Amendment of the Law

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) who is the authentic voice of Conservatism in this place, and blue in tooth and claw. He will be sorely missed, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do in the future—somehow I cannot see him retiring quietly to a rocking chair.

When I listened to the Business Secretary introducing this debate, at times I wondered which Budget he was talking about since he seemed to flip between the Budget presented by the Chancellor yesterday, and the fantasy Budget presented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury this morning, and it was a bit difficult to follow his line of thinking. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), he spoke about possible changes in banking and protection for the “last bank in the village”, as he put it, but I am afraid that in many communities that ship has long since sailed.

Banks have been pulling out of rural communities for many years, and substantial communities in my constituency no longer have a bank. Indeed, the Royal Bank of Scotland recently closed a branch and when questioned about it said, “Well you can use the post office”. Unfortunately, the Post Office is also undergoing a procedure at the moment. There may no longer be closure programmes, but many post offices are “changing”—or rather closing—and business is being transferred to other local businesses. In many ways I see the logic of that from its point of view, but it means that many businesses are now running the “post office local model”, which is a much reduced service. In many communities in my constituency, including substantial communities, that is the only post office service left—a counter in another business, which is a small shop or, as in one case, a card and paper shop. That does not give confidence in the service—notwithstanding the service that such shops can provide and the extent they go to—especially for business banking, and that needs to be looked at.

If we contact any of our major banks, they will try to get us to go online and work through the computer. That is fine, but many of our elderly people cannot do that, and many people with small businesses do not want to invest in the extra equipment. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), there is also a serious problem with broadband provision in many parts of our country.

In my constituency many of the towns now have a good broadband service that has been upgraded, but one does not have to go far outside the town for it to disappear altogether. Part of the reason for that is that many small exchanges that serve the country in village areas desperately need upgrading and can no longer take any more broadband lines. I have had situations where people have moved house, cancelled their broadband contract, and when they went to get a contract for their new house they were told they could not get one any more because the line they used had been allocated to someone else.

The Budget has missed a huge opportunity to invest in that infrastructure for the future. If we are to be a successful nation and increase business, we need the infrastructure to do that. I have talked often in the House about a rural area such as mine where many businesses are taking advantage of the internet where they can. It is not always a bad thing. A business in a rural area can get a niche market, survive on the internet and have quite a good business, but it needs an internet connection, good broadband, and a good postal service to deliver the goods to the rest of the country.

Since the privatisation of Royal Mail we have seen an erosion of that service in some parts of the country. In some parts of Scotland, as I am sure is the case in other parts of the country, it has announced that it will not be picking up so often from post boxes—there might be one pick-up first thing in the morning, but nothing else for the rest of the day. That is hopeless for a business. Furthermore, many of the new post office locals do not have sufficient room for proper business mail to be left for Royal Mail to pick up. Again, that was a missed opportunity in the Budget.

Unfortunately, the real message of the Budget is that massive cuts are coming our way, which will have a terrible impact on many of our local communities and businesses. The OBR has described the coming years as a rollercoaster for public expenditure and said it will return the level of Government expenditure to that of 1964. This morning, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who presumably had a hand in writing the Budget, as well as his alternative Budget, said it would take us back to the era of “Cathy Come Home”. That film brought home to many people the extent of the housing crisis in the 1960s, but that housing crisis is coming back to haunt many of our communities.

Many Members have talked about the need to build more houses, and I entirely agree, but I was concerned that the only specific announcement about this in the Budget was the new ISA to help get younger people on the housing ladder. That is good news for those who can afford to put money into an ISA, and I am sure that well-off parents around the country will be preparing to open such accounts for their children, but it is just another variation on the bank of mum and dad and does nothing to help the many young people who can only dream of renting their own home, let alone owning one.

The only boost to local businesses is likely to be for estate agents, as this measure fuels a housing bubble in our cities and communities—houses are expensive all over the country. If we are to tackle the housing crisis, we need a boost to build new affordable homes and homes for rent. Not only would that give young people a real chance to get a home of their own without needing well-off parents to finance it, but it would give a boost to local economies by providing work for those who build the homes and the businesses supplying the needs of new home owners.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) commented on why we had reached this situation. In Scotland, we are now building new homes and have removed the right to buy introduced by the last Tory Government. Whatever people thought of the policy at the time, it is no longer appropriate for the current market because it acts as a disincentive to councils to build new houses—because they might have to sell them off fairly quickly at reduced rates. In Scotland, new houses for rent are being built for the first time in many years. When I read the leaks of the proposed Budget, I was concerned at the suggestion that the Chancellor would introduce a new right to buy for housing associations. I think we should all be grateful that he did not do that, although it would not have applied in Scotland anyway, since we have taken a different route.

