Tax Credits
Edward Leigh Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
As a matter of fact, living standards have this year reached beyond their pre-crisis point, or indeed any prior year.
We can make lasting economic reforms only because we have taken the tough decisions to get this country back on its feet after the financial crisis that crashed into Labour’s structural deficit, which was among the highest in the developed world. Some choose to indulge in a game of “What if we had unlimited money?” We face facts. In 2010, the Government inherited a deficit of £153 billion. That is almost £6,000 for every household in the country. Our budget deficit was 10.2% of GDP. For every £4 the Government were spending, £1 was borrowed. That could not be allowed to go on, because when Governments lose control of the national finances, those who lose the most are generally those who have the least.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister is making some excellent points and I fully support his desire to reduce the deficit and reform tax credit. This is a listening Government, so I just wonder whether, in the coming weeks as we consider the impact of the reform and in terms of compassion, it might be worth looking at tweaking the child tax credit—or the marriage allowance, which is very low—to try to soften the blow. I do not expect the Minister to answer now, but that is surely worth considering.
Damian Hinds
As I will come on to outline, the Government are doing a number of things that have some offset against what is happening on tax credits.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Edward Leigh Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I will in a minute.
Disabled people are already harassed—some to death—by the brutal work capability assessment and often by benefit sanctions, yet they are to lose over £30 a week. Disabled people under this Government and under the coalition have been hit 18 times harder than other citizens by the impact of cuts. I do not want the Labour party to be associated in any way with these policies, and to dissociate ourselves clearly we need to vote against them tonight.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Everyone understands the hon. Gentleman’s views, but he has to explain to the House what circumstances have changed in the last two weeks. There has to be some element of consistency, and of trust in the Opposition: trust that, in future, he will not be blown off course so easily.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening. It was professional advice. It was watching the economic headwinds grow. But, in addition to that, it was meeting families who had lost their futures in Redcar that made me decide that we need a Government who would invest and would not leave them adrift.
Finance Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not for anyone else to judge who will speak and not speak in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is, indeed, well aware of the rules of the House, as a seasoned performer in this Chamber. I know that he will appreciate that I also am aware that he was here for much of the debate, but not for the opening speeches. There are other people whom I have prevented from speaking earlier this afternoon because they were not here for the opening speeches. It is, however, obviously open to the right hon. Gentleman to intervene during the winding-up speeches that are about to begin from the Front Benches.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very interested in your ruling. In future, will it not be open to members of the Whips Office, either Government or Opposition, to drag people in late in a debate to speak? Will that not be open to the Whips Office?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That has never been the case. If a Member is not here for the Minister’s opening speech and the opening speech of the Opposition, whichever Opposition that might be, they do not have a right to be called in the debate. But I have just ruled that there is nothing to stop a Member making an intervention in the speech of another Member, should there be some very pressing and important point that that Member wishes to make.
Damian Hinds
What “he” says is that eight out of 10 families will be better off as a result of the blend—the complete set—of measures in the summer Budget.
Sir Edward Leigh
With regard to the point about removing tax credits to families with more than two children, I want to establish a principle which I think is quite important. Perhaps I should declare an interest: I have six children. I apologise for that. I just want to establish that the Government are not following the sort of liberal line that there is an ideal family—that a family of two children is more worthy than one of one or three or four or five. The Government are not approaching the subject from that viewpoint, are they? We can at least establish that principle, can we not?
Damian Hinds
I can confirm that absolutely. We have not managed six in my household but we do have three, and I, like my hon. Friend, do not think there is an ideal number of children to have in a family. I do not think it is for Government to say what that should be. But what we do say is that in making decisions about starting a family and about growing their family, people in different circumstances, whether they are supporting themselves entirely through employment or with the help of benefits, should have to make the same sorts of decisions.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I know from the last Parliament what a fighter my hon. Friend is for his area. I would welcome an application for Morecambe not just for an enterprise zone, but for the coastal communities fund—announcements were made on those two important policies in the Budget. I say to Members from all parts of the House that this is a big opportunity for them to work with the council and business leaders in their area to put forward a compelling bid for funds and, indeed, the devolution arrangements.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State is a most cerebral Minister, so I wonder whether he can help with a problem that I am grappling with. One way in which the north has competed with the south in the past has been through lower wages. I am not saying that that is right, but how will the living wage impact on it? When employers increase wages, they normally do so as a result of an increase in productivity. If there is a living wage imposed by the state, how will we avoid increased unemployment or lower productivity —or both?
Greg Clark
I served my apprenticeship with my hon. Friend on the Public Accounts Committee, and partly as a result of the rigour that he imparted to the Committee’s members, I believe that the key to driving productivity is to invest in education and skills. One of the most important announcements in the Budget was the transformation of our apprenticeship system. There is a serious commitment on the Government’s part to ensure that all regions have the ability to invest in the skills that will drive productivity and justify the new wages.
In the proposals that places across the country have started to draft in response to my invitation to have more local arrangements, the common denominators are greater local involvement in skills and engagement with local employers. That is absolutely right, and I will back it in devolution deals.
Scotland Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 124, page 14, line 14 , at end insert—
‘( ) The Scottish Parliament may determine the level of each threshold of income at which a Scottish taxpayer becomes liable for income tax at any of the rates set by the Scottish Parliament;”
This amendment allows the Scottish Parliament to decide at what threshold of income Scottish taxpayers should have to pay the basic rate or any of the other income tax rates to be set by the Scottish Parliament.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 12 to 14 stand part.
New clause 32—Treasury Review of the implementation of Scottish rates of income tax—
‘(1) The Treasury shall, no later than one year after the date on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before the House of Commons a review of the implementation of the Scottish basic rate and any other income tax rates for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007.
(2) The Treasury review must include—
(a) a review of the revised fiscal framework;
(b) the tax year to which sections 12 and 13 of this Act will apply, and the day on which they are due to come into force;
(c) the number of staff assigned by the Scottish Government, Revenues Scotland and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to the project implementing the Scottish basic rate, and any other rates;
(d) a report on the identification of Scottish taxpayers who will be liable to pay the Scottish basic rate, and other rates;
(e) the rates and bands at which the Scottish basic rate, and any other rates, have been set by the Scottish Parliament; and
(f) a projection of the impact of the Scottish basic rate, and any other rates, on income tax revenues generated in Scotland and across the UK.’
This New Clause would provide for a review of the progress in implementing the new Scottish rate of income tax. This will include a review of the revised fiscal framework, a task that will hereafter be undertaken by the Scottish Office for Budget Responsibility.
New clause 54—Taxes on income—
‘In Section A1 in Part 2 of Schedule 5 (fiscal, economic and monetary policy) to the 1998 Act, in the Exceptions, after the entry for local taxes insert “Taxes on income.”’
This new clause is intended to devolve income tax completely to Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh
My simple amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to set tax thresholds, as any good Parliament should be able to do, and is a genuine attempt to elicit from a Minister the reasons why the Scottish Parliament is not currently allowed to set the personal allowance. I am a lawyer, but I do not claim to be a tax expert or an economist. [Interruption.] Well, it’s just the truth. I am not an expert tax lawyer or economist. This is a probing amendment to help us investigate a complex issue, to which we can always return on Report.
The House of Commons Library has illustrated the complexity of the issue:
“The Bill as it stands would allow the Scottish Parliament to set the bands of income at which different Scottish rates of tax would apply. Clause 12(3) states that where there is to be more than one Scottish rate, the resolution which sets these rates ‘must also set limits or make other provision to enable it to be ascertained…which rates apply in relation to a Scottish taxpayer.’”
That is not immediately terribly clear, but it continues:
“So, if the Scottish Parliament wished to, it could set a zero rate of tax over a specific band of income, in effect increasing the personal tax allowance to all Scottish taxpayers.”
Importantly, in its briefing on the Smith commission, the Institute for Fiscal Studies asked why the power to set the allowance was to be reserved. That is the question I am asking. The IFS, a reputable body, has asked it, and I am simply using the amendment to ask it again. I think most people would agree that setting tax and then spending the money raised is a prerequisite of a responsible Parliament.
