Centenary of the Battle of the Somme
Ian Murray Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
I am absolutely delighted to be able to respond to this important debate this evening. I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this important debate on the centenary of the Battle of the Somme. I would also like thank him personally for all the work he has done and continues to do for the first world war commemorations. His speech was measured, effective and very moving. I would also like to commend the very powerful speech by the co-sponsor of the debate, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I welcome the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) to the Opposition Front Bench and congratulate him on his first performance on behalf of the official Opposition. I found his speech about his family history and his contribution not only very effective and interesting but very moving.
We have heard really powerful and informative contributions from across the House. We have had an impressive debate of commemoration and remembrance to do justice to those who served 100 years ago at the Battle of the Somme. Our commemorative programme is built around the themes of remembrance, youth and education. We do not dictate how people should interpret the war’s origins, the conduct or the consequences, but rather we want to encourage people to discover and debate this most crucial of periods in their own way.
As many speakers have alluded to, there are lots of events planned to commemorate the Somme. Tomorrow evening, on the eve of the battle, there will be a service at Westminster Abbey attended by Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. This will be followed by an all-night vigil around the Grave of the Unknown Warrior to which all are welcome. The vigil ends in the morning of 1 July. At 7.25 am in Parliament Square, three guns from King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery will fire in Parliament Square for 100 seconds. This will be followed by a two-minute silence. Then, at 7.30 am, one long whistle blow will mark the moment the men went over the top 100 years ago.
There will, as we have heard, be a military vigil at the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing in France, attended by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Henry of Wales. The memorial has been restored and a lighting scheme installed, all made possible by a £1.6 million LIBOR grant from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall be privileged to be at both the Abbey and Thiepval to remember and commemorate the battle and all those who served. Overnight vigils will also be held at the Scottish National War Memorial in Edinburgh castle, the Welsh National War Memorial in Cardiff and the Somme Museum at Clandeboye, County Down. The whole nation will come together to commemorate the events of 100 years ago.
At 11 am UK time on 1 July, a national commemorative service will be held at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s Thiepval memorial in France. The service will reflect the story of the whole battle, capturing the scale and reach of the conflict, and the impact it had on all the lives of all communities in the UK and France. I would particularly like to acknowledge the support of the French authorities, with whom we have worked very closely in planning these events. The occasion will be attended by about 10,000 guests, including members of the royal family, Heads of State, senior politicians and representatives from all the nations involved, and about 8,000 members of the public.
At this point I would like to acknowledge the fantastic work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, one of our key partners in our commemorative programme. The CWGC does excellent work in ensuring that the 1.7 million people who died in the two world wars will never be forgotten. It cares for the cemeteries and the memorials at 23,000 locations in 154 countries across the globe. All are perfectly maintained. I pay tribute to all the people involved in the CWGC, including the administrators, the gardeners and those responsible for the gravestones. They do a fantastic job.
I recently visited the Thiepval memorial and many of the other cemeteries in France. I can advise hon. Members that they are fantastically well maintained. I had the privilege of climbing to the top of the memorial and looked out across the surrounding landscape. One thing I observed was how quiet it was and how different and terrible it must have been 100 years ago.
On the afternoon of 1 July, our focus moves to Manchester. A significant number of Pals battalions, which we have heard a lot about from Members on both sides of the House this evening, were raised in Manchester and the north of the country, and the industrial north made a huge contribution to our war effort. His Royal Highness the Duke of York, representing Her Majesty the Queen, will take part in a wreath-laying service at the city’s cenotaph, which will be followed by a national commemorative service at Manchester cathedral.
After the cathedral service, a remembrance walk will take place, involving a first world war wagon collecting all the memory pieces that have been made as part of the “Path of the Remembered” project, ending at Heaton Park. In the evening, a cultural concert will be held, featuring a national children’s choir, film, dance, and the Hallé orchestra—19,240 tickets were made available, one for each soldier of the British Army who died on the opening day of battle, and I am delighted that every one of them has been taken up.
Heaton Park, which was used as a military camp in the first world war, will host over two days “Experience Field”—there will be talks, exhibitions, performances and activities from leading experts on the first world war. I am particularly delighted that more than 1,400 pupils from 37 schools will visit on 1 July. It will be open to the public on 2 July. I put on record my sincere thanks to Manchester City Council, Manchester cathedral and all partners involved in organising those important events.
As we have heard, the Battle of the Somme lasted 141 days, and to ensure our focus is not just on the opening day of battle, the Royal British Legion and the CWGC will host a daily public service of remembrance at the Thiepval memorial through to 18 November. CWGC is facilitating a range of events at cemeteries across the region throughout the period. Regimental associations, communities and descendants can therefore participate on a day that is particularly significant to them.
We want to ensure that there are opportunities for everyone to learn about the Somme and commemorate the courage and sacrifice of all those who gave their lives during the first world war, which has been discussed by the many hon. Members who have participated in the debate this evening. Many people were affected, and we remember the impact it had on those families who were never to see their loved ones again. We also remember the huge effort that took place on the home front, and all the factory and munitions workers, particularly the women, who did so much at home and who played such an important role in the first world war.
As well as the national commemorative events, Government partners will be involved in other Somme-related activities. We are funding a series of 12 regional debates for schools in 2016-17, which will enable year 12 and 13 students to debate the causes, the conduct and the consequences of the war. The first of those was held last night at Manchester cathedral.
The 14-18 NOW arts programme is connecting people with the first world war. It has so far reached 20 million people through events such as “Lights Out”, the “Dazzle Ships” and the UK-wide tour of the poppies. There are a number of events this year, including the Welsh National Opera’s “In Parenthesis”; and “Memorial Ground”, a major participative project featuring choirs and singing groups across the UK. The poppies continue their tour. The “Weeping Window” can be seen at the Black Watch Museum in Perth, and “The Wave” can be seen at Lincoln castle.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I apologise to the House for not being present earlier, but I had other commitments. Will the Minister join me in congratulating McCrae’s Battalion Trust, which built a cairn in the French village of Contalmaison in 2003 to commemorate the deaths of the Edinburgh men and women killed on 1 July 1916, and whose members are going on their annual pilgrimage this week? We owe a great deal of respect to the people who continue to make these pilgrimages to the Somme to remember those who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice.
Mr Evennett
I am pleased to join the hon. Gentleman in commemorating those events and in congratulating those involved. I am grateful to him for bringing that to the attention of the House.
The Imperial War Museum will also open late on 30 June, with film screenings, live music, immersive theatre and poetry, while the film “The Battle of the Somme” is available to Centenary Partnership members to show in public venues—there will be more than 100 screenings.
So far, I have focused on what the Government will deliver or help to facilitate, but what is really heartening is the response to our call to the nation in April. Many hundreds of remembrance activities will be taking place in local communities up and down the country, and many of them have been registered on our map on the centenary pages of gov.uk. I would like to mention a few: a vigil at Clifton cathedral in Bristol; a parade through Wick in Scotland; an event at the war memorial at Barnsley town hall; a whistle ceremony at Fivemiletown in Northern Ireland; and a special concert at St Collen’s church in Llangollen, Wales—all local communities commemorating the 100th anniversary of the start of the Battle of Somme. Communities are coming together everywhere to remember. I particularly thank the Royal British Legion for all its work in helping local communities with these remembrance activities.