Many of the cuts, however, will make things much worse for our young people. Many people, particularly under-25s, will no longer be able to get housing benefit and will be forced to continue to live with their parents, but in many cases, either that will not be practical or for some other reason they will not be able to do it, and they will end up sofa surfing with friends and relatives. It is all very easy, as Government all too often seem to do, to announce crackdowns on welfare and go for cheap headlines in the more rabid tabloids. As we all know, however, in reality many of those in receipt of benefits are working, and the benefits are not their income but top up the income they receive from their employment. In my constituency, on the latest figures, the unemployment rate is 2.5%. On the face of it, that is excellent news, but it is also a low-wage economy, and that is the difficulty. Many people rely on benefits to top up their income and enable them to live.

Many of us will be spending more hours than is healthy over the next few weeks knocking on constituents’ doors, and I am sure that many have had the same experience as me of finding it difficult to find people in, mainly because so many work long hours, split shifts or more than one job to make ends meet. That is the reality of modern Britain, with so many people still relying on food banks to feed their families.

The assault on the welfare state has a dramatic effect on our local businesses. Those who are less well off will tend to spend their money—and to spend it in local businesses. Cuts not only attack those on benefits, but remove a substantial amount of money from local economies, hitting businesses. Is it any wonder that so many businesses on our high streets are closing?

In Scotland, the Government have made determined efforts to halt the decline in small businesses with policies such as the business bonus scheme, which has abolished or reduced business rates for many small businesses. The Chancellor announced a scheme for business rates retention, but the Scottish Government introduced such a scheme in Scotland back in 2011. These schemes help, but more needs to be done to boost local businesses.

We already know that some of the poorest in society will bear the brunt of the misery of the austerity programme. The proportion of tax cuts to tax rises has moved from 4:1 to 9:1, and this will have a dramatic effect on many households. As others have said, we do not yet know the details of the coming cuts and benefits, but this is all money being sucked out of our local economies and will impact directly on our local businesses.

Before I finish, let me say that it is not all bad news. I welcome the Government’s changes to North sea oil taxation. I called for it, the Scottish Government called for it, and there is widespread support for it across all parties. This industry is going through a downturn at the moment—not for the first time, and I dare say it will not be for the last. It is worth noting that the reduction in the supplementary charge will take us back to the position in 2011, when the decision to increase it, taken without consultation with the industry, was hugely damaging.

On a more positive note, the Bank of Scotland did an oil survey last week, showing that 90% of firms are optimistic about the future. Many of them were looking to diversify into such things as renewables. Here, again, however, the Government have missed the chance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) for delivering his speech in reasonable time and for not taking the allotted 12 minutes. I am afraid that the arithmetic does not allow 12 minutes per person from now on and I must reduce the time limit to nine minutes, thereby allowing everyone who has indicated they wish to speak the opportunity to do so.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

With respect to the hon. Lady, the whole scope of the Northern Ireland regime under the Bill relates to trading profits. Credit unions do not pay corporation tax on their trading profits, so this Bill does not impact on them. I am not sure how many ways there are of saying that; I feel that the different formulations of the point have probably been covered. If the credit unions did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, we would be having a different discussion. If Members wish to see a devolution regime for Northern Ireland that includes activities other than trading profits, so that corporation tax would be paid on investments, income and so forth, that is a big call to make. If provisions were to be applied but limited to credit unions alone, it would mean carving out an exception to the regime. Let me say that that goes beyond the context of the agreement struck between this Government and the Northern Ireland Executive—the agreement that we have supported and the agreement that is the subject matter of the Bill. I would have a huge amount of sympathy if credit unions found themselves caught because they did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, but that is not the case, so—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The amendment has been discussed and withdrawn. We had a lengthy debate on it and we do not have a lot of time for this part of the debate, so we must stick to what exactly is in the Bill—and nothing more.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on to the rest of my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—it is key. This tax is not just about investment in Belfast, Londonderry or key cities; it is about investment in the whole of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister recently stated that he wanted to make the United Kingdom the “factory of Europe” and attract more jobs into the UK, and I hope he was speaking for every part of the UK. I hope he wanted to see those investments coming across not just to London and the south, but to all of the UK, because that is what we really need—we need more investment. I know that the hon. Lady wants to see investment in her constituency. My constituency is carrying what is going to be the single largest job loss in Northern Ireland in several years, with the closure of the JTI Gallaher factory in 2017. I want to see those jobs filled. I want to see opportunity created whereby more investment will be happening in my constituency and more factories will be brought there. If the current Government are returned, I hope that they will add meat to the bones of that call to turn the UK into the factory of Europe by bringing jobs, not only to the hon. Lady’s constituency, but to mine and, indeed, to all our constituencies. I hope we see a balance in the investment that is going to be made.