It is not necessary to go over all the arguments I used on Second Reading or in Committee two weeks ago—they are on record—but suffice it to say that power breeds responsibility. The Scottish Parliament must take responsibility for its own destiny in the firm conviction that it is ready and able to do so. So why are we devolving bands and rates, but not thresholds? Is not setting the threshold at which people start to pay tax—the personal allowance—vital to the decision-making process? Setting a band or rate but not a threshold is like being willing and able to leap the bar in high jump without having any control over where the height is calculated from. It does not make any sense. What we are giving the Scottish Parliament is only half a power. Are not thresholds much the most interesting part of the equation? We spent a lot of time last Parliament debating that point in relation to the UK economy.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Surely if the Westminster Parliament keeps the right to set the initial threshold, it can also vary it, thus taking away from the Scottish Parliament the ability to plan its entire budget, because the threshold could change overnight.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a good point, and I agree entirely. It does not make sense. One Parliament might be trying to manage its own affairs by setting bands responsibly, but another Parliament could cut the ground from beneath its feet by changing the threshold. I do not know why the power has been reserved, but no doubt the Minister will tell us.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Does it not go even further? Without the Scottish Parliament having control over the rules and the tax base, the UK Parliament could create a load of new reliefs that would cost it a fortune. If we are going to devolve income tax, we ought to devolve the whole thing, not just part of it.
Sir Edward Leigh
As I explained, my personal view is that we should devolve the whole thing. It makes logical sense. As I said, setting the thresholds is often much the most interesting part of tax policy in modern Parliaments. When our friends the Liberals were in power with us—we remember those happy times—was not their proudest boast that they, as members of the Government, had lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of tax altogether?
There is an interesting argument here. For the record, I am dubious about lifting the threshold. It is expensive, and surely more, not fewer, people should have a stake in the income tax system. But that is my personal view, and I accept that there are countervailing arguments. For instance, lifting the threshold reduces the pressure on tax credits. I recognise that it is an interesting political debate.
Setting rates and bands without being able to set thresholds makes no sense. Of course, raising thresholds and personal allowances is dramatic and expensive, which is presumably why the Scottish Parliament is being denied the power, but leaving aside the need for and desirability of full control, does not full fiscal autonomy lead to full fiscal responsibility? The more autonomy a Parliament is given, the more responsible it becomes. Countries such as Belgium and Spain—not without their own separatist problems—provide exceptionally broad autonomy to their constituent parts.
That is certainly the case in the United States, where the states have full fiscal autonomy, including the power to issue bonds and the like—the whole lot, as far as I know. This country is definitely not the United States, despite the best efforts of Mr Blair, but if there is one aspect of America we should like to emulate, it is its vigorous civic culture. Its states, counties and towns have real power and the capability to respond to people’s needs and democratic desires. Surely we all want Scotland to have that capacity, just as we want the whole UK to have it. The fact that fiddling with thresholds is so expensive makes Governments and Parliaments niggardly about raising them—each £100 is inordinately expensive—but why should the Scottish Parliament be less responsible than the UK Parliament? Can anybody tell me why a responsible Scottish Parliament should not also be niggardly about that power and use it in a very conservative—small c—way?
Of course, full fiscal autonomy requires a set of support mechanisms through a formula-based grant. That should be based on need, not obscure variations on English spending, which is why I am opposed to the Barnett formula and want to replace it with one based on need—but that is a debate for another time. If the UK Parliament issued a sensible grant formula based on the specific needs of the Scottish Parliament, and if that were followed by full freedom for the latter to set personal allowances, bands and rates, I believe the Scottish Parliament would use that power responsibly and carefully. I contend that the more power we give the Scottish Parliament, the less it will be a grievance Parliament and the more the forces of canny, prudent Scottish financial conservatism will be unleashed. Indeed, the best way to encourage the growth of the Conservative party in Scotland is to give the Scottish Parliament more power. At the moment, all the pressure on it is to spend more money and blame the UK Government when we indulge in any austerity programme.
In the current situation, it is perfectly logical for the voters to choose whichever party complains the most and makes the biggest fuss. I do not blame the Scottish people for doing that. The current system leads to that sort of mindset, whereas the UK system leads to an alternative mindset—we want politicians in power who are careful about how they vary thresholds and bands. It is because Treasury Ministers have that power that people are careful about whom they elect, and Conservatives do not do too badly in that UK set-up.
With full home rule and full fiscal autonomy, the voter would be in charge and would choose representatives who would raise and spend money wisely rather than just go cap in hand to Westminster. That is surely what we want to achieve, so what is the objection? If it is said that the Barnett formula makes such natural freedom unobtainable, the solution is not the denial of power or freedom but the end of the formula. If the argument is that the Scottish tax system could undermine full UK fiscal responsibility, I find it unconvincing. For instance, the Scottish Parliament spends £37 billion and raises £30 billion—quite responsible, actually. The UK spends £732 billion and raises £648 billion. [Interruption.] I thought Scottish National party Members would respond in that way, but I could not resist helping them along.
The serious point that I am making is that the Scottish budget is very small compared with the UK budget. If we gave the Scottish Parliament full fiscal responsibility, it is extremely unlikely that it would upset our fiscal responsibility. The Secretary of State may, of course, be able to deal with that point. He has many more expert advisers than I do, and I will listen to the arguments that are made today and wait for his response. Perhaps he will indulge me, if not with a yes to my arguments then at least with a willingness to listen and, in time, to move. If he is not interested, we could return to the matter on Report.
I make my comments in the spirit of trying to be creative and helpful. We can return to these matters, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not just provide a throwaway line from the civil service brief but will try to respond to the arguments that are made. We are trying to create a responsible Parliament; let us give it full fiscal autonomy.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this Committee, Sir David, and to speak to our new clause 54. I enjoyed much of what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) had to say, apart from his description of the “separatist problem”, which we tend to call “national aspiration”—I think I know what he meant. I am conscious of the time, so I shall try to cover the debate as briefly as I can.
Paragraphs 75 to 79 of the Smith agreement covered issues of income tax, and stated that income tax would remain a shared tax and that both the UK and the Scottish Parliaments would share control of it. The agreement said essentially that MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK would continue to decide the UK’s budget, including income tax. That certainly makes sense with the very partial devolution suggested by the Bill.
Within that framework, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to set the rates of income tax and the thresholds at which they are paid for non-savings and non-dividend income only. As part of that, there will be no restrictions on the thresholds or rates that the Scottish Parliament can set. All other aspects of income tax will remain reserved, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough said, so that even such things as the definition of income could be changed by a UK Government, making subsequent and consequential serious change to the yield forecast by the Scottish Government. That is one reason why, with the partial devolution, we should all continue to vote on that component of income tax in the Westminster Parliament—and it is an even stronger reason, of course, for the devolution of all income tax.
The Scottish Parliament Information Centre analysis for the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee—for the rest of the evening, termed “the devolution committee”—found in its interim report on the draft Scotland Bill that draft clauses 10 to 12, now clauses 12 to 14,
“broadly seek to give effect to the extension of income tax powers recommended by the Smith Commission. These would give the Scottish Parliament the power to set rates and bands in relation to non-savings and non-dividend income…above the UK personal allowance.”
Clause 14 also deals with the interaction between income tax and capital gains tax. Currently, individuals who pay income tax at the higher rate also pay CGT at the higher rate. The clause sets out that the rate of CGT that applies to Scottish income tax payers will continue to be calculated using the UK income tax rate limits. That would create an imbalance should there be a change or proposed change for Scotland and people choose to do something in a different way.
There were, however, no draft clauses in relation to the corresponding adjustment in the block grant or the Scottish Government’s reimbursing the UK Government for costs arising from implementation or administration of the powers. Can the Secretary of State confirm that these recommendations do not require legislation?
The Scottish Parliament’s devolution committee interim report said in its conclusion about income tax powers that
“the essence of the Smith Commission’s recommendations has been translated appropriately by the previous UK Government into the draft legislative clauses”,
and that it had “no particular concerns” with “the drafting”. However, it highlighted the
“significant issues still to be resolved regarding the implementation of the new powers, such as an appropriate definition of residency…the details of the administration of the new regime (who collects the tax and how it will function…the need to avoid double taxation and the timing and phasing of the new powers on income tax relative to those already devolved under the Scotland Act 2012”.
Those are all matters that I am sure the Scottish Secretary will address. At paragraph 166, the devolution committee also recommended that
“details on the implementation of the new powers over income tax be produced before the Scottish Parliament is expected to give its legislative consent”.
That is extremely important. It concluded, too, that
“any final detail of the fiscal framework and the other matters we have considered is provided to the Scottish Parliament before the question of legislative consent to any new bill is considered”.
That is a view endorsed by the Scottish Government, and I understand that discussions on these issues are ongoing with the UK Government, in parallel with the passage of the legislation.
