clause that includes civil partnerships. I make it absolutely clear that we have nothing against civil partnerships.

[Mr Chope]

My final point is that there is a read-across between the new clause and the conundrum that the Government face in the debate about the withdrawal of child benefit from families that comprise at least one higher rate taxpayer. That issue is causing a lot of angst among our constituents, particularly for parents in single income households in which one parent stays at home to look after the children. As I have said in correspondence with the Minister, in some cases one parent stays at home to look after a disabled child. If there is one parent who is the breadwinner and he is a higher rate taxpayer on an income of about £45,000 or £50,000, he will be above the threshold and will be deprived of his child benefit.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Chope]

I will give way in a minute.

In comparison, a household with two people earning between £35,000 and £40,000 each, which has a much higher income, will keep its child benefit. That is not fair. In response to correspondence, the Minister has said that there has to be a bit of rough justice and that to introduce a system of transferability of allowances and entitlements would be very complicated. However, that is exactly what was proposed by the Prime Minister with the transferability of tax allowances, and that is what is proposed in the new clause. That is of significance, because there is a read-across from this other thorny policy issue that faces the Government.

I hope that we will have a positive response from the Minister, and that he will spell out in detail when and how the Prime Minister’s pledges to the country will be implemented.

[Chris Leslie]

What on earth is going on with the Tories this evening? It is a perplexing situation, because Conservative Members usually accuse Labour Members of filibustering in an open-ended Finance Bill debate, but not at all this evening. Instead we seem to have a private family dispute breaking out.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) highlighted child benefit and taxation for higher earners. The two issues are inextricably linked, because when challenged about his decision at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said, “Oh well. Don’t worry. We’re going to be making moves on a transferable married couples allowance.” Of course we never saw such a proposal then, and we still do not know how the child benefit taxation arrangement will be implemented. That would be a major change to the independent taxation system.

[Mr Chope]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

This is the final intervention that I will take.

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear a major announcement on that issue from the Minister very shortly.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman could have speeded that up by not intervening.

I shall finish by saying that, clearly, there are major problems with the transferable allowance. It is costly and not targeted, and it is unfair to those without a marriage certificate, whether they are divorced, widowed, single or in a couple. There are a host of anomalies and unintended consequences, as several of my hon. Friends have said. For instance, if a husband is killed in a tragic road accident, his widow and children will be left without support, and so on. The proposal undermines the principle of independent taxation, but most of all, we should focus our tax and benefits system on need and on the alleviation of poverty. I sincerely hope that the House will reject new clause 5.

Coinage (Measurement) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent suggestion, and I think it probably would. Perhaps we should put that suggestion to the International Olympic Committee. I am sure that he would like the Economic Secretary to do that on his behalf, but we will see what she has to say about it.

That brings me to the purpose of the Bill. As part of the Olympic programme, the Royal Mint is keen to strike those kilogram coins that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) mentions. As I said earlier, the current wording of the Coinage Act would effectively prohibit that. It is not possible to measure the variation from the standard weight in the case of the proposed Olympic coins because the weight of each coin is likely to be equal to or greater than the 1 kg aggregate limit for a sample under section 1.

Clause 1 therefore amends the Coinage Act so that the variation from the standard weight can be specified by royal proclamation, for which section 3 provides. That would grant the flexibility to adjust the size of the sample for the purposes of the section 1(6) weight variation test. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that that removes a technical legislative obstacle to the proposed Olympic coins, allows the Royal Mint to continue to develop new and innovative designs and provides exciting opportunities to push coinage boundaries.

Striking kilogram coins has recently become part of the Olympic games tradition. Most host nations in recent years—for example, Australia, Canada and China— issued such coins, and they proved extremely popular with collectors internationally. The Bill would allow the Royal Mint to continue that tradition in commemoration of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

The large size means that the kilogram coins will be an exciting, artistic and eye-catching part of the Olympic games. The intention is for them to be significant works of numismatic art. The Royal Mint will approach high-profile British artists to prepare the designs—that is already under way.

After royal and ministerial approval, a commitment to strike kilogram coins was given to the International Olympic Committee during the United Kingdom’s bid to host the 2012 games. If the Bill is not passed, the kilogram coin element of the Olympic coin programme will unfortunately have to be scrapped. The Royal Mint, in consultation with the London Organising Committee, would need to consider an alternative product to fill the gap in the programme. However, none of the alternatives would have anything like the appeal of the 1 kg coin. There is a global expectation that the Royal Mint and the London 2012 Olympic coin programme will follow in the footsteps of London’s predecessors.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that none of the coins will be given free to members of the International Olympic Committee, who seem to go in for lots of freebies?