In an earlier intervention, the hon. Lady also called for a reduction in VAT, especially on our tourism trade, and I fully support that. Tourism is one of the key areas where we are trying to grow our economy and attract new business investment, with new hoteliers and new companies. If we can reduce VAT in that sector, we will see it grow. Again, we compete with the Republic of Ireland in that sector, but it has a lower tax rate and that damages us. We really need to try to make progress on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful in sticking to the narrow confines of the Third Reading of this Bill. I appreciate that the points he is making are tangentially attached to the Bill, but I am sure that, in concluding, he will be referring entirely to the Bill.

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you for that prompt, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was actually at the point of conclusion, and I thank you for reminding me that I do have to conclude. I know that hon. Members are captivated by my oratory today and want me to continue, but I must desist and so I shall leave those points with the House.

[Mark Durkan]

I will probably differ in some emphasis and some recollection from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but I wish to begin on a point of absolute harmony, in offering thanks to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and all the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who tilled this hard ground over quite some time, some years ago. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury has rightly been generous in acknowledging the role played by his colleague, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and I will do so, too.

The devolving of corporation tax to Northern Ireland has not always been the point of constant unanimity that it appears to be today. People did have different approaches and different concerns about it; back when we were negotiating the Belfast agreement or Good Friday agreement some of us wanted fiscal discretion as part of the devolved package, whereas most parties did not. My party was in the very small minority of those that did, and we were particularly clear about the corporation tax side of things. When we did get our institutions up and running, some of us argued the need for devolving corporation tax so that we could do more to maximise the north-south potential for inward investment on the island of Ireland, but many people resisted that idea of working with the south on inward investment. For that same reason, those people were very iffy about the idea of devolving corporation tax, as they felt that somehow it was going to separate Northern Ireland from the Union and be a chink in Unionism. I am very glad that, because of a variety of different experiences, positions have adjusted and moved on in that regard.

Reference has been made to the Varney review. When Sir David Varney was conducting the review of corporation tax issues under the previous Government, he made it clear that he was hearing different views from different parties in Northern Ireland and, in particular, from different Departments and from different Ministers. In fairness to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), he acknowledged that at times he had different views and different emphases on this issue, as it is understandable that a Minister of Finance and Personnel would have. I served in that office—I see that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is in his place, too—so I am conscious of the fact that cautionary pieces of advice need to come from that office about what some of the consequences might be. When I was in that post, I used to tell people that as the Minister of Finance and Personnel I did not suffer from depression but I was a carrier. So I can accept that Ministers of Finance and Personnel perhaps did need to sound some cautionary note, but this seemed to go beyond those Ministers; I am glad that we now have a much stronger position on the devolution of corporation tax.

We also need to be clear that the devolution of corporation tax does not put the north—does not put the Assembly—on a par with the corporation tax powers of the Oireachtas. Although it allows the Assembly to set the rates for certain qualifying businesses, it does not allow it to decide who the qualifying businesses are, and the Assembly has no control over any of the other rules that attach to that. The Oireachtas has a very different arrangement. Even when moves are made in the Oireachtas on the “double Irish” situation, which are long overdue and right, we also see a targeted use of things. A bit like this Government’s use of the patent box, the Irish Government have introduced the knowledge box. So there are other ways in which they are going to target competitiveness, and incentivise particular industries and sectors.