There are also many Heritage Lottery Fund projects taking place up and down the country. Local communities are exploring their first world war heritage. The CWGC has recently launched its “Living Memory” project, calling on communities to rediscover war graves in their local cemeteries and to remember the lives of those who lie within them. The project encourages people young and old to discover and learn about war graves and their heritage, and anyone can get involved. I strongly recommend that people visit the CWGC website and encourage local communities to do the same and to get involved in this project marking the 141 days of the Somme.
We all have a history of family members involved in the first world war. One of my grandfathers, Thomas Evennett, fought not at the Somme but in France in the Army. My other grandfather was in the Royal Navy and was at Jutland—we recently commemorated that battle in a moving ceremony up in the Orkneys. We all should learn more about the history of our communities and families and make sure they are remembered not just by us but by our whole communities. This debate has been an opportunity for people across the House to pay moving tributes to families, communities and constituencies across our United Kingdom.
Individuals and communities across our country have an opportunity to come together on 1 July and throughout the 141 days—yes, 141 days—and to learn about the Somme and all those affected by it, on the battlefield and, subsequently, at home. One hundred years ago, the bloodiest battle in our history was about to begin. It is right that the House remembers all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. We will remember them.
draft Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions) order 2016
Ian Murray Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I wonder who you have upset on the Speaker’s Panel to get such orders. I am disappointed not to see my favourite Minister, the Deputy Leader of the House, but she informed me earlier that she had missed two trains. She did not quite say that that was the result of the dreadful privatisation of the railways, but she said that she had missed two on the trot and that it was unfortunate that she could not be here. The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire did a fine job in her place. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] He has just got Back-Bench approval for his promotion on the Front Bench.
The Opposition supported the aims and objectives of the 2014 Act when it went through Parliament and we support the draft order today. However, it is worth noting that my colleagues emphasised on a number of occasions when the Act was going through Parliament that appropriate resources should be given to local authorities both in Scotland and in England and Wales to ensure that such provisions are enforced robustly, so that the system is robust and can be relied on by the disabled people who use blue badges.
That notwithstanding, the draft order will make the necessary amendments to the existing legislation to ensure that blue badges issued in Scotland are treated in a valid and consistent fashion across every nation in Great Britain. This applies both to the form badges must take to be recognised as valid, and to the circumstances under which such a badge can be rescinded, so that if a badge is cancelled by a Scottish local authority that takes effect in England and Wales, too.
We are committed to ensuring that our towns and cities are more accessible for disabled people. I was delighted that the Government accepted our amendments, in both this place and the House of Lords, for pavement parking to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I thank Living Streets for the campaign that it ran. I also thank my former colleague, Mark Lazarowicz, the former Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who campaigned on the issue when he was in this House in the previous Parliament.
There is little else to say on the draft order, apart from 37 technical questions that I hope the Minister is able to answer in depth, otherwise we may not be able to pass it. Seriously, I want to ask just one question, on paragraph 8.6 in the explanatory notes, about public awareness. Will the Minister tell us whether the UK Government intend to carry out some multi-agency work, which is referred to in the explanatory notes, and what that would consist of, just to ensure that people are aware of the changes and so that disabled people can feel confident that the system will be robust, whether they are driving through Swansea or Southampton or, indeed, Glasgow?
European Union Referendum Bill
Ian Murray Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Main
I will finish this point and then give way. On the other hand, I sometimes think that they take up a huge proportion of time in debates that concern the whole House, so I will not keep giving way every time I say the word “Scotland” to somebody who jumps up and down about the matter, if they will forgive me.
Ian Murray
I want to make two points. First, it is a point of principle that 16 and 17-year-olds should get the vote. Secondly, when the hon. Lady refers to Scottish Members, I think she means SNP Members.
Mrs Main
I am more than happy to say that I meant SNP Members. It seems that whenever the word “Scotland” is mentioned in this place, an SNP Member feels that he or she must stand up and speak on behalf of the whole of Scotland. The Holyrood Parliament has introduced things in Scotland that I would not support in this House. I do not want to jump up and down and argue that everything should be transported across the border. The SNP’s argument that this House should automatically follow its lead in the Scottish referendum is bogus.
Scotland Bill
Ian Murray Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is not one of the unintended consequences of the devolution of income tax to the Scottish Parliament that it will affect UK-wide facilities such as gift aid, which reimburses charities on the basis of the basic rate of income tax that is set at a UK level? If there were two different basic rates, might that not cause complexity for donors in tracking what they pay to HMRC and to Revenue Scotland? Does my hon. Friend think that that issue should be considered by the review that would be conducted under new clause 32?
Ian Murray
I am delighted by that intervention, because I was going to speak about that issue later. Given the time constraints, I will take that point out of my speech, because my hon. Friend has made it well. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has raised the relationship between income tax and gift aid. Although that matter is not mentioned in new clause 32, I hope that if there is a reporting mechanism, it will look not only at gift aid, but at pension relief. That is another matter that was not mentioned by the Smith agreement, but which has been raised by many of the organisations that have been in touch with us about the Bill. Gift aid is worth £1 billion a year to charities, so we must ensure that it is considered properly.
Stewart Hosie
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the principle of pooling and sharing, and I have heard that argument before. However, if it were a real principle, it would apply to the aggregates levy, landfill tax, air passenger duty and other small taxes that have been devolved. There is no principled reason why it is required to be applied to income tax. He rather gave the game away when he spoke about the ability to vary the rate by 3p either way, which was the original plan, and the ability to set the first 10p of income tax. Why does he think that so little is enough for a nation like Scotland? Why is he so afraid of giving our national Parliament all the powers it needs to tax income properly?
Ian Murray
What the hon. Gentleman is asking for is full fiscal autonomy. There are many amendments that will allow us to have a full debate about that later this evening, but I fundamentally disagree with that principle because the pooling and sharing of resources is important. The difference between income tax and the aggregates levy, landfill tax and all the other taxes he mentioned is that they are removable taxes, whereas income tax is not. We should be pooling and sharing resources, and we should therefore ensure that the significant sum of £11 billion is part of the overall matrix of the United Kingdom.
As I said at the start of my speech, I do not disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but we disagree on the fundamental principle of pooling and sharing. His speech was completely reasonable in terms of what he is seeking to achieve, but Labour Members simply disagree with the broad principle of not pooling and sharing. There is no right or wrong on these issues in terms of what should be devolved; the issue is whether one believes in these broad principles or not.
I find it difficult in these debates to have 56 SNP MPs braying at me from behind, when I am actually agreeing with them. I have no idea what they will be like when I disagree with them. I am paying a compliment to the hon. Member for Dundee East, which I do not do often, and he is still unhappy with my contribution. Never mind; given that they have signed most of our amendments to the welfare clauses, perhaps we will be much more collegiate tomorrow.
I was explaining new clause 32. The Scottish Affairs Committee report on the fundamental principles of the Smith agreement, which was published in March, said:
“The Smith Agreement represents the best of both worlds. It presents Scotland with much greater powers over taxation, meaning for the first time the majority of the money the Scottish Government spends will be paid for by its own taxation. This will make it more fiscally accountable to the people of Scotland for how it spends their taxes.”
I am confident that the income tax provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between reserved and devolved taxation, although I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough that some movement might be required in the future.
I believe that these clauses are in the spirit and the letter of the Smith agreement and the vow. The vow is quite concise on these issues. It says very little or nothing at all about taxation. One thing that it does say, which goes back to the pooling and sharing of resources, is that the Barnett formula should be maintained. The Bill and the Smith agreement are utterly in accord with that stand.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Last week, I supported the SNP on full fiscal autonomy and scrapping the Barnett formula, although I know the hon. Gentleman did not. The SNP Members all trooped through the Lobby to vote for that, so does he share my surprise that they have come back today with amendments that do not include it?