It is normal practice for the Scottish Parliament to consider legislative consent before the final stage of a Bill in the Commons; with the Report stage likely in the autumn, usual practice would suggest September. However, the devolution committee suggested 2016 as a more likely date, so when does the Secretary of State believe the Bill will reach Report?
Because of the lack of information on the various technical aspects of the delivery of the tax powers, beyond the wording of the Bill, the committee said:
“As yet, we are not able to conclude that we are content with the fiscal framework and no detriment arrangements as these details are currently being discussed between the two governments.”
Will the Secretary of State confirm that discussions are under way and update us on progress, particularly in respect of the no detriment and no advantage clauses—principles agreed by Smith before the committee reported?
The devolution committee also said:
“both the process of these negotiations and the outcome requires proper parliamentary scrutiny. We recommend both Governments reach an urgent agreement on just how this will be achieved and for the Scottish Government to report to the Committee on what arrangements it proposes to put in place for parliamentary oversight.”
Will the Secretary of State describe what actions his Government are taking in respect of parliamentary oversight, particularly if we do not—as may well be the case—get through the debate on all the clauses and groups of amendments tabled for debate today?
In their response to the devolution committee’s interim report, the Scottish Government made it clear that they were
“broadly content with the clauses in the Scotland Bill relating to taxation”.
It added, however:
“as the Committee recognised, there will need to be extensive discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments over the plans for implementing these provisions.”
I note at this point that there were changes between the draft clauses and the Scotland Bill. In paragraph 165 of the interim report, the devolution committee highlighted one area that required specific clarification, so I ask the Secretary of State to confirm—I am sure he will—whether clause 12(5) of the published Bill now contains a change to specify that a zero rate of income tax is possible?
It is also worth saying a little about the nature of the taxation powers, which has been touched on. They are very limited. Even if we include the VAT assignation, the Scottish Parliament would raise the equivalent of around 50% of devolved expenditure. However, excluding the VAT assignation, the figure falls to barely a third. That is important because many of the submissions to the devolution committee called for more. In its written evidence, the Scottish Trades Union Congress called in its recommendation 2.1 for the
“devolution and assignment of taxation amounting to…two thirds of Scottish public spending (over 50% of all spending in Scotland)”.
The Bill clearly does not reach that standard.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very important point. We always moan about tax avoidance. I have been talking to people in Scotland, and it appears now that wealthy people will be putting more and more money into dividends precisely to avoid tax. I cannot understand the logic of encouraging people to avoid paying tax by putting their money in dividends.
Stewart Hosie
I agree entirely. None of us should be encouraging tax avoidance or evasion—not least a Tory Government, which is why I am sure the Secretary of State will want to support the full devolution of tax on earned and unearned income. It is a jolly good idea.
However, whether the devolution of income tax is extended or not, issues of implementation must be fully resolved. I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that, as part of the fiscal framework discussions, the following issues are now being fully addressed: the timing of the implementation of the Smith provisions; the length of the transition period and how it relates to the transition period for the Scottish rate of income tax; how the costs of implementation will be met; whether there will be an agreement to revisit the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and HMRC for the Scottish rate of income tax, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose; the enforcement and compliance regime under the Smith income tax proposals; how gift aid and pensions relief will be treated under Smith; how the block grant adjustment will work, although that is much broader than simply income tax; the forecasting of revenues, the interaction between the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the detail of how we calculate the transfer of revenue; and the continued role of the National Audit Office in working in partnership with Audit Scotland.
The key issue is the forecasting that will drive the revenues that the Scottish Government will get and the block grant adjustment. There has to be a fair balance between the role and input of the OBR and the Scottish Fiscal Commission, particularly given that the OBR uses Treasury numbers to drive its calculations.
As I said at the outset, I am conscious of time; we have many groups of amendments to get through and others will want to speak. I hope that the Secretary of State can answer those important detailed questions on the proposed devolution. I commend amendment 54 to the Committee.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I was not able to make it to the House earlier, Sir David; I would like to express my sympathies to everyone involved in the tragic events in Tunisia. Our thoughts are with the families all across the United Kingdom, but especially the people in Scotland who have been caught up.
I want to speak to new clause 32. Part 2 of the Bill devolves significant new powers to Scotland over income tax and other taxes, and it is a real opportunity to provide the powerhouse Parliament promised by the Smith agreement. Clauses 12, 13 and 14 make provision for transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the power to set rates and bands of income tax, including, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was pushing for, the ability to set a zero rate. The full impact of that and other tax measures should not be downplayed.
Lord Smith himself outlined that the measures proposed in the agreement would create one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. When taking taxation and spending clauses together, Scotland would be only slightly behind the Canadian provinces and Swiss cantons. Likewise, according to the OECD, in exercising power over setting both the rates and bases of income tax, Scotland would rank above sub-central legislatures in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the US and even Germany.
The economic evidence suggests that fiscal devolution can work. It is our responsibility, and that of the Scottish Government, to make sure that it does—that is the genesis of our new clause 32. However, these are hugely complicated processes; anyone who has tried to read the fiscal framework analysis in the Smith agreement will know that. I note that the Scottish National party and its new friend, the hon. Member for Gainsborough, have tabled new clauses that would seek to devolve income tax in its entirety.
I should say at the start that those are perfectly legitimate arguments that have been debated at great length at both the Calman and Smith commissions. Labour disagrees, because we believe fundamentally in the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom; that is not a criticism of the SNP position, but merely a disagreement on a fundamental broad principle. We have rightly and repeatedly criticised the Smith agreement and the Bill on a number of occasions, particularly on Second Reading and in last Monday’s debate, but I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie): in this instance at least, the Bill and the Smith agreement have got it right. That is probably why there are so few substantive amendments to the income tax clauses. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has echoed that by saying that the commission has made a
“pragmatic set of proposals which shows a lot of thought has been given to balancing the desire of Scots for greater tax powers against the practical obstacles to devolution”.
It is worth reflecting on the Scottish Parliament’s current position on income tax. Since 1999, Scotland has been able to vary the rate of income tax by 3p in the pound. Despite the current clamour for more powers, that power has never been used—incidentally, I believe that it has now lapsed, which shows the problems with the fiscal framework. Notwithstanding that, under the Scotland Act 2012, and as a result of the Calman commission, the Scottish Parliament has been afforded control over the first 10p of the basic rate of tax. Obviously, the Smith agreement and the Bill go much further.
The Scottish Parliament will have total control over income tax rates and thresholds and complete freedom over the levels at which those rates and thresholds are set. That is significant as the estimated devolved income tax liabilities on income tax in 2013-14 amounted to almost £11 billion. That is a considerable sum, the collection and deployment of which confers a substantial degree of responsibility on the Scottish Parliament. If they wish, the Scottish Government—of any colour—can increase or decrease that liability.
Sir Edward Leigh
I entirely accept where the hon. Gentleman is coming from in saying that he wants responsibility to be shared throughout the United Kingdom. However, can he explain why we should share responsibility over thresholds but not, apparently, over bands or rates? I cannot see the logic of that.
Ian Murray
The Scottish Parliament will have a significant ability to adjust the zero rate in particular. I hope that the Secretary of State responds to that point, because the House of Commons Library was quite clear on it. However, there has to be some pooling and sharing. Income tax is the biggest tax that everyone pays. Everyone who works pays a proportion of their income in income tax, above the basic allowance. It is important that everyone has a stake in that game. We could get to a situation in which people who did not have a stake in that game asked what the United Kingdom was for. I fundamentally believe in pooling and sharing, and the Smith agreement struck a reasonable balance.
We need a full analysis of how all the proposals will work. That is why we tabled new clause 32. Some adjustment of the powers might be needed in the future. We do not yet know what effect the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012 will have, because it does not come into force until 2016. The question that the hon. Member for Gainsborough raises relates to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 32, because the report would examine the consequences of this transfer of powers.
Sir Edward Leigh
We are dealing with my amendment, which relates to threshold points. Surely, if incomes in Scotland are generally lower, the Scottish Parliament would want to address the problem for people on lower incomes by lowering the thresholds. Would that not be the logical thing to do? I understand the Secretary of State’s point about the pooling and sharing of resources, but I have to ask the same question of him that I put to his opposite number: why is it okay to pool and share resources on thresholds but not on bands and rates?