That is one issue I wish to address at this point in examining the overall impact of the Bill, because too often the focus in Northern Ireland has been that devolving corporation tax would allow us better to compete with the south. We need to recognise that the competition landscape within these islands has changed. I acknowledge that a regional economic dynamic has been provided under this Government, through initiatives such as enterprise zones, city deals and growth deals, which are creating some drive, regional economic traction and city economic traction. If Northern Ireland relies just on corporation tax and does not look to some of those other tools that are helping to drive regional and local economic growth, we will lose out.

I represent a city where many people go to work across the border for companies that are benefiting from the 12.5% corporation tax rate. That proximity—this is in our travel-to-work area—does not mitigate the fact that my constituency has the highest registered unemployment of all the 650 constituencies represented in this House, which shows that a reduced corporation tax rate alone is not a magic bullet and does not solve everything. As has been said, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim, the south of Ireland’s approach is not just about corporation tax alone; it is about investment in infrastructure and in education, not least in third-level education. Even this week, as we see that the Irish Government’s revenues are up and things are shifting there, and they are looking at and talking about possibly adjusting the spending and tax profile, the Tanaiste, Joan Burton, is emphasising that if money can now be spent, it has to be focused on infrastructure and on education, particularly at the third level.

We see that emphasis in the south, but not in the north. We need to recognise that, with regard to the Stormont House agreement and the wider landscape, all that glisters is not gold. The fact is that the Assembly and the Executive will have a difficult Budget landscape over a number of years and there will be a price on the block grant. That was touched on by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) when she referred to the letter from the Treasury to the Bill Committee—unfortunately, it arrived after the Bill Committee had completed its considerations. The letter, while reflecting the fact that negotiations with the Executive are ongoing, sets out a number of changes that will need to be made to the funding arrangements of Northern Ireland. I am talking about how the block grant will be set and how the Barnett formula will operate. More time needs to be taken to consider those wider consequentials and the implications for the devolved Budget.

In the Stormont House negotiations, I did question why we were not discussing the implications of a corporation tax rate cut or what the implications would be for the block grant. I was told by the First Minister that the rate cut was not an issue, that it would be modest and graduated and that it did not really need to come into our wider discussions about the strong budgetary pressures we were under. But that does not seem to be the case. His understanding and his reassurances were not reflected in the terms outlined by the Treasury Minister in the Bill Committee or in this letter and its attachments. There was an assumption that there would be a gradual working adjustment. In other words, there would not be a full hit in relation to the devolved envelope. But the Minister, both in Committee and in the letter, made it clear that the hit would be up front.

I joined the hon. Member for East Antrim—I understand that his absence is to do with the unfortunate bereavement experienced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—in questioning the arrangements. We asked about the working implications of the Executive’s Budget year on year and of the setting of the block grant. We wanted to know whether adjustments would have to be made to reflect higher or lower tax takes. In the letter from the Minister, which was sent on 16 February, we see that those adjustments may be made two or three years later, whenever the full tax yield is made. That creates uncertainty. Given that corporation tax is, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, sometimes volatile, there could be further implications that we should acknowledge. We should not say that we do not understand them or that they were someone else’s fault. We need to go into these things with our eyes open.

Let me turn now to the wider position of the Executive in relation to the operation of corporation tax. Under the Bill, the Treasury retains not just ownership of all the rule-making and interpretive powers, but the commencement power in relation to corporation tax. We know that the timetable is 2017, but, as we heard from the Minister in Committee, the Government will exercise that commencement power when they are satisfied that the Executive has a sustainable Budget.