Ian Murray
Nothing ever surprises me, although I was a little surprised last week that the 56 SNP MPs went through the Lobby with the Thatcherite arm of the Conservative party. That was because full fiscal autonomy would deliver something that would be fundamentally damaging to Scotland. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. [Interruption.] I thank her for waking up all the SNP MPs with her intervention.
The Smith agreement said:
“Income Tax will remain a shared tax and both the UK and Scottish Parliaments will share control of Income Tax. MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax…Within this framework, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to set the rates of Income Tax and the thresholds at which these are paid for the non-savings and non-dividend income of Scottish taxpayers”.
That is exactly what the Bill does, and it is important to highlight two aspects of that quotation.
First, maintaining income tax as a UK-wide tax is critical to the continued pooling and sharing of resources. That facilitates UK-wide redistribution on the basis of need, which underlines the welfare state and the state pension system. The Church of Scotland expressed the same view when it argued for
“a degree of solidarity across the United Kingdom, where prosperity is shared and those with broadest shoulders can carry the extra weight of supporting those less fortunate.”
Secondly, the Smith agreement explicitly mentions the continuing right of Scottish MPs to vote on the Budget within the framework that it sets out. That is equally important, particularly given the Government’s proposals on English votes for English laws. Devolving income tax in its entirety, which the hon. Members for Dundee East and for Gainsborough are advocating, would place that right in doubt and create two classes of MP in this place. That risk was the subject of considerable debate in the Smith commission. As long as one believes in the pooling and sharing of resources, which we certainly do, Smith’s recommendation to retain income tax as a shared tax is critical. That is why we reject amendment 124 and new clause 54, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East.
New clause 32 concentrates on the implementation of the powers being transferred and, as I have said a number of times in this Committee, the use of those powers. What we are trying to achieve chimes with much of what the hon. Member for Dundee East said, when he laid out the concerns about how the proposals would be monitored, how the number of income tax payers would be determined, the “no detriment” policies across the United Kingdom and the complicated nature of the fiscal framework.
The report under new clause 32 would include
“a review of the revised fiscal framework”,
given its complicated nature. It would also include
“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”
so that businesses are able to plan. It would include details of the number of staff that both Governments would assign to the implementation of the new Scottish rate of income tax to ensure that adequate resources were deployed to make it happen. It would be useful if the Secretary of State responded to the particular concern that the staffing level to determine the Scottish rate of income tax might be deficient.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I am just trying to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As I understand it, this is an opportunity to discuss whether the Scottish Parliament should have enhanced powers over income tax. His position seems to be that, rather than take that step, we should have a review of the situation. I can understand the logic of having a review of the powers, but why does he think that the review would be better in the hands of the Tory Chancellor, rather than the representatives of the people of Scotland in the Scottish Parliament? Surely the time has come to allow the Scottish people to determine these matters for themselves, rather than a Tory Government who have only one single representative in Scotland.
Ian Murray
I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. We fundamentally agree with the clauses relating to the devolution of income tax, but these are hugely complex matters, as is demonstrated by the complicated nature of the devolution of the 10p income tax provision in the Scotland Act 2012. The new clause would not prevent the Bill from proceeding; it would merely allow the Secretary of State to bring to the House a report on the progress of implementation.
There is another difficulty. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—the Scottish Parliament could produce a report and submit it—but I cannot, in the House of Commons, command a different Parliament to do something, which is why I am asking the Secretary of State to produce the report.
It is right for these issues to be raised. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will also examine them in great detail, and will present a full report to both Houses. Our aim is to protect Scottish taxpayers rather than to create a political divide. It is disappointing that, although we agree on the broad principles of the devolution of income tax, Members are trying to bring about division between us. We are trying to be a responsible Opposition in calling for a report on the implementation of income tax rates.
New clause 32 calls for
“a report on the identification of Scottish taxpayers”.
The aim is to ensure that individuals are either Scottish or UK taxpayers but not both, to prevent the double taxation that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee East, and to deal with cross-border mid-financial year movements, which is important in the context of where people may live or work.
The review must include the rates and bands at which the Scottish income tax will be set, and a projection of the impact of the tax on revenues generated in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. That is primarily designed to ensure that Scotland does not become worse off over time owing to the relative tax bases and demographic or behavioural changes in the United Kingdom overall. Such a review would allow us to assess the transitional process, and to ensure that the projected rates and bands accorded with the principle of no detriment for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That would protect Scottish taxpayers, as well as taxpayers in the rest of the UK.
Critically—the Smith agreement restates this—any updated fiscal framework should secure the Barnett formula, with the Scottish budget bearing the full costs of policy decisions that reduce or increase revenues or expenditure. That is crucial to the fiscal framework.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned gift aid, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to what he said.
I think it important for the people of Scotland to know what their Government are doing about these substantial income tax powers, whatever the colour of that Government. Those powers are worth £11 billion, and they are fundamental to the working lives of people in Scotland. As I have said all along, this is about transparency: transparency in regard to whether additional powers should be devolved, and transparency in regard to the use and impact of those that are devolved. That is what our new clauses 1, 21 and 32 seek to foster.
All I ask is that the United Kingdom Government, and, indeed, the Scottish Government, approach the Bill in the same spirit of transparency and openness as us, and agree to new clause 32. We shall be pressing it to a vote later this evening.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As others have said, the genesis of the clause lies in the report of the Smith commission. I have supported the commission since the day, indeed the hour, when it reported, but we cannot ignore the fact that the process was undertaken at great speed. Necessarily, given that five parties were engaged in the process, it involved a degree of compromise all round. It is for that reason that all of us undertook to ensure that there would be consultation following the publication of the report and, subsequently, the draft clauses.
In a debate in which consensus is not always easy to come by, I am pleased to note that there is consensus on the fact that the clause is a faithful replication of the agreement that was reached under the chairmanship of Lord Smith. However, the consultation that has been conducted since the publication of the draft clauses at the end of January has highlighted, and generated, a substantial number of important matters, some of which are technical and some of which go to the heart of the issue of taxation itself.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that further consideration may be necessary. He has the ability, through the good office that he holds, to bring all the parties together again to consider the representations that have been made during the consultation, and to consider whether, given the complexities and possible areas of conflict that could arise, it is actually worth implementing the tax power in the way that is currently envisaged. If the consultation is to be carried out in good faith—and, for my part, it always has been—there are sufficient matters about which we should be talking. That would still allow us—if it were necessary, and if it were possible to construct a consensus—to return to the issues on Report.
Nigel Mills
I rise as a reluctant supporter of the devolution of income tax to the different countries of the Union. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that people throughout the United Kingdom should feel that they are paying the most important tax—the tax that puts the largest amount of money into the UK pot—and seeing it redistributed. We are where we are, however, and we are talking about devolving income tax to Scotland.
I fear that we have one foot in each camp, with part of the tax in this Parliament and part of it in the Scottish Parliament, and that we will end up in a real mess. I am not sure how it is possible to make a tax work when a Parliament can set the rate, the bands and the starting point, but not the actual rules. A particular policy issue in Scotland may mean that the Scottish Parliament rightly wants to incentivise certain employment and income activities. That may not be not a priority for the United Kingdom as a whole, perhaps for reasons of scale or owing to a different approach, but there will be no mechanism enabling income tax in Scotland to promote that certain activity. A new tax relief for people working in the offshore oil and gas industry, for instance, might not be a priority for the UK as a whole, but it might be a priority in Scotland.