David Mundell
No, I will not at this stage—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is one of the most frequent contributors to debates in the House, and he does get to have his say, although not as much as his former leader does. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is a very frequent contributor.
The SNP’s new clause 54 goes further than amendment 124, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). However, to go further than the powers set out in the Bill would break the concept of shared tax and be complicated for individuals and employers with activity on both sides of the border, as they would have to understand and comply with two potentially entirely different tax systems. The Law Society of Scotland agreed with us, saying of the proposed change:
“The administrative burden would increase considerably. The complexities regarding the UK savings and investment market may also be particularly problematic”.
That would not be in keeping with a stronger Scotland within the United Kingdom. It is not what the people of Scotland voted for last September, and I cannot accept the new clause.
On new clause 32, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the House. The new clause is intended to provide the House with a report on the implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax and the further income tax powers in the Bill. That is a laudable aim, but I can reassure hon. Members that current legislation already provides for annual reports on the implementation of devolved tax powers to Scotland.
Section 33 of the Scotland Act 2012 requires the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to lay before both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament annual reports that broadly cover the areas suggested in the new clause. Three reports have already been produced, the most recent in March, and HMRC’s accounting officer for the Scottish rate and the Comptroller and Auditor General have both given evidence to the Scottish Parliament on the progress of tax devolution to Scotland. Of course, Westminster Committees have the opportunity to call for evidence, too. Alongside that existing requirement and to ensure that Parliament can have confidence in the implementation and operation of the Scottish rate, the Comptroller and Auditor General is required to report annually on HMRC’s administration of the Scottish rate.
I can also tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh South that I am satisfied that adequate resources are being brought forward to deal with the issues relating to the transfer of these powers to Scotland and to HMRC’s involvement in that process. I would further reassure Members that reporting requirements are a feature of the negotiations currently under way between the two Governments on the fiscal settlement that accompanies the Bill.
I have set out the rationale behind the Government’s drafting of the Bill, which, as has been widely acknowledged, fully implements the Smith commission’s recommendations on income tax. The fiscal framework will be an important part of the discussions, and we are giving this exercise the focus and priority that it deserves.
Sir Edward Leigh
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Assignment of VAT
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
New clause 20—Review of operation of VAT refund schemes in Scotland—
‘(1) The Treasury shall, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before the House of Commons a review of the application of VAT refund schemes for businesses in Scotland.
(2) The review must include an analysis of the impact of the qualifying criteria for the VAT refund schemes—
(a) in Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994, and
(b) for Government Departments and the NHS,
on the level of VAT payable by Police Scotland and by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.”
Following the amalgamation of the (formerly regional) Scottish fire and rescue services and Scottish police forces into a single fire service (the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service) and a single police force (Police Scotland) respectively, they are no longer eligible for VAT exemptions under the VAT refund schemes mentioned. This amendment requires the Treasury to carry out and publish a review of the schemes in Scotland, and in particular in relation to the level of VAT payable by Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
European Union Referendum Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash
My view about the clause is that we have managed to have a wide-ranging debate. In the interests of brevity, I do not think much needs to be said on the subject. We really ought to get on to other matters, including the question of European Union financing. I have no further comments to make on clause stand part.
The Temporary Chair
Order. I am at the disposal of the Committee and looking for hon. Members to speak, but there appears to be no one but Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh
Amendment 53 would state that
“the total number of permitted participants shall be limited to a number specified by the Electoral Commission to ensure broad equality of resources between those campaigning for each of the outcomes of the referendum”.
I refer the Committee to the Member’s explanatory statement, which states:
“The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to ensure that during the referendum campaign, the total spend of the campaign”—[Interruption.]
The Temporary Chair
Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? There are people who wish to hear the debate.
Sir Edward Leigh
I was just referring to the explanatory statement. It is very helpful that the Public Bill Office now publishes explanatory statements, as it makes it much easier for us to understand amendments.
Mr Chope
Do the figures my hon. Friend is referring to include Government expenditure? The Minister, responding to the debate on the previous group of amendments, said the Government should not be a lead campaigner in a referendum, thereby implying that it will be a campaigner and spend Government resources. Are Government resources restricted in any way?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is why this debate is important. When the Minister replies, we want further and better particulars. We really want to know whether Government expenditure will be a part of this. The Government have enormous resources through all the Government Departments and it would be unfair if there was a mismatch in total spend for both sides of the argument. The yes campaign in 1975 spent the equivalent in today’s money of £11 million, compared with £1 million by the no side. The no side in 1975 were outspent 10:1, and that simply cannot be fair. Such things may have been more accepted in those more forgiving days, but I do not think they would be accepted now when there is widespread disillusionment about politics and a widespread feeling, which may be unfair and I know the Government want to act in an entirely honourable way, that the result could be fixed by the political establishment. The political establishment, encompassed by all the leading political parties except UKIP, big business and the European Commission, could have a massive and decisive preponderance of spending.
The 2000 Act provides for an entirely different regulation to what existed in 1975. It still looks far more likely that one side will have much higher spending limits than the other, which is inimical to our sense of democratic fair play. It is possible that the voters will be—or could feel, which is just as important—overwhelmed by spending on one side. Spending caps in constituency elections are basically equal. I know this is a UK-wide referendum, but that actually makes it more important, because there is huge interest both within and outside the country. The coverage in the European press is massive and will only get greater, and the European Commission and foreign Governments are very exercised about it. It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us what he plans to do about it and how he will address the problem I have articulated. If I am wrong, I am happy to listen to the Government and to be reassured, but they have to reassure the Committee.
Aside from the inherent inequality, there are deeper concerns about the potential effects. Let us consider the results of the Scottish referendum and the following general election: one side can win a referendum, but afterwards, if people feel the arguments were not entirely fair, there can be a massive shift of opinion. If a yes result is secured through massive overspend, there is a danger—dare I say it?—of a UKIP backlash, just as we have seen an SNP backlash, and this tidal wave can overwhelm people. It is essential, therefore, that there is a feeling of fairness. We need an open debate in which both sides are funded broadly the same and can put their arguments. If the yes campaign wins by the force of its arguments, I, as a democrat, would be the first to accept that it won fair and square, but there has to be a feeling of fairness.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman talks about an SNP backlash, but by the time of the independence referendum the SNP had been in power in Scotland for seven years.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not want us to repeat yesterday’s debate, but we all know that there was a shift in public opinion following the Scottish referendum, so we have to be careful.
The UK is lucky not to suffer from the money-infused politics of the United States, where power goes to the highest bidder or spender. As we all know, it is virtually impossible to have a serious intention of becoming President without access to millions of pounds of spending or unless your name is Bush or Clinton. We do not want to replicate that situation here. British voters are very resistant to such a culture. We have been brought up in our constituencies knowing there is fairness and that all sides roughly spend the same.
Sir William Cash
Has my hon. Friend noticed my own amendment about restricting the money that will surely come from the EU and European Commission? They are described by the Electoral Commission as foreign sources, but they are not. Are they not actually part and parcel of what applies to us under the European Communities Act 1972?
Sir Edward Leigh
It would be ironic if the European Commission were a major player—but actually why should it not be? It is entitled to its point of view and to put its case. It has massive resources, however, to which we have contributed greatly, as my hon. Friend says. Nobody minds the Commission having a point of view, but we know what it will be, and we do not want its spending to come on top of all the rest, as it would create a sense of unfairness.
The official yes side in the AV referendum spent £3,436,000, and the official no side spent £2,595,000, so although the no side was outspent, spending was broadly not too dissimilar and fairly low, and voters still rejected the proposal. That is fair enough. Although the yes side spent a bit more, the arguments were well put. We all understood the arguments and there was broad acceptance of the result. There was no backlash and people felt the whole thing was fair, and in any event the result was clear: two thirds voted no.
Now, let us consider other referendums that I do not think have been conducted as fairly as our AV referendum. In 2008, voters in Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty, only effectively to be told they must vote again, until the “correct result” could be obtained. The behaviour of the pro-EU side in the subsequent 2009 referendum campaign has resulted in several legal challenges in Ireland. One campaigning group even offered Irish citizens resident on the continent free Ryanair flights home, provided they canvassed for a yes vote. Before Lisbon, Irish voters also rejected the treaty of Nice in a 2001 referendum, but the Government pushed through a law on the last day before the Irish Parliament broke up for Christmas to remove the responsibility of the Referendum Commission to ensure that voters were informed of arguments on both sides in a balanced way. There is a great deal of unhappiness about that in Ireland. I should have thought that the yes campaigners could have won anyway.
