Oral Answers to Questions
Frank Roy Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
If the Government are serious on tax avoidance, why has the much-heralded Swiss tax deal brought in only a third of the projected income?
Mr Gauke
That particular measure has not brought in as much as was forecast, but I can point to others that have brought in more than was forecast. One example is disguised remuneration, which the Office for Budget Responsibility highlighted last week and has brought in more than was anticipated. We anticipated that it would bring in £750 million a year; it will bring in more than that. By the way, that measure was opposed by the Labour party.
EU Budget (Surcharge)
Frank Roy Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for what has been announced. There was agreement around the table that we should permanently change the EU budget rules. We shall have to consult the European Parliament on that, but it does not have a veto. We should change those rules so that if there is an exceptionally large payment or adjustment in future, as there was this time, member states cannot be bounced with a bill like this. There was strong support around the table for that change.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
On the UK rebate, will the Chancellor give us the name of just one European Finance Minister who changed their mind after listening to him?
Mr Osborne
As the hon. Gentleman should know, the rebate involves a discussion between member states and the European Commission, which is why we were discussing with the Commission, in parallel, the size of the British rebate. Frankly, any question from Labour Members about the rebate is a bit rich, given that they gave up half of it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Frank Roy Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the record yield for the last financial year. Indeed, there are reasons to believe that that record may well be broken for this financial year. As for multinationals, I do not want to be drawn on individual companies, but it is right to say that we need to work internationally, as I mentioned earlier, through the OECD base erosion and profit shifting process. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear at the Conservative party conference, we are looking to take further action in respect of multinationals not paying the tax that they should.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
The Chancellor has said that the Swiss tax deal will raise £5 billion by next year. How much has been raised so far?
Mr Gauke
We have already got in about £800 million, and we will get more, but that is money that we would not otherwise have received. That is a deal worth doing. It is worth pointing out that some people said that if we had not had this deal with the Swiss—which has brought in additional revenue—we would not have been able to make progress on automatic exchange of information, whereas the reality is that just last week the Chancellor signed a deal on behalf of this country that made progress on that.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Frank Roy Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Anderson
Ever since this Government took office there has been an attack on public sector pensions. Throughout the debates on public sector pensions, they have ignored the advice of the members of the schemes, the trade unions and the organisations that represent the members. They have torn up long-held agreements, reduced payouts, increased the length of time that people have to pay in and increased the level of contributions.
Many of the Government’s arguments have been based on the work of John Hutton. They have said to Labour Members: “Not us, guv! Your man gave us the template and we’re following his work.” Why on earth are they ignoring John Hutton now? Is it because they have an in-built anti-public sector dogma? Do they want to pull down public sector workers whenever they have the chance to get away with it? Is it because—I think this is the main reason, because the Treasury’s fingerprints are all over this—they are driven by the dogma of a failed Chancellor, who wants to save money in any way that he can because his plan A has failed miserably and the economy of this country has not just stagnated, but has stalled and gone backwards?
John Hutton has said clearly that he made a mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) quoted him. He said that he had missed this point, that he had made an error, and that if he had known about it, he would have addressed it at the time. At the end of his speech, John Hutton said:
“It is incumbent on us to address that issue and not to use the technical arguments as an excuse for not addressing this fundamental discrepancy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]
A discrepancy is what this is. It is not a huge issue of principle. It is something that was missed by the people who were advising John Hutton, including the trade unions. It was also missed six or seven years ago when we changed the rules. Back Benchers like me should have raised it with our Government. Opposition Members at that time, including Liberal Democrat Members, should have raised it. However, we did not raise it, the trade unions did not raise it and the civil servants who were giving the advice at the time did not raise it, and it went through.
It could be put right now. As John Hutton said, it is a fundamental error. If it is not put right now, is it just because the Government are being contradictory, given that they have argued at every other time that we should follow John Hutton’s template, or because they are being cynically hypocritical? We could put it right, and we could do it now.
It is nonsense to say that the workers in question are somehow civil servants first and police officers or firefighters second. When they run into a building, they do not think, “I’m a civil servant”, they think, “I’m the man who’s going in to sort out a terrorist or to try to rescue somebody from a fire.” I said before that there is no difference between them and a police officer or firefighter working for a local authority, but at times there is, because sometimes they run into buildings where there are things like nuclear weapons, explosives or somebody waiting for them with a shotgun, a machine gun, a hand grenade or other explosive device. The physical and mental intensity and the pressure on them is huge, and that should be represented in the Bill.
The argument that people in different pension schemes cannot be on different terms and conditions is nonsense. For years in the national health service, we allowed mental health nurses to retire at 55, or if they chose to carry on working, their pension was guaranteed at that age, because of the nature of their work. It was about the intensity of going to work every day and grappling with some of the most disturbed people in society. That was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do today.
We all saw what happened 30 years ago, when Margaret Thatcher’s Government reduced the retirement age for coal miners first to 62 and then to 60. They did so for the right reason—they realised that people in that industry were a special case and deserved to be seen in that way. At the time of the reduction, in 1980, the life expectancy of a miner was 65 years and two days, so they got their pension for two days. Because of the change in the law, they got the chance to get their pension for up to five years longer, and that was the right thing to do. It is clear to me that the change in the Bill is nothing other than an attempt to escape from the need to pay people what they are entitled to.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Is there not a danger of there being a poorer level of service if emergency workers are older?