The record of our income tax code is cluttered with examples of the use of the tax code to promote certain types of behaviour. I am not sure that we can secure the full and effective use of a tax code if our Parliament is not setting the rate and looking after local activities.
The flipside will be that tax avoidance as a result of a loophole may become material for the Scottish Parliament in the case of a certain piece of exploitation, but will not become material to the budget of the whole UK. It may be extremely important in Scotland to get that loophole closed, but in the UK there may be several others that are ahead of it in the queue, because it does not represent a large loss to the Westminster Parliament. An action that ought to be taken on something that has a material impact in one part of the UK will not be taken because of the strange disparity that exists.
If we are going to start devolving taxes, we should step back and have a look at what a federal UK tax system would be like. We should work out which taxes are federal and which are devolved, and then try to bring about some consistency in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that similar taxes can be devolved in the same way, rather than adopting a piecemeal approach in regard to corporation tax in Northern Ireland, income tax in Scotland, and so forth. I do not think that anyone in the country will know to which Parliament they are paying what tax, and who has complete control of it. That means that we will not get all the advantages that we expect, such as the ownership and the accountability that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned.
I do not think that we are achieving the sharing and the pooling that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South wanted, the coherent use of income tax that the SNP wants, or the full devolution that would make sense. We appear to have become involved in a strange halfway fudge which we may regret in a few years’ time. I think it would be better to step back and try to get this right from the start, rather than trying to find a way of clearing up the mess.
I accept that there are always good reasons why the line is drawn where it is. We must be very careful about tax avoidance through the use of residency, or pretend residency. If I am working full-time in Scotland, to get the Scottish rate—which may be higher or lower than the rate in the rest of the UK—I shall probably have to go and live in Scotland. I suspect that I cannot achieve that artificially. If I have large dividend flows, I can probably pretend that I am in Edinburgh when I am in London and vice versa in order to obtain the tax advantage. I can see why there is an attraction in having one UK-wide passive income tax, rather than an active tax.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is raising the issue of what are known in my constituency as “willies”—people who work in London, live in Edinburgh. Those are people who take the trip down to London every Monday and go back on a Thursday evening. According to the House of Commons Library, the UK’s reason for not devolving dividend income is to prevent people from pushing money into dividend income and taking advantage of a differential rate.
Nigel Mills
Yes, as I was saying, I accept there are always reasons for drawing the line where we do, and trying to stop tax avoidance within a territory is a powerful reason. However, that has left us here with a convoluted tax system where we seem to be devolving part of it, and that is not a sensible approach. It would be better to have a federal income tax which everyone in the UK paid at a lower rate than they pay now and which covered all passive income, and then have a devolved income tax like the one in the United States. It has a state income tax that can be credited against the federal one. That may be a better, more sustainable system than the one we have.
Mr Gauke
A request was made of the UK Government and we provided information on what the position was. As I was saying a moment ago, there are many calls for an expansion of section 33 and the refund scheme. The cost of the scheme being widely expanded could be substantial. At a time when there are considerable constraints on the public finances, we have to be careful about responding to every request and claim, however reasonable it might be.
Ian Murray
I understand what the Treasury Minister says about the number of requests received for exemptions from section 33, but this is not a new exemption. There is a net gain of many millions of pounds a year to the Treasury from this change. Therefore the net effect of changing it back would be zero. We are not asking for exemption from section 33 to be opened up to charities. That is a separate debate. This is a case where the Treasury is a net beneficiary. How does Scotland get that money back?
Rob Marris
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the whole history of airline travel hitherto has been that it increases exponentially. It has done so, and if allowed to do so, will continue.
So I do not share this cosy consensus. I am not part of the airline and airport love-ins. As Members will know, airlines and their passengers already get a huge subsidy because of the low price they pay for airline fuel—kerosene. Members ought to bear this in mind when debating APD: no doubt the figures are lower in Scotland, but across the UK in any given year half the population do not fly. I believe that hon. Members have a completely distorted view of this matter. I suspect that I am one of the very few Members of this House who does not fly; I have not flown for years. I suspect that every other Member has a distorted view, based on self-interest. [Interruption.] It is not me who is causing a huge amount of environmental degradation through flying. The greenhouse gases emitted by aeroplanes at high altitude are far more damaging than the same amount of greenhouse gases emitted at sea level. Air travel is the most polluting form of mass travel.
In that context, I regret that the Government are devolving air passenger duty. Yes, I would increase it. The UK Government will live to regret this measure, because we are clearly heading towards the abolition of air passenger duty in Scotland and, eventually, through a process of “beggar my neighbour” downwards, across the rest of the United Kingdom. That will be another nail in the coffin of the doomed and uneconomic HS2 railway line. People will continue to fly south from Scotland and the north of England, and vice versa, rather than using the HS2 line. It is already uneconomic and, with the abolition of air passenger duty, it will become even more so.
Ian Murray
I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but let me just pose a few questions on what has been said about air passenger duty and the aggregates levy. I shall start with air passenger duty. Prior to the election, Opposition Members wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what impact a rate of air passenger duty that was higher in Scotland than in England would have on regional English airports and Scottish airports. Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s movements have been on that impact assessment?
Hon. Members were berating my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) a moment ago, but he has raised an incredibly important environmental issue. The issue has been raised directly by the Committee on Climate Change, which reported recently that Scotland had missed its climate change target by 4.5%, the third time in a row that it had missed an annual target. The report also asked the Scottish Government to assess the impact of carbon on the economy in relation to the slashing of air passenger duty. I cannot ask the Scottish Government this question directly from the Dispatch Box, but can the Minister tell me whether an environmental assessment has been carried out on the raising or lowering of the duty?
On the aggregates levy, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on resolving the legal issues relating to state aid and when we can expect the levy to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament?
Mr Gauke
We have had a reasonably lengthy debate in which Members have not, for the most part, tended to differ on the substance of the clause on air passenger duty, although the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) is never afraid of setting out a contrary opinion. In fact, some Opposition Back Benchers argued for the abolition of APD, which would cost about £3.2 billion, while others argued for increasing it. If there is a need for fresh thinking among Labour Members, we are hearing plenty of it this evening, even if there has not been much in the way of coherence.
Mr Gauke
I should put it as neutrally as I possibly can. We do not believe that the behavioural effects are as great as those set out in the PwC report, which is why we believe APD does raise revenue. There is a consensus—not a universal consensus—that it is right that we move on APD. On the point about regional airports, we will come back to that later in the summer.
May I also pick up the point on the aggregates levy? The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) asked about the likely progress on legal matters. The European Commission was forced to reconsider its 2002 decision that the exemptions from the levy did not provide state aid following legal action by the British Aggregates Association. It announced its decision in March, finding that the levy as a whole was lawful, as were most of the exemptions. The Government are currently informally consulting trade associations on draft legislation to reinstate those exemptions—for example on slate and clay—found lawful by the Commission in March 2015.
With those points of clarification, I hope that the clauses before us can stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Independent Commission on Full Fiscal Autonomy
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a commission of between four and eleven members to conduct an analysis of the impact of full fiscal autonomy on the Scottish economy, labour market and public finances and to report by 31 March 2016.
(2) No Member of the House of Commons or of the Scottish Parliament may be a member of the commission.
(3) No employee of the Scottish Government or of any government Department or agency anywhere in the United Kingdom may be a member of the commission.