Over the past couple of years, the Treasury has made it very clear that it judged the sustainability of the Executive’s Budget on whether the Assembly would pass welfare reform legislation. That legislation may not have been to the Assembly’s taste or of a devolved design, but they would have to pass it as a way of proving that they had a sustainable Budget. In 2017, the issue will be whether the Treasury will use that same power to impose policy choices on the Executive. In the Bill Committee, I specifically asked the Minister that question. Let us take the example of water charges. We know that the Executive have consistently tried to prevail on the Administration in Northern Ireland to move to direct water charges in one form or another. When I was a Minister, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, wrote to us at the Executive twice, asking that we make that commitment. The Executive, on my proposal, refused to do that. Various other ruses have been attempted. During the period of direct rule, Northern Ireland Water was essentially set up on a conveyor belt to privatisation. The question is whether the Treasury would abuse that power and say, “Just like we used to say that you had a sustainable Budget only when you had absorbed what we wanted you to do on welfare reform, we are saying now that you only have a sustainable Budget when we see you levying water charges, raising revenue in other areas or changing your policy in relation to student finances.” It could be linked again to welfare reform. After all, we are now locked into a welfare cap. Luckily, we are being given a lot of leeway in how the welfare cap operates at the minute. If the truth be told, the deal that was reached on welfare reform as part of the Stormont House agreement—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will say to the hon. Gentleman the same as I said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who spoke immediately before him: I have not been very strict in keeping him to the exact words of the Bill, but, as he knows very well, he is beginning to stray a little. I trust that, in concluding, he will address precisely the points in the Bill that relate to Third Reading.

[Mark Durkan]

I am sticking very much to the thrust and the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is presented as part of a suite of measures coming from the Stormont House agreement. That suite of measures included issues in relation to welfare reform. After all, we were told that there would be no Corporation Tax Bill unless there was agreement on welfare reform, so what I am saying is entirely consistent. Ministers have referred to these other measures when they have addressed this Bill, as have other hon. Members. The point goes to something that is in the Bill, which is the control that the Treasury will have over the commencement of this power and whether it uses that to impose other policy choices on the Assembly. Given that the welfare cap will be in place in the next Parliament—if it is supported both by the Government and the Opposition—it could well be a part of the working reference of the Treasury when it comes to make a judgment on Budget sustainability. In fairness, the Minister made the point in Committee that the judgment would be made on the sum of the Executive’s Budget parts and on a range of issues, but not on specific measures. He would not rule out it being used in that way. Again, in terms of due legislative diligence, all of us must have regard to how this might operate in practice. I am talking about not just some of the detailed rules as they affect businesses but how the overall Budgetary situation of the Executive is affected. There is no point in our popping corks about the legislative power over corporation tax that the Executive and the Assembly will have if we are not also alert to the very real budget constraints and the hard choices that might be imposed with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

The hon. Gentleman has said on a number of occasions that, as a result of the Stormont House agreement, one obligation was to sign up to welfare reform. Does he not agree that, more correctly, what was agreed was that we had to come up with a package on welfare reform that we could pay for? As it happens, that package was parity with a little bit of flexibility—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions are meant to be short. The hon. Lady has already spoken. It is perfectly in order for her to make an intervention, but it must be short, especially as she has, quite rightly, taken up the House’s time this afternoon. I politely indicated to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor that he might consider drawing his remarks to a close. He chose to argue with me on the points I had made. I will speak less politely to him if he does not adhere to what I have said. He has spoken for a considerable time this afternoon. He is in order. He has the opportunity to conclude his speech. I am not saying that he must finish immediately now, but I am sure that he will give thought to other people in the Chamber.

[Mark Durkan]

I have no wish to argue with you now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must say that I was not arguing with you previously. I was simply clarifying the position and the background, as you have not had the privilege of sitting through all the debates on what was deemed relevant to the Bill and the wider Stormont House agreement.

The Executive and the Assembly will have to absorb the Bill’s wider implications. There are implications for the economy and for businesses, too. We have heard from many hon. Members that businesses are well seized of the need to try to take advantage of that. We have no problem with the regime on the balance between the rates and the rules, but we want to ensure that there is no undue assumption that the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland alone will transform our economy. We need more investment in infrastructure and higher education and following the decisions in the Stormont House agreement it is not clear whether our borrowing power, which was originally designed for strategic capital, is now being used to pay for a voluntary exit scheme. There is an opportunity cost as regards the wider economic investments.

I do not wish to use the term long-term economic plan, but without addressing some of the other issues, including providing tools that compare with city deals, growth deals, enterprise zones and so on, and without a new level of commitment on third-level education and infrastructure, the Executive might well be getting the novelty of devolved corporation tax without strategic economic perspectives that are other than short term in nature.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and for not arguing with me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you confirmed how this House could express our condolences to the family of Konstandinos Erik Scurfield, a constituent of mine who has been reported killed in Syria. Erik was a former Royal Marine who travelled to the region because he was horrified by Islamic State’s brutal atrocities. His parents have asked me to pass on this brief message:

“We are devastated to confirm the death of our son in Syria where he went to support the forces opposing Islamic State. His flame might have burned briefly, but it burned brightly, with love, courage, conviction and honour, and we are very proud of him. We would like to request that we be allowed to grieve in peace as a family, without intrusion at this difficult time.”