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I would like to think that that would be the case. It is my understanding that the coins will be put up for sale—and sale only.

The Royal Mint wants to ensure that the two commemorative kilogram coins will crown the range of coins. Judging from the reception of similar coins around the world, and after consulting representatives of the coin trade and collectors, the Royal Mint is confident that the UK kilogram coins will be well received—but hopefully not by the IOC.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The second intervention draws me back into the rest of my speech, but in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), I have common-law powers to issue the loan and sign the loan agreement. I then have to seek statutory authority, but that could be done retrospectively. I thought it more appropriate to seek parliamentary approval first, and that was a discretionary choice that I had.

I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) directly a bit later in my remarks, when I get on to the terms of the loan that we are going to consider.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Mr Osborne]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I really must make some progress.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If the point that he is making is such a good one—it may well be—why did he not include it in paragraph 14 of the explanatory notes, making a virtue of the fact that he was bringing this matter before the House now rather than seeking retrospective approval?

[Mr Osborne]

I said in an earlier statement to the House that I was seeking to do that, and I had hoped that hon. Members were paying attention to what I said at the time.

The legislation that we shall pass today will allow the UK to be ready in the new year to meet its commitments to one of our closest international partners. As has been noted, the legislation before the House is narrow in scope—it is explicitly a Loans to Ireland Bill—but it is still enabling legislation. It sits alongside the actual loan agreement, which sets out in detail what we will offer Ireland. To ensure that Members have as much information as possible available to them for today’s discussion, a summary of the key terms of the loan agreement, which was agreed with the Irish Government only this morning, has been available in the Vote Office for more than an hour now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I hope that the former Chancellor’s message to Germany is well received by the German people, because the fact that a price of eurozone membership was making transfer payments to sustain the currency in countries that are not so competitive was never sufficiently spelled out to them. This is essentially a eurozone problem and an Irish problem, and I do not think that we should put British taxpayers’ money into it other than to meet our obligations under our membership of the IMF. It is perfectly reasonable to contribute through that mechanism. As the Chancellor has said, in so doing, we get more security for our loan than we would from a bilateral agreement.

The proposed loan to Ireland is relatively soft. Interestingly, the Chancellor says that the proposed interest rate will probably be slightly less than that of the eurozone facility, and that that demonstrates the competitiveness of our economy. I see things differently. If we have such a competitive economy, why not make a profit on the interest rate and charge the same rate as the eurozone and get the benefit for the British taxpayer?

[Mark Reckless]

All we are doing is passing on to Ireland the quarter per cent. or so of benefit that we gain by being a better creditor than the eurozone. Most hon. Members feel that we should help Ireland, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not necessarily helpful to Ireland to have a huge amount of extra debt on top of the great debt it already has. On that basis, I understand his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations.

None of my constituents, particularly those in the business community, understand how or why we can justify increasing our national debt to help Ireland. The line is that the Irish are friends in need, but I remind the House that there is a strong argument to suggest that the Irish Government exacerbated the original banking crisis. When we had problems with Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock, and our Government limited the deposit guarantee to £50,000, the Irish increased their guarantee to all deposits. That helped the run on Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock accounts, thereby developing our banking crisis. We did not get much help from the Irish when we were in need in that situation.

We must also not lose sight of the fact that the Irish people have received enormous sums of British taxpayers’ money through our membership of the EU. We make big net contributions to the EU, and a lot of that money was subsequently pushed into Ireland, enabling the Irish people to sustain for a time a much higher standard of living.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that our net contributions to the EU over the next five years will be £41 billion, which is £21 billion more than in the previous five years?

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are contributing to Ireland through our EU membership, so the Irish people should be very grateful.

When, on behalf of my constituents, I weigh up whether we can be pleased with how Ireland conducts its affairs, I must express renewed disappointment that Ireland caved in on the Lisbon treaty, with the consequence that this country has been landed with it.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does my hon. Friend recall Ireland’s position a few months ago, when the UK Government tried to bring the European Parliament budget under control and needed a blocking third to prevent the proposed budget increase? Where was Ireland at our time of need on that occasion?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend asks a rhetorical question. The answer is that I am not sure where Ireland was at that time.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that we should allow the Irish to have their own domestic policy. That is why it would not be right for us to interfere with their low corporation tax policy—it should be for them to decide. However, the other side of the coin must be that we let the Irish take the consequences and accept the responsibility for what happens as a result. We cannot say, “We’re going to help pay for the consequences while not being able to influence the policy.” I find what is proposed very intellectually trying to deal with.