(4) The Secretary of State shall appoint as members of the commission only persons who appear to the Secretary of State to hold a relevant qualification or to have relevant experience.
(5) The Secretary of State shall not appoint as a member of the commission any person who is a member of a political party.
(6) Before appointing any member of the commission, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Chair of any select committee appointed by the House of Commons to consider Scottish affairs, and
(b) the Chair of any select committee appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of Her Majesty’s Treasury and its associated public bodies.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue the commission with terms of reference and guidelines for the commission’s working methods, including an outline definition of the policy of full fiscal autonomy for the commission to analyse.
(8) The Secretary of State must lay copies of the report of the commission before both Houses of Parliament, and must transmit a copy of the report of the commission to the presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament.
(9) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.” —(Ian Murray.)
This New Clause requires the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish an independent commission of external experts, appointed in consultation with the Treasury Select Committee and Scottish Affairs Select Committee, to publish a report by 31 March 2016 setting out an analysis of the impact of the policy of Full Fiscal Autonomy on the Scottish economy, labour market and public finances.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 21—The Scottish Office for Budget Responsibility—
‘(1) Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (specific reservations) is amended as follows.
(2) In Section A1 (fiscal, economic and monetary policy)—
(a) For the heading “Exception” substitute “Exceptions”—
(b) After that heading, insert—
“The creation of a body corporate, called The Scottish Office for Budget Responsibility, for the independent scrutiny of Scotland‘s public finances, including all tax and spending in areas for which the Scottish Government has legislative competence.””
This New Clause would provide for the creation of a Scottish Office for Budget Responsibility to exercise fiscal and budgetary oversight over Scottish Government competencies. The Smith Commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament should seek to expand and strengthen the independent scrutiny of Scotland’s public finances in recognition of the additional variability and uncertainty that further tax and spending devolution will introduce into the budgeting process.
New clause 23—Local Discretionary Taxation—
Individual local authorities in Scotland shall have the discretion to raise additional income by levying a tax, in addition to Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates, on either residents, occupiers, property owners or visitors in the local authority or within a discrete area of the local authority.”
The power will enable local authorities to introduce tax(es) without the need to seek approval from Scottish Government, with the rates and reliefs being determined locally and the local authority being both granted powers to ensure that those on which the tax is levied have a legal obligation to pay and the local authority having the discretion to determine how the additional revenue is expended.
New clause 24—Tax and Economy Forum—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Tax and Economy Forum to conduct an analysis of the impact of the changes in legislative and executive competence resulting from this Act on the economy, labour market and public finances in Scotland and in the other parts of the United Kingdom.
(2) The Tax and Economy Forum may make recommendations for fiscal reforms within Scotland, to be considered by the Secretary of State.”
The new Clause would require the appointment of a Tax and Economy Forum to assess the impacts of fiscal devolution proposed within this Bill on Scotland and on the rest of the United Kingdom.
New clause 25—UK Commission on fiscal powers—
‘(1) Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State shall appoint a commission to examine the deployment of fiscal powers at local, devolved and United Kingdom levels.
(2) The commission shall comprise between 4 and 6 representatives of any of—
(a) the Scottish Parliament,
(b) the National Assembly for Wales,
(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(d) local government,
(e) the House of Commons, and
(f) the House of Lords.
(3) The bodies mentioned in subsection (2) shall select their representatives in any way they see fit and the chief executive or presiding officer of each of those bodies shall inform the Secretary of State of the names of the representatives of those bodies, which may replace their representatives whenever the body concerned has determined to do so.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), the commission may determine its own quorum and methods of working and must publish a protocol setting out its own terms of reference.
(5) The commission shall keep the operation of fiscal powers under review, making reports and recommendations as it deems appropriate.
The purpose of this New Clause is to ensure that there is proper consultation between the different parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that new Scottish fiscal powers are deployed in a way that does not undermine the cohesion of the UK. The proposed Commission could also make recommendation regarding the future of devolved fiscal powers.
New clause 33—Full fiscal autonomy for Scotland—
‘(1) The Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom must enter into an agreement (the “Economic Agreement”)—
(a) setting out a plan for implementation of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and
(b) establishing a framework within which the two Governments are to coordinate their economic and fiscal policies in the context of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland.
(2) Full fiscal autonomy for Scotland means that—
(a) the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government have competence for determining revenues raised in or as regards Scotland through taxation and borrowing,
(b) the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government have competence for determining levels of public expenditure in or as regards Scotland,
in accordance with the amendments made by this Act.
(3) The framework mentioned in subsection (1)(b) must in particular include arrangements for—
(a) facilitating fiscal coordination,
(b) overseeing economic cooperation,
(c) joint responsibilities in areas of mutual interest,
(d) safeguarding fiscal sustainability.
(4) In determining the terms of the Economic Agreement the two governments must seek to ensure—
(a) the maintenance of monetary stability throughout the United Kingdom,
(b) the maintenance and promotion of the single markets in the United Kingdom and the European Union,
(c) that they cooperate in the exercise of their respective functions relating to the administration and collection of taxes,
(d) an equitable and transparent approach to consequences, resources and rewards,
(e) that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government retain the benefits of increased tax revenues delivered by successful policies pursued by them,
(f) that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have the powers necessary to manage the consequences of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland,
(g) that full fiscal autonomy for Scotland is implemented over a period of time, as the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government acquire capacity to carry out their additional competences.
(5) The Economic Agreement is to be entered into as soon as possible and the two governments must cooperate in good faith with a view to achieving that.
(6) As soon as possible after the Economic Agreement is entered into—
(a) the Scottish Ministers must lay a copy of it before the Scottish Parliament, and
(b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) The two governments must from time to time review the Economic Agreement and make such amendments to its terms as they may agree with a view to ensuring that it continues to meet the requirements of this section.
(8) Subsection (6) applies to the Economic Agreement as amended as it applies to the Agreement as entered into.
(9) The Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers, by regulations modify this section.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Scottish and UK governments to reach agreement on the delivery of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland.
Amendment 3, in clause 63, page 67, line 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) Part 2 of the Bill comes into force at the end of 2 months beginning with the publication of the report of the Independent Commission on Full Fiscal Autonomy appointed under section (Independent Commission on Full Fiscal Autonomy).”
This amendment provides that Part 2 (Tax) will not come into force at the end of two months beginning with the day on which the Act is passed, in order to link the commencement of the tax provisions of the Act with the work of the Independent Commission on Full Fiscal Autonomy, appointed under New Clause NC1, which would be required to report by 31 March 2016.
Ian Murray
It is great to see you in the Chair, Ms Engel. Congratulations on your elevation to Deputy Speaker. It appears that in tonight’s debate there is a sense of déjà vu, as we debated full fiscal autonomy a few weeks ago. Given that the Committee stage of this Bill has been dominated by the SNP manifesto commitment to deliver full fiscal autonomy and bringing forward its watered down promise to deliver it this year, it is good that we have the opportunity to try to put it into this Bill. In fact, as we witnessed last week, the SNP’s hand had to be forced by its arch Thatcherite colleagues, when its Members went into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I said at the time that the worst possible scenario for Scotland would be the SNP demanding full fiscal autonomy and its being delivered by a majority Conservative Government. Those words were echoed—
Ian Murray
Let me just finish this point. Those words were echoed by Dave Watson, the head of campaigns at Unison Scotland, who said:
“An incoming Tory government faced with a big number of SNP MPs, saying, ‘OK, if that’s what Scotland voted for, let’s give them Full Fiscal Autonomy.’ The Treasury would be able to dump £7.5bn of the deficit on the Scottish Government and just walk away.”