We want to ensure that when it comes to our own referendum it is clear to everyone that there has been fairness. In the case of other EU referendums, when the stakes have been incredibly high and when it has been possible for huge amounts of money to be spent, there have been allegations of dirty tricks. We do not want that to happen in our own country. Our Government must show that they will insist on a free, fair, balanced and clean referendum, with equitable arrangements for all sides. As we know, a large proportion of the populace is already somewhat disengaged from and disenchanted with politics, and allowing such an overspend by one side would only deepen those feelings. It would reinforce the idea that the deck is stacked and the game is rigged.
Members in all parts of the House are profoundly aware of how difficult it can be to engage ordinary people in the political process. Too often, we meet with responses such as “What is the point?”, “It will not change anything”, “It is all fixed anyway”, and “If voting changed anything, they would abolish it.” We reject that, as politicians and as people who value debate in the House of Commons. We want the referendum to be fair. However, the mindset of many people out there must be acknowledged and challenged.
Public confidence in our parliamentary democracy is a matter of grave concern, and this referendum is a crucial turning point. The very fact that it is taking place is testimony to the Prime Minister’s having kept his word, and that has meant a great deal in the context of restoring confidence in the whole EU debate and in our democracy. As I have said several times, and as everyone knows, no one under the age of 55 has yet had a chance to vote yes or no in a referendum such as this. There is now a great opportunity for a really good debate, and for both sides to be given broadly equal funding to enable them to put their arguments.
Finally, let me say to the Minister that more needs to be done. The Government need to ensure that this problem is addressed.
Stephen Gethins
As Members will know, my party has some experience of referendums. I assure Members in all parts of the House that SNP Members will act constructively when it comes to this referendum—if it goes ahead—and that, like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we want to see a fair referendum.
It must be said that we were not originally in favour of the referendum. It was not in our manifesto, and, given that—as Members will know—we won the election in Scotland, we think that we have a mandate to bring that manifesto to the House. We also think that there has been no significant change in the position. I struggle to see where the Prime Minister is gaining any of the friends whom he will need to gain if he is to see the concessions he wants. He seems to be going about things in a way that is losing him friends and influence throughout Europe.
However, if—as appears increasingly likely—the EU referendum is indeed to go ahead, we want it to meet the gold standard that was set by the Scottish independence referendum, which featured a level of democratic activity that Members in all parts of the House will have welcomed. The turnout of between 85% and 86% was far higher than any election turnout in recent times, and the public became involved in the democratic process to an extent that we had not seen before. Our wish for public involvement was one of our reasons for wanting 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum, and 75% of them took the opportunity to do so.
The Scottish referendum was notable for the diversity of the campaigning groups—many of which my hon. Friends were involved in—and the huge upsurge in democratic involvement. All of us, in all parts of the House, think a great deal about how we can involve young people more often, and how we can ensure that more groups are involved in the democratic process. Regardless of whether people voted yes or no in that referendum—I know that Members of this House campaigned on both sides—I think it valuable for us to draw lessons from a robust experience of democracy that won plaudits throughout the world. None of us should ever lose sight of that, and all of us should take some pride in it.
We will support any amendments that provide for a fair playing field and a positive campaign. What turns people off—as we saw in the independence referendum campaign—is negative campaigning and scaremongering. Members in various parties will be well aware of that. We want to talk about the benefits of Europe. The Prime Minister talks about powers that may need to be returned and we all talk about areas in need of reform, but why do we not have a positive debate about where we can have more Europe and more engagement with the EU? I am talking about areas like security issues and the challenges we face in the Mediterranean and a resurgent Russia and the problems in Ukraine at present.
Alex Salmond
That is an excellent point. I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s memory as to the White Guard as opposed to the White Rose group. I am delighted to receive the information that Mr Speaker was a member. I cannot believe that he was unsuccessful in an election anywhere, but I am delighted to have that information. No doubt I shall use it at some point in the future.
I am afraid that I have just got the letter through Twitter and have not had a chance to examine it fully. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point that goes to the heart of the profound issues that he and others have raised.
Sir Edward Leigh
I thought that the white rose was a Jacobite symbol and then a Tory symbol. I am surprised that the SNP has adopted it, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for adopting our symbol. Notwithstanding the arguments about purdah—he makes some good points—does he agree that it is important that there is broad equality of spending on both sides?
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is a Jacobite white rose. I have always had the hon. Gentleman down for a Jacobin rather than a Jacobite, but there is also the MacDiarmid rose in the poem:
“The rose of all the world is not for me
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet - and breaks the heart.”
SNP Members were adorned by the MacDiarmid rose during the Queen’s Speech.
The point about spending limits is well made. Fairness in terms of spending capacity is one important part of elections and referendums. There is an enforcement mechanism—some may say that it is not always used as rigorously as it could be—for election or referendum spending rules and there are severe penalties for breaching them. There is no such effective mechanism for breaches of purdah or when Ministers or civil servants go clearly outside the purdah rules. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the new clauses, which we will vote on later, which would introduce exactly such an enforcement mechanism to ensure fairness not just in our debates but in a referendum.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was making a slightly different point. I was saying that it is going to need to be tougher than the Government would have got away with had they come through with a limited change at an earlier stage. The Government said they would scrap the whole of section 125, and there is now suspicion that there was an ulterior motive for that. To allay that suspicion, the Government have to be very specific about the exemptions they want. It might be an exemption to vote in the Council of Ministers, and that would not be unreasonable, but would I give them an exemption to announce from the hilltops that they had lots of money from the EU to build a new factory in a key swing area of the country? No, I would not; I would think that would be about fiddling the result, if they wanted a yes.
Sir Edward Leigh
A lot of nonsense is talked about restricting the Prime Minister in what he can say. I do not remember the Prime Minister being particularly reticent during the general election campaign, and there is no reason why he would need to be reticent during this referendum campaign. If he is leading the no campaign, or more likely the yes campaign, of course he can say exactly what he wants. All we are arguing is that the machinery of government should not be used. We do that perfectly well during general election campaigns, and we know the difference.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right and will no doubt recall the 1970 general election when Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister, was not allowed to reveal the trade figures that came out immediately after the general election even though he knew them and they would have been very helpful to him. So there have been cases in which Prime Ministers were prohibited from making announcements on the basis of purdah, and I think it would be quite right to follow them in the context of a European referendum.
It was pointed out earlier that the reason the Government are so worried about this is part of the problem—namely, that the EU is involved in so many aspects of our lives that what they are restricted from doing will be much broader than it would be for a normal referendum. That makes it all the more important that this purdah is strictly observed.
We are arguing about whether the situation in which our lives are organised by the EU should remain or whether we should do something different. If, in the month or six weeks before the referendum, popular announcements about the EU were made but unpopular ones were held back—or vice versa—that would be completely improper.
John Penrose
My hon. Friend has confirmed my view, and I am sure that we will continue these discussions.
I move on to amendment 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think his intention is to ensure equal force of arms on both sides of the debate. I was starting from a slightly different presumption: I think that both sides will be pretty well funded—there are well funded and strong views on both sides. There is no tradition in this country of overall, global limits on total campaign spending. As colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, have mentioned, there are individual limits on constituency spends and national limits on individual political party spends. However, there is no overall global limit on the total amount that can be put behind a movement or campaign because other third party campaigning organisations, even after the closer regulation following the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, can also contribute to the campaign behind a particular cause. As there is no limit to the number of organisations that can contribute, there is de facto no overall limit on the total that can be spent.
Opposition colleagues may dislike this example, but it may have resonance on the Government Benches. It is possible and entirely legal, under the right conditions, for trade unions to contribute to and campaign strongly in elections. There are constraints on what they can do, but it is entirely open to one union or 10 to contribute. If 10 contribute, the money that unions could spend goes up by a factor of 10. There is no overall global limit on the amount of money that traditionally can be spent in British elections, although there have been individual limits in specific constituencies.
I caution my hon. Friend a little. The hon. Member for Glenrothes rightly pointed out that people get enthused, excited and involved in political debate at different points and in different ways. If a campaign on either side captures the popular imagination and engages people, people who were not involved at the start can decide to become involved part of the way through. My hon. Friend’s amendment would limit the number of people to only those who were organised and enrolled at the start; once the maximum number had been reached, the gates would close and no one else could enrol.