When we have a border—our hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have made their points about this—that low corporation tax policy makes things much more difficult. Indeed, it is possible to argue that we have lost the corporate headquarters of major international organisations from London to Dublin as a result of Ireland’s low corporation tax policy. Now we are subsidising that policy, the consequences of which are that the Irish have been unable to meet their financial obligations and are desperate for additional loans. I am not convinced that we should be getting involved with British taxpayers’ money. It would be different if we did not have an awful national debt crisis, but we do. One consequence of the Bill, if it goes through today, may be to send out a signal to our constituents that says, “Don’t worry, the debt crisis is not as bad as we’ve been telling you, because we can afford to add to that debt further by giving a soft loan to the Irish.” At the same time, we are having to argue to our constituents that we cannot put pressure on the banks to give more soft loans to businesses, even if those businesses go bust or cannot expand as a result, with all the damaging consequences for employment that that would have in our country, so I am not convinced.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge the scale of the exposure of British banks in the Irish Republic’s economy or the key dependence of Northern Ireland’s economy on the role of some of the Irish banks?

[Mr Chope]

Of course I acknowledge that, because it is a fact. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) made the important point that, in negotiating a bilateral deal, we might have been able to deal with the debts owed to those banks and, in a sense, directed any money that we wanted to give into those British banks, rather than into the Irish coffers in general. We could have linked those things, if that was what was needed. However, I do not think that the difficulties of those banks are a justification for increasing our national debt further in the way that the Bill proposes.

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

There is one element of the guillotine motion that I particularly resent. That is the provision that if a group of amendments is being discussed when the guillotine falls, it will not be possible to vote on any more than the question that was before the House at that time, whereas under a traditional programme motion it would be possible, with the leave of the Chair, to vote on more than one of the amendments in the group.

My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says he thinks it is reasonable that we should have the opportunity to give the Bill proper scrutiny. In my submission, scrutiny includes having the opportunity to test the view of the House on amendments before it. My concern is that if all the amendments are grouped together, and if the debate on that group carries on until the guillotine falls, it will only be possible to vote on one narrow amendment—amendment 3—although of course the guillotine motion allows the Government amendment to be voted on as well, because those are the biased terms in which the motion has been drafted.

The Bill is a very significant measure. I have had letters from constituents asking, “How is it that we can afford to lend £3.25 billion to Ireland when the Government are saying that they cannot do anything to make more money go to small businesses that are crying out for loans?” That is the sort of question that our constituents are asking, and I would have hoped that the Government would be more co-operative with the House by providing a bit more detail in the Bill.

We have heard that the Chancellor will be telling us in due course about the terms of the loan, the interest rate and the repayment schedule. Why could not those details have been included on the face of the Bill, to enable us to make an assessment and decide whether to table amendments? If the Government are really saying, “This is so desperately urgent that we need to do it straight away,” why were they not prepared to co-operate with the House a bit more and give us the maximum amount of information to enable us to deal with it in a constructive way today?

I am very concerned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has articulated the wider constitutional implications. We know that the other place was very concerned about the fact that the Government were taking forward a lot of emergency measures without giving the opportunity for proper debate and consideration—and that applied not just to money Bills but to other Bills too. This is a money Bill, so it will not be possible for the other place to consider it in detail. That responsibility falls fairly and squarely on this House.

We got a guarantee from the Government that if there was going to be fast-tracking or emergency legislation, the justification for it would be set out in the explanatory notes. I do not think the justification given in these explanatory notes is a justification for what the Government are trying to do today.

If this Bill were to be considered tomorrow or on Monday, we would have more time to debate it. Incidentally, we would also be able to consider what the Members of the Irish Parliament are saying on this very subject in their House today. If, for example, many of them were to say that they would not wish to repay the loan given to them by the United Kingdom, I would have thought that would be a very material consideration in our debate on the matter, but this motion denies us the opportunity to consider the implications of what transpires today in the Irish Parliament. I suspect that is not an accident; I suspect it is by design. That is why I will vote against this guillotine motion.