The fact that the SNP has another fudged amendment this evening shows that it does not believe that full fiscal autonomy would be good for Scotland.
Ian Murray
Before the hon. Gentleman pops up to say, “Too wee, too stupid and too poor,” as he always does, may I remind the House that that was a phrase coined by the SNP Finance Secretary and no one else? It is worth putting that on the record, given that he always pops up to say that.
Lord Smith of Kelvin said in his report that one of the primary aims of the Smith agreement was to provide the Scottish Parliament with accountability—
Ian Murray
I said that I would give way, and I will do so when I have made a little progress, given the late hour.
Lord Smith said that the Scottish Parliament was a Parliament that spends resources but does not raise any, so there is no accountability or responsibility. The Scotland Act 2012 resolved that position a little with the devolution of the most immovable taxes and 10p of income tax—
Pete Wishart
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This rewriting of history is great and it is fantastic to find out the position of the Scottish National party, but perhaps he can explain the position of Scottish Labour. He abstained on full fiscal autonomy. Is that because he is uncertain, or is he perhaps now unsure about full fiscal autonomy?
Ian Murray
I am delighted by that intervention. What I did not want to do last week was rain on the parade of the Scottish National party as its Members went through the Lobby with the Thatcherite Conservatives to deliver full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. That is what seems to be wrong. The SNP is in full agreement with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) again tonight on the subject of the devolution of the entirety of income tax. Perhaps the party has a right-wing agenda after all.
As we know, the Bill provides full control of nearly 50% of revenues and more than 60% of spending. According to the Library, that will be 65% if the devolution of housing benefit is agreed tomorrow, making it one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The OECD ranked the Smith proposals and came to the same conclusion.
With that accountability and responsibility must come transparency and honesty. During the general election campaign, the First Minister and SNP candidates repeatedly said that they would vote for full fiscal autonomy this year. That was reaffirmed in the television debates. All the impartial and independent expert analysis of full fiscal autonomy shows clearly that that would devastate Scotland’s financial position. That is the genesis of our new clause 1. If the Scottish Government want to dismiss all the independent experts simply because they do not agree with them, let us set up an independent commission to consider the consequences on Scotland’s finances of full fiscal autonomy.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Subsection (2) states:
“No Member of the House of Commons or of the Scottish Parliament may be a member of the commission.”
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Members of the unelected and unaccountable Chamber at the other end of this building could be members, such as the possible future chair, Baroness Goldie of Bishopton?
Ian Murray
The new clause is quite clear. I do not think it would be appropriate for Members of the House of Lords to serve on the commission—[Interruption.] Will SNP Members let me finish the sentence before they start braying from the Back Benches again?
The commission would specifically be designed to have no politicians on it from either Parliament, as well as no employees of the Scottish Government or the UK Government or of any agency related to them. It should be a commission of impartial experts in the field and if the Secretary of State wants to agree to the new clause, I am happy to take on board the suggestion that “no Member of the House of Lords” should appear in it, too.
Alex Salmond
On a point of order, Ms Engel. I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but he seems to be redrafting his clause during his speech. Would it be in order for him to redraft his new clause to include the House of Lords during his speech? Can he be that uncertain of his arguments?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter of debate, so let us continue with that debate.
Ian Murray
The problem with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is that he does not want to debate full fiscal autonomy, as he knows that it is a bad policy. Let me emphasise that if the Secretary of State wants to accept the new clause, I would be more than happy to ensure that Members of the House of Lords were not on the commission. Let us be transparent and accountable in this place, rather than nitpicking about parts of the clause. The SNP do not want the scrutiny and that is the key to this argument.
Let us consider some of that scrutiny. The much-quoted IFS analysed full fiscal autonomy in Scotland and said that it would cost £7.6 billion next year and up to £10 billion by 2020. It has made it clear that that is over and above the deficit of the UK at the moment and the spending profile of the current Conservative Government. Let me emphasise again, as this has been misquoted by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on a number of occasions, that that figure is in addition to the current UK deficit.
The impartial analysis has been dismissed by the Scottish Government, so let us turn to another source of information, Her Majesty’s Treasury, which analysed these figures with results broadly in line with the analysis of the IFS. According to Treasury costings that I obtained through a freedom of information request, full fiscal autonomy would leave Scotland with an additional cash terms deficit of £7.7 billion in 2015-16, rising to £8.4 billion in 2019-20.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that between 2007 and 2009 the UK’s deficit quadrupled. Given the significance that he attaches to deficits and to one year, what significance does he attach to the quadrupling of the debt of a state in a two-year period?
Ian Murray
I am not sure I understand the intervention. We are debating a deficit in Scotland being £7.6 billion over and above any UK deficit, rising to £10 billion by 2020. If we are defending Scottish jobs and livelihoods, that seems not just economically incredible, but economic illiteracy. Hon. Members need not take my word for it. The Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary, Grahame Smith, commented that the Scottish Government’s own accounts were
“a sobering reminder of some of the risks of full fiscal autonomy”.
That is from the trade unions in Scotland.
The Scottish Government sneaked out their own oil and gas bulletin, their first since May 2014, last week on the last day of the Scottish Parliament. It would be good to look at that alongside the independence White Paper. The bulletin was very much in accord with the Office for Budget Responsibility that was rubbished just a few days before. It showed that North sea oil revenues and projections have fallen drastically in recent times, so let us have a look at those figures. The Scottish Government’s own oil and gas bulletin of June 2015 estimated North sea tax receipts for the period 2016-20 to be £5.8 billion. The same scenario from the same bulletin 13 months earlier estimated the receipts to be well in excess of £26 billion. Even if we compare one year—say, 2016-17—revenues had fallen from a projected £6.9 billion to £1.1 billion, and the lower estimates are as low as £500 million.
These are the Scottish Government’s own figures—all in all, an 85% drop. That tells us two things. First, it blows apart the financial basis for full fiscal autonomy. Secondly, like my new clauses 1 and 21, it calls for a more robust and impartial analysis of the Scottish economy and public finances. That is why we tabled new clauses 1 and 21. New clause 21, alongside new clause 1, would provide for the creation of a Scottish office for budget responsibility to exercise independent and impartial fiscal and budget oversight over Scottish Government devolved competencies.
The Smith commission recommended that
“the Scottish Parliament should seek to expand and strengthen the independent scrutiny of Scotland’s public finances in recognition of the additional variability and uncertainty that further tax and spending devolution will introduce into the budgeting process.”
The new clauses would do just that and take away the politicisation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the Scottish economy, the financing of Scottish public services and, crucially, though it tends to be forgotten in this debate, the livelihoods of everyone living and working in Scotland.
I would go further and ensure that the Scottish office for budget responsibility assesses and reports on individual party manifestos, so that the public can be confident that what they are being sold is both credible and desirable. This is about simple transparency and accountability. That transparency and accountability, as I have said, has not been forthcoming on the current manifesto commitment on full fiscal autonomy. If we had had a Scottish office for budget responsibility at the last election, it would have reported that FFA would be hugely disadvantageous to Scotland. It would have backed up the IFS analysis that showed that FFA did not work and that Scotland would need a real-terms growth rate of 4.5% per year at least between 2013-14 and 2019-20. The assistant general secretary of the STUC, Mr Stephen Boyd, commented exactly on this and said:
“The implication across the board is that taxes would be cut. There are a number of examples where the Scottish Government would be trading a real and immediate cut in revenue for benefits that may not be great in the long run.”