It is an entirely unworthy thought, I know, but the Chief Whip and I suggest that one side could grab all the slots of eligible campaigners on the other side and then do absolutely nothing with those slots. That would effectively kibosh the other side. I understand my hon. Friend’s attempt to equalise force of arms, but I am afraid that things will not work as he has described. The amendment would also run counter to some deep-rooted, fundamental principles about how British democracy has worked.
John Penrose
I give way very briefly, but then I must make progress and finish.
Sir Edward Leigh
Although my hon. Friend believes that my amendment is not the way forward, as it would limit the number of participants, he understands the general view that there should be some sort of equality of force of arms. I remind him of the point that I made: during the 1975 referendum, the yes campaign outspent the no campaign by 10:1. Given that the major parties generally have the funding and are allowed to spend it, if the yes campaign had £17 million to spend and the no campaign had only £8 million, would my hon. Friend agree that the Government would have to think about that, take it away and worry about it?
John Penrose
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. At the risk of quoting one of the Opposition Members, I notice that none of us was that concerned when there was a difference in the force of arms at the recent general election on a party political basis, but I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns. I do not think that the amounts of money raised on each side will be as unequal as he fears, but I may be underestimating either the yes or the no campaign.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex tabled a number of amendments that would remove bodies incorporated by royal charter and charitable incorporated associations from the list of those eligible. He specifically asked me to give him this reassurance, and I am very happy to do so: nothing in this Bill will change anything to do with charity law. Charities are already subject to some very severe and thorough crimps on what they can do when it comes to political campaigning. There are only a very small number of occasions when they are allowed to get involved, and even then, they are very closely scrutinised by the Charity Commission. That will continue: nothing in the Bill will alter any of that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Campaigning and financial controls
Amendments made: 14, page 12, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) Paragraph 1(2) of that Schedule (limit on expenses incurred by permitted participants during referendum period) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if—
(a) in paragraph (a) (designated organisations) for ‘£5 million’ there were substituted ‘£7 million’,
(b) in paragraph (b) (registered parties that are not designated organisations)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (i) for ‘£5 million’ there were substituted ‘£7 million’,
(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii) for ‘£4 million’ there were substituted ‘£5.5 million’,
(iii) in sub-paragraph (iii) for ‘£3 million’ there were substituted ‘£4 million’,
(iv) in sub-paragraph (iv) for ‘£2 million’ there were substituted ‘£3 million’, and
(v) in sub-paragraph (v) for ‘£500,000’ there were substituted ‘£700,000’, and
(c) in paragraph (c) (certain other persons and bodies) for ‘£500,000’ there were substituted ‘£700,000’.”
This amendment modifies, for the purposes of the European Union referendum only, the spending limits for permitted participants in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to take account of inflation.
Amendment 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—
“Declaration where no referendum expenses incurred in referendum period
21A For the purposes of the referendum, the following section is to be treated as inserted after section 124 of the 2000 Act—
‘124A Declaration where no expenses in referendum period
(1) Subsection (2) applies where, in relation to a referendum to which this Part applies—
(a) a permitted participant incurs no referendum expenses during the referendum period (and no such expenses are incurred on behalf of that participant during that period), and
(b) accordingly, the responsible person in relation to the permitted participant is not required to make a return under section 120 or a declaration under section 120A.
(2) The responsible person must, within 3 months beginning with the end of the referendum period—
(a) make a declaration under this section, and
(b) deliver that declaration to the Commission.
(3) A declaration under this section is a declaration that no referendum expenses were incurred by or on behalf of the permitted participant during the referendum period.
(4) The responsible person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (2).
(5) If a person who is the responsible person in relation to a permitted participant knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration in purported compliance with the requirement in subsection (2)(a), that person commits an offence.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(c) on summary conviction in Gibraltar, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the Gibraltar standard scale.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine, or to both;
(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(d) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(e) on summary conviction in Gibraltar, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the Gibraltar standard scale, or to both.
(8) The reference in subsection (7)(b) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
(9) In this section “the Gibraltar standard scale” means the standard scale set out in Part A of Schedule 9 to the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.
(10) Schedule 19C (civil sanctions), and any order under Part 5 of that Schedule, have effect as if the offence under subsection (4) of this section were an offence prescribed in an order under that Part.’”—(John Penrose.)
This amendment requires permitted participants who do not incur referendum expenses to submit a declaration of that fact to the Electoral Commission within three months of the end of the referendum period.
Amendment proposed: 11, page 17, line 37, leave out paragraph 25 and insert—
“25 (1) Section 125 of the 2000 Act (restriction of publication etc of promotional material by central and local government etc) applies in relation to the referendum during the referendum period with the following modification.
(2) Section 125(2)(a) of the 2000 Act has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if, after ‘Crown’, there were inserted ‘including ministers in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and Her Majesty‘s Government of Gibraltar’.”—(Sir William Cash.)
The purpose of the amendment is to apply the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity during general elections to the campaign period before the referendum.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point that is very relevant to the debate we are having about VAT.
The three main parties in this House have agreed that we will deliver a cyclical current budget surplus by 2017-18; that is what the charter of fiscal responsibility states. The vast majority of Labour Members trooped through the Lobby to support that measure. Independent analysis, as well as the Treasury’s analysis, confirmed that that requires some £30 billion-worth of fiscal adjustments. From my party’s point of view, that would be made up of £13 billion from departmental spending, £12 billion from welfare spending, and £5 billion from anti-tax evasion and tax avoidance measures.
The Liberal Democrats have set out how they will get their £30 billion. Their plan has a different balance and make-up from the Conservative plan, but they have set it out. The Labour party has not set out how it will reach that £30 billion. If Labour is not going to cut welfare in the way the Conservatives are, and if it is not going to cut departmental spending as we are—as far as I can see, that, after all, is the heart of Labour’s election campaign—more money must come from tax. That is why the question of who will raise taxes and what taxes will be raised is much more acute for Labour Members. They have questions to answer. There is a gap in their public finance plans, whereas we have set out plans that do not require us to put up taxes on hard-working people.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister is being unfair to Labour Members. They will manage to reduce the deficit by not opening any more free schools, and by abolishing police and crime commissioners. That will undoubtedly solve the problem.
Mr Gauke
We must not forget that Labour will put up gun licences—that is also on the list.
I note that the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), announced yesterday that she will “abolish the bedroom tax” and use the savings for something else. I am not sure that I understand how there can be savings from that measure.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be the last Back Bencher to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). Ann Treneman, the sketch writer for The Times, described her as one of the few eminently sane Members of the House. I am still looking forward to a sketch writer describing me that way—one lives in hope.
I am the last Back Bencher to speak, and I sometimes think that I am the last Thatcherite standing. I have spoken in most of the 32 Budget debates in my time in Parliament. I have some bad news for you, Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is not my valedictory speech, but you at least will not have to hear me again, and that will be a great solace to you. I am standing for election again and hope that the good people of Gainsborough will re-elect me. I will be standing on the same platform on which I have stood at all the previous election. It is a pretty simple message—speaking up for a strong Budget and a well-defended country—and it is worth repeating.
My predecessor in Gainsborough had quite a relaxed view of campaigning in the constituency. Having ridden for a couple of hours in the morning, he would return to the White Hart hotel in Lincoln for a large breakfast before pondering his sole press release of the entire campaign, which he used to deliver on a certain day to the editor of the Market Rasen Mail. At one general election—perhaps it was his last—when he went to deliver the press release the editor was out, so my predecessor, Sir Marcus Kimball, said he would come back tomorrow. When he came back the next day, the editor said, “Don’t worry about a new press release; I’ll just use the one from the previous general election.”
In a sense, times do not change, because the same themes come back again and again. I apologise if sometimes I weary the House with the same themes in these Budget debates, but they are two incredibly important ones that need emphasising again and again. The first is the need for tax simplification, and I shall say a bit about that in a moment.
The second theme is budgetary and fiscal responsibility. I said earlier that I may be the last Thatcherite left standing; in fact, I sometimes think that I am the last Gladstonian Liberal in this place. I believe that if Governments restricted themselves to avoiding foreign entanglements, or foreign wars—I have, I think, voted against every single one that has come up during my time in Parliament—and attempting to balance the budget, that would do more for human happiness than virtually anything else they could do. Balancing the budget is the first duty of government. It has to be said again and again that we are still borrowing £93 billion every year.