Mr Anderson
I agree entirely, as somebody who is facing his 60th birthday—it comes up like an express train. I was a care worker, and I would hate to think that I would still be caring for people at my age, and in the physical shape that I am in at the moment. I would guess that the people I would be caring for might share that view.
The Minister says that there will be negotiations and discussions, but if there is to be a serious discussion, a job evaluation scheme needs to be put in place to see who a worker should be compared with. So far, the people in question are being compared with other civil servants. Should somebody carrying backpacks and armour be compared with somebody working in an office? Of course not. They should be compared with people who are out there doing a similar job for a different organisation. That would lead to exactly the conclusion that John Hutton has now come to. That is why we should support the Lords amendments and the Minister should have the good grace to accept them. They would get him off the hook.
IMF
Frank Roy Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I would say, first, that the reason why these countries have the problems that they do is often because of their domestic difficulties. Portugal has been fundamentally uncompetitive for a decade. Ireland had a massive banking system that collapsed. Italy and Spain have not done enough to keep up with the competitiveness of Germany. They are addressing domestic problems. That is made more difficult because they cannot devalue their currency, but that is not the origin of their problems.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
What happened to the reforms that were supposed to be linked to any extra funding for the IMF?
Mr Osborne
In 2010, there was an agreement to change the quota of the IMF to give the new emerging economies of the world, such as China, India and the like, a greater say at the IMF. The quota was reallocated to reflect the new economic weights in the world. That deal has not yet been ratified, but we as a country have ratified that deal. We are one of the countries that have ratified it. There remain some countries that have not. Our loan is available only when the quota deal has been ratified by the required majority of those countries.
Scotland Bill
Frank Roy Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann McKechin
As I have made clear, on Second Reading and throughout this debate, Labour fully supports the principles behind the Bill and the additional fiscal powers given to the Scottish Parliament. Before the election, the Labour Government supported the Calman commission, as we made clear in a White Paper published in the summer of 2009. I think that all these issues can be dealt with, but, as I am sure accountants and lawyers will confirm, the devil is in the detail at times. It is important for the House of Commons and, no doubt, the House of Lords to give the Bill proper scrutiny, because ultimately individual taxpayers, businesses and employers will have to live with the consequences of its implementation.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Is it not worth reminding the Committee that, no matter what was said in 1997, the Opposition voted against it?
Ann McKechin
Indeed, and the fact that we now have converts to the cause shows what a difference the passage of time makes. As I said earlier, I am pleased that even the SNP has agreed to the LCM motion.
Our present approach is consistent with the approach that the Labour party has always taken to constitutional reform, which is to seek political consensus before introducing legislation in the House of Commons. The reason we have such a degree of consensus this evening is that we have spent a good deal of time examining details of the legislation. I congratulate the Holyrood Committee, which has done an excellent and thorough job in examining many of the issues in great detail. We all benefit from its work and from last week’s debate in the Scottish Parliament, which showed that the Scottish Parliament and its Committees are more than capable of doing a thorough job in scrutinising legislation.
I should be interested to know whether the Government agree that the retrospective application of an order could adversely affect the budget of the Scottish Parliament. For example, if the Budget is set in March and the Treasury lays an order in October to apply a relief clause retrospectively, that could have grave implications for the Scottish Government’s budget. That is another reason why I seek some reassurance about the Government’s intentions for the use of this clause.
How do the Government propose to deal with avoidance of the Scottish tax rate? Unlike other jurisdictions that have devolved taxes, and where there are different forms of collection and reporting, many people self-assess or are in pay-as-you-earn schemes, and they are not currently specifically called on to declare their residence to the tax authorities in the way required by the Bill. The Bill’s provisions only apply to income; they do not apply to dividends or to interest on savings, and we would want appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that people do not end up transferring income into another route, to try to avoid the income tax provisions made by the Scottish Parliament.
What provisions have the Government put in place for the self-employed? Will, as anticipated, the self-assessment tax return have to be altered, with additional questions on residency for example, particularly for those who work in a different part of the UK? I realise there are specific measures dealing with Members of Parliament and we are automatically included, but it has been pointed out that Scottish judges serving at the Supreme Court are not covered by the Bill’s provisions. Similarly, other senior Government officials travel from different parts of the country for their work. It is important that they are aware of what may be expected of them in terms of self-assessment claims.
Stewart Hosie
I think it was Wendy Alexander who said, “Bring it on,” but Labour then ran away. Let us deal with the provisions of the Bill, because we need to get them right. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, whom I like and respect, that we will have plenty of time in the next 52 days leading up to the Scottish elections to have this discussion, but we should not take up the Committee’s time tonight.
The Scottish Government, and the SNP here at Westminster, do not consider an arbitrary statutory limit on borrowing set by Westminster and lacking any objective justification to be an acceptable basis for an agreement between the Governments. In particular, an arbitrary limit this low will do little to promote long-term capital investment or responsible capital budgeting. A regime along the lines of the prudential borrowing regime that applies to local authorities, in which decisions are based on affordability, would be far more appropriate. Such an approach could be operated within the guidelines suggested in our amendment. Such guidelines would be agreed between the Scottish and UK Governments, including any terms, conditions and limits set out in the code in relation to capital borrowing between the Treasury and the Scottish Government.