Three weeks ago, I raised this matter with the Foreign Office but I have not received a response. Given the serious nature of this issue I ask for more guidance on how I can best secure a response from Ministers so that together we can underline the grave dangers that face anyone who travels to Iraq or Syria.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Let me first say on behalf of the whole House that we send to his constituent’s family our most sincere sympathy at the loss of this brave young man. The hon. Gentleman knows that his point of order is not a point for me to deal with from the Chair. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said, and if he has not had a timely reply to a question he asked of a Minister, he ought to have. I trust that that message will have gone out loud and clear to the relevant Minister.

Equitable Life

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. There is a unanimous feeling in the House that justice needs to be done for these people. We know how much is outstanding and there is a big difference between what people are due under the existing compensation scheme and what they are actually due. Surely what we need is not a five-year plan to pay the money back, but a one-off payment that is made as soon as possible. Many of these people will die before they get their just reward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has taken a lot of interventions and I have allowed him a lot more time than is normally the case in this sort of debate. I also appreciate that there will be further interventions and I am not suggesting that he concludes his speech immediately. However, I make a plea for very short interventions, because people who say that they are not going to make a speech, but that they would like to intervene, take up the time of people who sit here all afternoon with patience and politeness, waiting to make a speech. I will not be tolerant of long interventions, but I am tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in taking so many interventions.

[Bob Blackman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to draw my remarks to a close after that last intervention.

The issue before us is one of justice and fairness. Everyone believes in ensuring that the policyholders receive proper compensation for the injustice that they have suffered. These are people who did the right thing: they invested for their future. They expected a reasonable return on their investment and to be protected by the regulator and the Treasury. The fact is that they were badly let down.

This is the opportunity for all three major political parties and the smaller parties to give a commitment on what they would do if they were elected as the Government on 7 May for the 945,000 people out there who are still waiting for 77.6% of the compensation that they are due and for the trapped pre-1992 annuitants who deserve full compensation, which at £115 million would be a drop in the ocean, and who are the frailest in our society. If parties give them that commitment, they will give them their votes; if parties deny them that commitment, they may withdraw their votes.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Given the interest in this debate and the short time available, I shall impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of eight minutes. That is quite a long time limit and I make a further plea for short interventions, if there must be any.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I may have been present at that debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in leading the campaign with other hon. Members. Like me and other Members, he will have had the experience of trying to update constituents on the issue but getting back a reply saying, “Unfortunately, my father”—or wife, or husband—“has now died”. That illustrates how important it is to take action now. Although I would like to hear pledges for after the election, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, we also need action now, ideally in the Budget. After an election, it takes time for things to happen. People need payment and good compensation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We must have short interventions. Long interventions are simply not fair, because everybody must have a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents. Members must be polite to each other and make short interventions.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

Equitable Life was established in 1762 and started selling pensions as early as 1913, but it was not until 1957 that the society started selling its now infamous guaranteed annuity rate pensions, which promised a clear and unambiguous return on capital invested. That carried on until 1988, when it realised that its rates were so good and so far ahead of the rest of the market that they were totally unsustainable. In December 2000, Equitable Life was forced to close to new business, but by that time it had more than 1.5 million members.

In July 2008, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, the parliamentary ombudsman published her first report on Equitable, entitled “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. On 11 December that year, the Public Administration Committee produced a report entitled “Justice delayed”, in which it stated:

“Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced. Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”

That is already seven years ago.

On 5 May 2009, Ann Abraham, the parliamentary ombudsman, published a second report, “Injustice unremedied: the Government’s response on Equitable Life”, in which she stated:

“I was deeply disappointed that the Government chose to reject many of the findings that I had made, when I was acting independently on behalf of Parliament and after a detailed and exhaustive investigation.”

There was certainly no shortage of reports, just a shortage of justice for those who, through no fault of their own, had suffered huge losses in their life savings, which they had accrued over many years of hard work.