After five years of austerity from this Government that has been roundly criticised by Labour Members, we are still spending £93 billion more than we earn every year. When we came to power, the figure was £141 billion a year. That was completely unsustainable five years ago, and it is still unsustainable. The national debt stands at a staggering £1.5 trillion. One can criticise the present Government, but at least, without getting involved in clichés, they have a long-term economic plan to try to ensure that by next year, or the year after, that massive debt as a proportion of GDP at last starts to decline in cash terms by the end of the next Parliament.
These are not just figures. This is a matter of desperate importance to everybody in the country. Debt on that scale is simply unsustainable, and any incoming Government —I say this to my Labour friends—must have some sort of plan for dealing with it. Yesterday I intervened on the shadow Chancellor, who gave a good, knockabout speech. He portrayed himself as a minor Shakespearean poet and it was all quite good fun. It was extraordinary, however, that he spent very little time outlining how he was going to reduce the deficit. Perhaps we have been too complacent in making these arguments to the British public. When we argue that we have halved the deficit, perhaps some members of the public say, “Well, problem solved. If our debt is halved, does that mean we’ve already arrived at the end?” No, it does not—it means that we were borrowing £141 billion a year and we are now borrowing £93 billion a year. Perhaps this has given the Labour party an opportunity to relax the public mood on deficit reduction.
What are the plans of the Labour Opposition to reduce the deficit as they prepare, they hope, for government? When we questioned the shadow Chancellor yesterday, he said he was going to prevent more free schools opening, abolish police and crime commissioners, and try to get more efficiency savings in the NHS. Is that really a plan that holds water? Can we really believe that it will solve the problem that I have been emphasising in the past few minutes? I do not think so. Labour Members are very proud of the fact that they dramatically increased spending on the national health service and on education, but the problem with dramatically increasing spending on the national health service was that they dramatically reduced productivity in the national health service. There is nothing to suggest that if one increases spending on the NHS by more, roughly, than the real rate of inflation, one will avoid, once again a massive reduction in productivity.
The Labour party must ask itself this question: how it is going to balance the books? I believe that, fundamentally, it is the central economic questions that decide general elections. I do not think that they are decided solely on the basis of what has been said during the latest television debate on television. What is important is how much confidence the public have in those who are charged with the public finances. I know that we are about to hear a speech from the shadow Treasury spokesman, but so far I have waited in vain for proof that the Labour Opposition are ready for government, and ready to deal with the budget deficit.
I have said enough about that subject, but I think it is one to which we must continually return. If we are fortunate enough to be re-elected in 47 days’ time, we must not let up for a moment. However unpopular and difficult it is and whatever the pressures, we must sustain our absolute determination to start reducing the total national debt, in cash terms, by the end of the next Parliament.
I suspect—although no one quite knows—that if the Labour party is to fulfil its proper and understandable ambition to spend more on education or the national health service, it may have to borrow an additional amount of up to £30 billion a year. In good times, that is sustainable, but what happens if there is another downturn? What happens if the cost of borrowing rises, as it inevitably will? It will all have to be paid for. That is the central argument of the campaign, and the Labour party must deal with it.
Let me now say a little about tax simplification. I know that it is hard when there has been a recession; I know that the Chancellor has had to struggle with the difficult campaign to attempt to start reducing the deficit; I know that every type of tax simplification is extraordinarily costly, in both monetary and political terms; and I understand the difficulties that the Chancellor had three years ago when he tried to simplify VAT. I know all those things. Nevertheless, tax simplification, along with a flattening of the system, is right in the context of entrepreneurship and efficiency. It may not be politically apparent every year—Chancellors obviously want to present popular Budgets—but in terms of financial orthodoxy and the right way to manage the Government’s finances, tax simplification makes sense.
We have already been given a bit of tax simplification. We are to see the end of the tax return, the creation of online tax accounts, a new personal savings allowance, and the phasing out of class 2 national insurance contributions for self-employed people. They are all good steps, but they are only the first steps. I hope that, if the Chancellor is fortunate enough to be back in his job in 50 days’ time—and I pray that he will be, for the reasons that I gave earlier—he will make not just dealing with the public finances but simplifying taxes his guiding light for the next Parliament. We still have one of the longest tax codes in the world; I believe that it is the longest after India’s.
Labour portrays itself, quite rightly—why shouldn’t it?—as the party of the labourers, but it does not help the people who labour for profitable companies if we increase taxes on those companies, because that puts pressure on them to reduce the number of people they employ. What I have been talking about today is not some airy-fairy, ideological point that has been made just for the sake of it, but an attempt to help ordinary hard-working people in jobs, to help those people to keep their jobs, to make companies profitable, and to enable the country to have confidence in itself. That is why I shall be proud to be standing as a Conservative Member in 47 days’ time, and why I shall be praying that my right hon. Friend is back in his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Amendment of the Law
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
I don’t know. That was all Greek to me.
Let us stop wasting time with the ridiculous Liberal Democrats and return to the Chancellor’s Budget. The Chancellor claimed, first, that working people are better off than they were in 2010. How out of touch can you get? No wonder Conservative Back Benchers were so muted in the House of Commons yesterday. They know, as we know, the reality of people’s lives. Unlike the Chancellor, they hear it on the doorstep. They know that with wage growth stagnant over the past few years, energy bills rising, and 1.8 million zero-hours contracts, when the Chancellor says there is a recovery, most people say, “Where is the recovery for me? It is not a recovery for me, our family and our community.”
The Chancellor tried to invent a new measure of living standards yesterday. It was a flawed measure because it includes income to universities and charities, but, compared with the first quarter of 2010, in the first quarter of 2015 the Chancellor’s measure has not gone up; it has gone down. Even on his own measure, people are worse off than they were in 2010. We know from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation that on more sensible measures confirmed by the IFS two weeks ago, household incomes are down compared with 2010, and wages after inflation are down by more than £1,600 a year since 2010. This is the first Parliament since the early 1920s when the average person in work will be worse off at the end of the Parliament than they were at the beginning. In answer to the famous Reagan question, “Are you better off than you were five years ago?”, the answer is a resounding no.
We welcome the action to help savers and increase thresholds, but where was the action to help working people? Why did the Chancellor not announce an ambition to raise the national minimum wage to £8 an hour? Why did he not commit to expanding free child care for working parents to 25 hours? Why not cut business rates for small companies? Why not ban exploitative zero-hours contracts? Why not repeat the bank bonus tax and have a compulsory starter job for our young people? Why not scrap his absurd married couples allowance, which he barely mentioned yesterday, because it goes to only a third of married couples, and instead use the money to cut the taxes of working people? That is what he should have done. That is what a Labour Budget will deliver.
The Chancellor’s second claim is that he is rebalancing the economy. We all remember his claim of
“a Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers”—[Official Report, 22 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility said yesterday that growth is still lower than was forecast in 2010. Growth is set to be slower this year and next year than last year. The OBR confirmed that the Chancellor is on course to miss his 2010 target to double exports to £1 trillion—off course by more than £600 billion, and business investment has been revised down this year. The OBR says that “the growth of potential productivity per hour remains below its historical average throughout the forecast” and that “actual hourly productivity growth has again been weaker than expected”. The only thing it has revised up is its forecast for net migration.
Why did the Chancellor not act to deal with the housing crisis by committing to build 200,000 more homes a year by 2020? Why did he not establish a proper British investment bank for small and medium-sized businesses? Why did he not take up our idea, now the subject of consensus across our country, and establish an independent national infrastructure commission to stop long-term decisions being kicked into the long grass? Why did he not go further and devolve powers, including the uplift on business rates, to all areas in our country, rather than just to some? Why did he not commit to securing Britain’s place in a reformed European Union?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to forget to mention the deficit, so can we get back to that? It is quite important. When we came to power, following the Labour Government, the annual budget deficit was £141 billion a year. It is now £93 billion a year—still far too much. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his plans for matching our plans to keep that budget deficit under control and preferably get rid of it by 2020?
Ed Balls
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I know from reading Hansard that he said to the House a year ago that
“for all the huff and puff, when it comes to what it actually puts into and takes out of the economy, the Budget represents a 0.3% change . . . That is somewhat worrying when we consider the very big challenge we face on deficit reduction”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 993.]
I share his concerns about the Chancellor’s track record, and I am going to set out our alternatives in a moment.
Before I do that, let us go back to the Chancellor’s claims yesterday. He seems to have been telling the media this morning that he has retreated from his commitment to austerity, but the OBR’s document sets out the truth. Its verdict on the Budget is that it represents
“a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything seen over the past five years.”