That shows that it would not be achievable in the figures from the IFS. The IFS’s conclusion is that FFA would incur deep, deep cuts in spending or huge tax rises.
It is easy to talk about figures, percentages and statistics, but this has to be about the everyday lives of ordinary, hard-working Scottish families. Inflicting a policy on Scotland that would leave a deficit larger than the entire education budget, or more than three quarters the size of the NHS budget, will not assist Scotland. We all reject the Conservative Government’s misguided austerity, which we know is ideologically driven, rather than an attempt to balance the country’s finances, but we must also reject any policy that would inflict harsher and deeper austerity in Scotland. [Interruption.] This is not, as some would claim—they are claiming it as I speak—about being anti-Scottish, anti-aspiration or anti-hope for the ingenuity, passion and entrepreneurial spirit of Scotland; it is a sobering response to a key manifesto commitment from the Scottish National party.
SNP Members dismiss the views of the IFS, the OBR and even their own GERS reports, but even Jonathan Portes, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, has said on FFA:
“If the SNP plan for full fiscal autonomy were to go ahead, then, as a number of commentators have said, that would lead to very, very severe austerity in Scotland.”
That is why Labour is against full fiscal autonomy; that is why we believe in the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom; and that is why the public voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
George Kerevan
Does the hon. Gentleman not see that there is a contradiction in standing up and telling us repeatedly that full fiscal freedom would be bad for Scotland and asking for an independent budget review, which he clearly does not want to take account of? He wants an independent budget office, but he is telling us what it is going to say.
Ian Murray
That is a rather strange intervention. If Members read new clause 1 and new clause 21, they will see very clearly that what we are asking for is an independent commission to analyse the consequences for Scotland of full fiscal autonomy. If the SNP is so confident about its figures, it should back that proposal and then we will have the transparency, impartiality and independence of those policies. If it is so confident that it was not fiddling the figures, it should help us to set up a Scottish office for budget responsibility and let that body analyse its figures. However, it is clear once again that, when we shine the light of scrutiny on SNP policies, its Members want to talk about the process but not look at the impartial and independent evidence before us. If they are so confident, they will back new clause 1 and new clause 21 and bring much needed transparency, credibility and accountability back to the Scottish Parliament’s finances.
Stewart Hosie
We have just listened to one of the worst speeches I have heard in 10 years. The Labour party now has one argument: we have gone from being too small, too poor and too stupid for independence to being too small, too poor and too stupid for any powers at all. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) spoke about something that was “credible”. Credible? The Scottish people decided what was credible at the election in May, and they did not say it was his party. He spoke about right-wing, Thatcherite Tories, but it sounds to me like the core vote of the only Labour MP left in Scotland.
New clause 33, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, would require the Scottish and UK Governments to enter into an economic agreement setting out a plan for implementation of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and establishing a framework within which the two Governments co-ordinate their economic and fiscal policies in the context of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament and Government would have competence for revenue raised in Scotland through taxation and borrowing and for determining levels of public expenditure in or as regards Scotland.
We see the framework including arrangements for facilitating fiscal co-ordination, overseeing economic co-operation, safeguarding fiscal sustainability, and setting out the joint responsibilities in certain areas. In the agreement, the two Governments must seek to ensure the maintenance of monetary stability throughout the UK and the single market of the UK and the EU. They must also ensure co-operation in the exercise of all the respective functions relating to the administration and collection of taxes and an equitable and transparent approach to the consequences, resources and rewards. The Scottish Parliament and Government would retain the benefits of increased tax revenues as a result of positive policy impacts and would have the powers they need to manage the consequences of full fiscal autonomy.
I turn briefly to new clauses 1 and 21. New clause 1 would require that a Tory Secretary of State appoint a commission of between four and 11 members, none of whom can be a Member of Parliament, a Member of the Scottish Parliament or an employee thereof. It is backed by Labour and United Kingdom Independence party Members, so we have a Labour amendment backed by UKIP asking a Tory Secretary of State—
Stewart Hosie
No, no, no.
The new clause asks for a Tory Secretary of State to appoint a commission of the great and the good from the House of Lords to determine Scotland’s future. What a lot of absolute rubbish!
Ian Murray
On that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the sake of clarity, the Committee will know that the procedure of this House is that any hon. Member can sign any amendment they so wish.
Stewart Hosie
So we have confirmation—Labour and UKIP hand in hand, empowering the Tories to run the rule over Scotland again.
As for new clause 21 on a Scottish OBR, we already have one—it is called the Scottish Fiscal Commission. The consultation on its expanded power closed on Friday. One would have thought that Scotland’s sole Labour MP might actually have known what was going on.
New clause 33 would have the Scottish and UK Governments enter into an economic agreement that set up a plan for the implementation of full fiscal autonomy and establish a framework within which the two Governments would co-ordinate their economic and fiscal policies in the context of full fiscal autonomy. That would mean the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government having competence for determining revenues raised in Scotland through taxation and borrowing, and for all of the spending, paying compensation to the UK for shared services. This is the right approach to take. I am just disappointed that we did not have proper time to debate it rather than being subject to the nonsensical rant and talking Scotland down by the so-called shadow Secretary of State. By taking responsibility for key areas of Scottish life, we can improve the Scottish Parliament’s ability to deliver real progress for the Scottish people. New clause 33 does that. It rejects the miserablist approach of the Labour party, and I commend it to the Committee.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Ian Murray Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
The Minister is tempting me to go further than I want to at this stage, because I am going to develop exactly those arguments about the costing, what the measure is likely to raise, and the inherent uncertainty in the Government’s work and the report that they produced. The Minister will be welcome to intervene once I have reached that point in my speech.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
As always when it comes to talking about the 50p tax rate, my hon. Friend is incredibly persuasive. Does she not find it strange that the Government are projecting a £7 billion tax cut but refusing to raise tax in this way, so the only conclusion the public can come to is that they must be looking to break their promise and raise VAT?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is both generous and correct. Members who were here for the last debate will know that Government Members utterly failed to meet the charge levelled at them, which was that the combination of their history on VAT and what they wish to achieve in the next Parliament means that a VAT rise is inevitable if the Conservative party is elected to government in a few weeks’ time.
We know that the Government’s decision to reduce the top rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 is as much at the heart of the current political debate today and in the next few weeks as it was in 2012. The debate is about where we raise revenue from and who we ask to shoulder the burden to help bring down the deficit further.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend has acquitted herself of that duty in her usual brilliant way. We may not be able to persuade the Conservatives to be fully Thatcherite, but getting them part of the way there would be welcome. If they cannot bring themselves to support bringing back the 50p rate, which of course they will not, they should at least support our amendment. As I said, it comes down to a simple question: is the burden of deficit reduction and dealing with the fall-out from the global financial crisis being shared fairly across all parts of our society? The amendment is genuinely intended to shed some light on that.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. She is always incredibly generous, especially in Committee debates on Finance Bills.
If the Government are correct in their assertions about tax take and behavioural change—that a 45p rate generates more than a 50p rate and is fairer—does my hon. Friend share my surprise that they object to bringing forward a report that would tell us exactly that?
Shabana Mahmood
That is exactly the point. If the Government have nothing to hide and nothing to fear from all the data being out there for us to interrogate, they should accept our amendment and get on with the review that we have called for. They should have got on with it when we first called for it, immediately after they made the change to the rate. Our amendment genuinely seeks to shine light on what has been happening to people’s incomes and the impact of changes to the top rate of tax. When the Government commissioned their report, the data were not extensive, and the report has been contentious from the minute it came off the printer. The reasons for that go to the thrust of what the Financial Secretary was asking me earlier, and I will come on to those points shortly.