How could Equitable Life have maintained a rate of return and a guaranteed annuity rate way beyond any competitor in the market? Ann Abraham addressed that question in her initial report of 2008, which took four years to complete. Her answers went to the heart of the anger expressed by investors through the Equitable Members Action Group. At the core of the problem was the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations that it had made, because it had no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It therefore declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and assets.

Following a ruling of the House of Lords in 2000, the society stopped taking new business in December of that year, which effectively spelled the end for Equitable. More than 1 million policyholders then found that they faced cuts in their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of the income on which many small investors had totally depended. After all, the average investment for the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000, which, according to EMAG, would have yielded no more than £300 a month even at its height.

In its December 2008 report, one of the Public Administration Committee’s many recommendations stated:

“We…strongly support the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the creation of a compensation scheme to pay for the loss that has been suffered by Equitable Life’s members as a result of maladministration.”

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry, I will not because of time.

The Government have failed to provide answers on HSBC in a way that would inspire confidence and they have wasted money challenging the EU bank bonus cap. What can we do to turn this situation around? It is clear that we need to reconnect the level of pay and bonuses of some highly paid bankers with the wider performance of the banks and their wider economic contribution.

A Labour Government would repeat the tax on bankers’ bonuses, which we introduced in 2009, to raise £1.5 billion to £2 billion. This tax—[Interruption.] I will come to that point in a moment for Government Members. This tax, alongside a restriction on—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady must be allowed to finish her speech.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This tax, alongside a restriction on pension tax relief, would fund a compulsory jobs guarantee. Let me deal with the point made by hon. Members chuntering from a sedentary position. The tax would be spent only once and only for one measure—that is, our compulsory jobs guarantee. That has been the case for as long as we have had our compulsory jobs guarantee policy. I find it interesting that the only line of attack that Government Members have on the compulsory jobs guarantee is to imply, incorrectly, that the bank bonus tax is being spent more than once. It is a weak line of attack from Government Members who do not want to engage with the substance of the policy—a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term youth unemployed.

Only one point was made about the substance of our policy, which was about the potential scope for tax avoidance. The first outing of the bank bonus tax introduced by the Labour Government had stringent anti-avoidance measures attached to it, and we would repeat those measures to make sure that the tax was not aggressively avoided and that all the revenue that we expect to be raised will be realised in order to fund our proposals for a compulsory jobs guarantee.

Tax Avoidance

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government have allowed a derisory amount of time for consideration of all aspects of the Infrastructure Bill, particularly given that issues around fracking are so controversial. Is there any way of allowing us to speak for at least two hours, rather than the one hour designated for consideration of Lords amendments, not least because there are now substantive new amendments from the other place, and we ought to do them justice by having proper time to discuss them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I can certainly give the hon. Lady advice on that matter. I am about to put the programme motion to the House, and I do not know whether it will agree to it or not. If the House agrees to the programme motion, the amount of time available will be one hour. If it does not agree, there will be another procedure.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords Amendment 1. If the House agrees to it, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Before Clause 1

Secondary Class 1 contributions: apprentices under 25

Financial Conduct Authority Redress Scheme

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Several Members are trying to catch my eye and we have limited time available. I am therefore obliged to introduce a 10-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Pension flexibility: Treasury review—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within a period of no more than 18 months from 6 April 2015, publish and lay before the House of Commons a comprehensive review of the impact of the changes made by this Act to the Finance Act 2004 and the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

(2) The information published under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the distributional impact, by income decile of the population, of changes made by this Act to the Finance Act 2004 and Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003;

(b) the impact on Exchequer revenues of measures contained within Schedule 2: Death of a Pension Scheme Member, related to changes to the taxation of pensions at death;

(c) a behavioural analysis;

(d) an analysis of the cumulative impact of this Act on Exchequer revenues;

(e) an analysis of the impact of this Act on the purchase of annuities.”

Amendment (a) to new clause 2, line 13 at end insert—

“() an analysis of the impact of the changes introduced by this Act on the housing market;”

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon for Report stage and Third Reading, and I do not think I can quite do justice to the excitement and delight that I felt when I saw that the final stages were indeed to be taken straight after the autumn statement. I am sure that is a view shared by the Minister, who will also be grateful for this miraculous feat of scheduling. Given the vast numbers who have turned out to hear us this afternoon, the excitement is obviously broadly shared across the House.