It goes on to give the details on page 130, where it sets out in graphical form the cuts in public spending that we shall see from the Chancellor. Paragraph 4.108 states:
“One implication of the Government’s spending policy assumptions is a sharp acceleration in the pace of implied real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services and administration in 2016-17”.
I am going to set out a better way to do this, but first I will highlight what the Chancellor is actually doing. The reason he has to set out such deep cuts to public spending—deeper in the next Parliament than in this Parliament—is that, as the OBR confirms, and as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) knows very well, in this Parliament he has failed to balance the books. Yesterday’s numbers confirm, according to the OBR, that the Government are borrowing £200 billion more than they planned in 2010. The deficit is set to be not balanced, but £75 billion. For all this Chancellor’s boasts about national debt falling, public net debt in 2015-16 is £217 billion higher than he was forecasting in 2010. He now claims that the national debt is going to be falling. That is based on his forecasts of short-term, one-off money coming in from the sale of bank shares. In 2014-15, he was planning on the national debt falling from 69.4% to 67.4%. In fact, his forecast yesterday has the national debt in 2015 at 80.4%, falling to 80.2%. It takes some hubris for a Chancellor to borrow over £200 billion more and then claim he has succeeded. That is the reality, and we know why. As the OBR confirmed yesterday, income tax and national insurance receipts have come in short of the 2010 forecasts by £97 billion cumulatively across the Parliament.
The result is the deeper spending cuts that the Chancellor had to set out yesterday. The IFS said back in the autumn that these were colossal cuts; they are still colossal cuts. The OBR said in the autumn that this would take spending on day-to-day public services back to the level of the 1930s. The Treasury tried to tell us yesterday that that was no longer the case. Its special advisers tweeted that they are only the deepest cuts since 1964. It comes to something when they have to boast that we are cutting our public spending to a level not seen for 50 years. In fact, the small print of the OBR tables reveals that 2018 spending, on the historical comparative measure that the OBR uses—day-to-day spending on public services—falls to its lowest level since not 1964 but 1938.
The Chancellor claimed that he had changed the position, but he has confirmed the reality—even deeper cuts in the next three years than in the past five years. That is the truth. These are, in my view, cuts that will be impossible for our police services, our defence and armed forces and our social care to bear. Even this Chancellor cannot make this scale of cuts to our armed forces, our police forces or our social care, so he is going to have to end up doing what he always has to do—raise VAT and cut the NHS. That is the reality.
The Chancellor wants us to believe that this does not have to happen. He says that he can instead cut welfare and tackle tax avoidance. The problem is that his record on both is miserable. He is promising £12 billion more cuts to welfare, but he cannot tell us where they are going to come from. We know he has brought in the bedroom tax, but he cannot tell us what else he has in store. In this Parliament, he has overspent on his welfare plans by £25 billion.
Apparently the Chancellor is now going to crack down on tax avoidance. This is the Chancellor who has seen the tax gap—uncollected tax—rise by £3 billion. This is the Chancellor who, with the Prime Minister, appointed Lord Green—who, it turns out, had presided over HSBC’s industrial-scale tax avoidance. Despite repeated questioning, the Chancellor still cannot tell us whether he actually talked to Lord Green about tax avoidance. Why will he not, between now and the general election, come clean and tell us whether he had conversations with Lord Green about tax avoidance? No wonder the Chancellor did not come to Treasury questions a couple of weeks ago. No wonder he does not want a head-to-head debate. We now know why. One member of the Tory Cabinet does not want to talk about Michael Green, and another member of the Tory Cabinet does not want to talk about Lord Green. One is a deluded fantasist who has great problems with the truth, and the other is the chairman of the Conservative party. To be fair, only the chairman of the Conservative party changed his name—although, then again, perhaps the Chancellor did too.
This is the truth: the Chancellor promised to make people better off, and they are worse off. He promised to balance the books in this Parliament; that pledge lies in tatters. He promised, “We’re all in this together”, and then cut taxes for millionaires. Now he is forced to confirm extreme and risky cuts to public spending in the next Parliament, bigger than in this Parliament.
We need a fairer, more balanced approach to the deficit and living standards. That is why Labour is now the only centre-ground party in British politics. We will cut the deficit every year and balance the books, with a surplus on the current budget and the national debt falling, as soon as possible in the next Parliament. Unlike the Conservatives, we have no unfunded commitments on welfare or on taxes. We were the party that wanted the independent OBR to audit all our manifestos—blocked by this Chancellor.
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, UKTI’s work these days concentrates on supporting SMEs. As a country, we underperform on the contribution of the SME sector to exports, compared with countries such as Germany, and that is the focus of UKTI’s work. I would also emphasise his other point on the need to build up our relationship with China. We have worked very hard on that, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have led from the front on our relations with China, which are good. The establishment of the new financial institution, in which Britain is a co-investor, is a signal of the importance we attach to our relations with China, and that will continue.
Sir Edward Leigh
My right hon. Friend is making a very thoughtful speech, in marked contrast to that of the shadow Chancellor, who was more Henry VI than Henry V. Will he comment on the staggering paucity of the cuts the shadow Chancellor will make? They appear to have been dreamed up on the back of a plain-packaged fag packet. How will the shadow Chancellor get rid of the deficit just by abolishing police and crime commissioners and by not opening a few more free schools? I still do not understand how he is going to solve the problem of the deficit.
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I thought it might be useful to take one element of the Opposition’s policies to see how utterly incoherent it is. I want to home in on the particular issue of how they would fund a reduction in tuition fees. To be frank, this is a tricky subject for all parties. All parties, including the Labour party, have gone back on their commitments. My party has done so, and I know that the Conservatives had some embarrassment in 2005. I would have thought that common sense suggested we ought to draw a line under this episode. I know from the feedback I get from the shadow Cabinet that the shadow Chancellor has been a voice of sanity in this debate, but his leader has not listened to him. Clearly, I am parti pris on this matter, but let me read a comment made yesterday by a man who describes himself as having been
“responsible for delivery in Downing Street under Tony Blair”.
I am not sure that I would want that on my CV, but he is very happy about it. Referring specifically to this proposal, he said:
“The result would be to spend almost £3bn to subsidise high earners of the future. The present system is attracting more students than ever, especially from low-income families. In 2004, before fees were introduced”—
by the previous Government—
“14 per cent of the lowest socio-economic fifth…went to university; last year 21 per cent did. Labour’s proposal therefore offers not ‘more for less’ but ‘less for more’.”
The position is actually worse than that, because we do not understand how it will all be paid for. A £2.6 billion gap needs to be filled to pay for the cap. The original idea was that there would be some kind of granny tax, with grannies paying extra into their pensions. That comes down to the proposal about the pension pot. The proposals that the Chancellor made yesterday diminished considerably the resource available from that source, so where will the money come from? Even if the Labour party can identify where the money will come from, how can it guarantee to universities that the money will get from the grannies to the Treasury to the universities? How exactly will that be sustained in the years ahead?
This is not just a debating point; these issues really matter. The feedback that we are getting from universities is that they have stopped investing because there is a political risk—although it may not be high—of a Labour Government. Universities have stopped investing and are having to fall back on their reserves. Some universities, such as Cambridge, have said that if this policy were to happen, they would drastically reduce the number of students they admitted and cut back on their supervision. The quality of education would suffer.
It requires a particular kind of genius to dream up a proposal of such transcendental stupidity. I was going to ask the person responsible to stand up and tell us what it is all about, but the shadow universities Minister is not here. He is the same guy who left the note saying that there was no money left. What he is now proposing is that universities should experience precisely the same treatment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman should surely be delighted that since 2010 youth unemployment in his constituency is down by 47%, so I cannot agree with him, and that since 2010 unemployment is down by 34%. In the past 12 months, long-term unemployment is down by 38%. Surely he should be celebrating those numbers.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
13. What his policy is on the future of tax allowances related to marriage.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have introduced the marriage allowance for married couples and civil partners, which takes effect from 6 April 2015. The transferable amount has been fixed at 10% and will rise in proportion to the personal allowance.
Sir Edward Leigh
More than 4 million people could benefit from the marriage allowance, for which they have been able to register since 20 February. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about much more than just pounds or pence—it is about valuing commitment and marriage as a bedrock of society?
Mr Gauke
As the Prime Minister made very clear in the 2010 general election, it is right that we recognise marriage in the tax system, and that is precisely what we have done. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, it is now possible for people to register to be able to benefit from the transferable tax allowance.