This is a serious Bill, however, and we have serious matters to discuss this afternoon, so I will now turn to the content of new clauses 1 and 2. There is a certain symmetry to the scheduling of today’s proceedings, because the reforms in the Bill were first announced in the Budget statement and we are now discussing the Bill’s final stages alongside the autumn statement. We should be impressed—if that is the right word—by the speed with which the Government have rushed through these very significant pension reforms, although, given that we will now rush through something else even more quickly as a result of the autumn statement, perhaps I should have waited to hear that statement before writing that line in my script for this debate.

Childcare Payments Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 11, page 7, line 8, after “may —”, insert—

“(a) repeal this section, or”.

Amendment 13, in clause 15, page 9, line 10, after “may —”, insert—

“(a) amend this Act to allow childcare accounts to be held by persons other than those specified in subsection (1),”.

Amendment 3, in clause 30, page 17, line 3, leave out

“an award of tax credit is or has been made”

and insert

“an award of tax credit which includes the childcare element is or has been made”.

Amendment 4, page 17, line 18, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 5, page 17, line 22, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 6, page 17, line 31, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 7, in clause 32, page 19, line 16, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 8, in clause 35, page 21, line 21, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 9, page 21, line 32, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 10, in clause 36, page 22, line 12, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

Amendment 11, page 22, line 24, after “credit”, insert

“which includes the childcare element”.

[Alison McGovern]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). Before I continue, may I pause briefly to pay tribute to the outstanding work that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) did as my predecessor in this shadow position, and in particular to her scrutiny of the Bill in Committee?

In and of itself, this is not a bad Bill. We agree with its aims; it sets out to address serious issues relating to child care costs and affordability, which we recognise form a major part of the crisis hitting so many families in Britain today. Our concerns with the Bill are that, for all its good intentions in proposing this scheme for payments towards child care costs, Treasury Ministers have not thought through all the potential consequences.

Some of the Bill’s weaknesses may arise from the fact that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is purely a Treasury Bill; it has perhaps lacked some valuable input from those with a stronger experience of how the child care market actually operates—or, in far too many cases, fails to operate—in this country.

In oral evidence to the Committee, numerous organisations and experts raised concerns about the long-term effects of the Bill, and we have seen little movement from the Government to address those worries. The new clause seeks to go some way to rectifying that, by requiring the Chancellor to keep under review the impact the scheme has on issues of child care cost inflation and, thus, affordability.

Let me say a few words about the situation in which we find ourselves. There is, undeniably, a crisis in child care costs. There is no need to take my word for that or to rely on the testimony we hear on the doorsteps in our constituencies. The Office for National Statistics tells us that between 2010 and 2014 the cost of placing a two-year-old or older in nursery rose by 31%—wages rose by just under 4% in that period—and for under-twos the figure rose by 27%. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is sitting on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, wants to intervene, he is welcome to. [Interruption.] I shall take that to mean he does not.

The figures also reveal that, as we have seen so often during the past four years, the areas seeing the least benefit from this weak and uneven recovery have been hit the hardest by child care cost increases. In my region of the north-west, costs are up by 46% in just four years. Over the Pennines, in the north-east, the figure is 47%. A family in my constituency is having to find, on average, £31 a week more to fund 25 hours of nursery for their two-year-old, three-year-old or four-year-old. That is a hefty sum in almost anyone’s money. When that is tied in with frozen wages, reduced tax credits, increased VAT and soaring housing costs, it all becomes a pretty desperate recipe—I hear testimony on that from my constituents week in, week out.

We know that not only are there regional biases to costs, but families with disabled children are being hit disproportionately hard as well. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who was a doughty champion for the parents of disabled children in Committee and who has tabled amendments 1 to 13 today. The cross-party parliamentary inquiry on child care for disabled children, of which my hon. Friend was a member and which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), produced some valuable findings on that point.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is nothing to do with the debate—I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for interrupting it—but I was due to attend an event this evening at which I was, I believe, to receive an award. I understand at very short notice that I have been banned, along with a number of national journalists. The person who banned me was Mr Speaker, and I was wondering whether that is normal behaviour for a Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point most eloquently and the House has heard it. I confess to having no knowledge whatsoever of the matter to which he refers, and while I am certain that Mr Speaker would never wish any discourtesy to any Member of this House, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the matter he raises is not something on which the Chair can take any action at this moment.