As we have heard, the Labour Government introduced the 50p rate. It came into effect in 2010-11 and was a decision made after the financial crisis as we sought to get the deficit down. There was nothing in the coalition agreement about abolishing the 50p rate, but in 2011 HMRC was asked to look into it and the yields it produced. It did not take a genius to work out that the Chancellor was thinking about cutting the top rate of tax, and in 2012 with HMRC’s report, the Exchequer effected a 50% additional rate of income tax to back up the Chancellor cutting the rate to 45p.
Mr Gauke
None the less, under this Chancellor and this Government, we will stick to the long-term economic plan and avoid populist giveaways that could damage the public finances.
I could spend some time on these clauses—they are a significant achievement for the Government and I am delighted we are making further progress on increasing the personal allowance—but I shall deal with amendment 1, tabled by the Opposition. It is the annual debate we have on these matters; it is familiar to me and, I suspect, to you, Sir Roger. It proposes that the Government publish a report reviewing the impact of setting the additional rate at 50% within three months of passing the Bill. In addition, it asks for an assessment of
“the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45 per cent and 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of…£150,000…and…£1,000,000 per year.”
To be credible, such an analysis would need to take behavioural impacts into account, like the HMRC report on the additional rate published at Budget 2012. Simply looking at theoretical income tax liabilities when increasing taxes is not enough. For perhaps the first time in a long time in these debates, we might have made a bit of progress in trying to understand Labour’s position. The HMRC report concluded that the underlying yield from the introduction of the 50p rate was much lower than originally forecast owing to large behavioural effects. It would be fair to say that when the 50p rate was introduced by the previous Government, they made allowances for behavioural effects. The question is whether it was sufficient.
When HMRC looked at this again, it was clear that the behavioural effect was greater than anticipated by the previous Government. Indeed, it is quite possible that it cost the Exchequer money. So let me take this opportunity to assure hon. Members once more that the Government already consider the impacts of any policy decisions taken, and they take the behavioural effects into account. The simple point is that the 50p rate was failing to raise the money anticipated.
Equitable Life
Ian Murray Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.”
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the co-chair of the all-party group, for his wonderful speech and for all the work that he has done. One of the people who lost out was Leonard Stuckey, in my constituency, who has run the EMAG group in Edinburgh South. Does my hon. Friend think that 22.4p in the pound is the right level of compensation, given what the parliamentary report that he has just mentioned said?
Money Creation and Society
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Meacher
That is an extremely important point and, again, I strongly support it. The current Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has been struggling to introduce a Government-supported business investment bank and has recently announced something along those lines. I think that should be greatly expanded. The book by Mariana Mazzucato, which I hope most of us have read, “The Entrepreneurial State”, shows the degree to which funding for major innovation, not just in this country but in many other countries which she cites, has been financed through the state because the private sector was not willing to take on board the risk involved. One understands that, but one does need to recognise that the role of the state is extremely important, and under a Labour Government I would like to see something like this being brought in.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend makes a tremendous case for money creation and what we should be considering in this House, but I wonder whether there is also a cultural issue. Many businesses and lenders tell me that there is a cultural problem in the United Kingdom for businesses, particularly entrepreneurial businesses that we have heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), with regard to giving away equity rather than creating debt—funding businesses through equity rather than debt. Other countries throughout Europe that are incredibly successful at giving away equity rather than creating debt have much more growth in their entrepreneurial economy.
Mr Meacher
That is perfectly true, and my hon. Friend makes an important point. The proposals that I am making would support that. There is a very different climate in this country, largely brought about by the churning in the City of London where profits have to be increased or reach a relevant size within a very short period, such as three or six months. Most entrepreneurial businesses cannot possibly produce a decent profit within that period, so the current financial system does not encourage what my hon. Friend wants. These proposals would make money creation available to those we really want to support much more fully than at present.
Fourthly, under the current system, house price bubbles transfer wealth, as we all know, from the young to the old and from those who cannot get on the property ladder to existing house owners, which increases wealth inequality, while removing the ability of banks to create money should dampen house price rises and thus reduce the rate of wealth inequality.
My fifth and last point, which I think is very important, is that sovereign money redresses a major democratic deficit. Under the current system, around just 80 board members across the largest five banks make decisions that shape the entire UK economy, even though these individuals have no obligation or mandate to consider the needs of society or the economy as a whole, and are not accountable in any way to the public: it is for the maximisation of their own interests, not the national interest. Under sovereign money, the money creation committee would be highly transparent—we have discussed this already—and accountable to Parliament.
For all those reasons, the examination of the merits of a sovereign monetary system is now urgently needed, and I call on the Government to set up a commission on money and credit, with particular reference to the potential benefits of sovereign money, which offers a way out of the continuing and worsening financial crises that have blighted this country and the whole international economy for decades.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
What we have seen under this Government is a party that is able to bring our public finances under control; to reduce the welfare bill; and to make sure the egregious waste in Westminster and Whitehall that took place under the previous Government no longer takes place. We will fund that by lower public expenditure, because once we get the public finances under control we are going to keep them under control.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect of tax receipts on the deficit in the last 12 months.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Progress has been made on reducing the deficit; it is down by more than a third from its peak and borrowing in 2013-14 was under £100 billion for the first time in six years. The latest public finance release shows that the impact of the great recession is still being felt in our economy and the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects real earnings to rise faster than inflation, and receipts are expected to perform more strongly in the second half of the year. It is therefore important to stick to the plan, which is building a more resilient UK economy.
Ian Murray
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be aware that although unemployment has been falling, income tax receipts to the Treasury have stayed flat, despite the Government predicting a significant increase. Does that not show that this Government are presiding over an explosion of underemployment, zero-hours contracts and low pay, and until they deal with that, they will never bring the deficit down?
Danny Alexander
First, I would think that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the substantial increase in employment we have seen in the past two or three years—after all, it was his Front-Bench team who predicted that that would not happen under this Government. In fact, 80% of the jobs created in the past 12 months have been in full-time employment, not the part-time employment he is talking about, which is greater than the level in the economy as a whole.
Finance Bill
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is here. I recall in the debate in Committee of the whole House that he argued for a further cut in the rate to 40p, citing in evidence the increase in revenues resulting from the cut, but as he should know—I am sure he does—that is a result of bonuses being deferred. I shall return to that point, but I think it tells us all we know about where the Government stand on fairness.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the amount that may be raised, but rather than having a regular debate across this Chamber about the 50p tax cut and the massive tax cut for millionaires, perhaps the Government could just accept the new clause and bring all the facts before the House?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We do indeed have a regular debate about the facts and figures—I will come to the detailed data on the yield from the 50p rate later—but if the Government accepted our new clause, much of that debate could be put to bed, especially as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs now has much more data with which to produce an analysis that is less flawed than the one in 2012.
Mr Redwood
The figures I have been using refer to the whole coalition period and show a reduction in inequality, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome. I do not recognise his figures on the child tax changes. The overall effect of taking a lot of people out of tax has been a very positive impact on their net incomes, as we would hope.
Ian Murray
If the right hon. Gentleman disputes whether an increase in the additional rate of tax would bring in more money, does he agree with the new clause’s call for a report? If it shows that the 50p tax rate brings in more money, will he and his Conservative colleagues advocate increasing it again?
Mr Redwood
I thought that I had dealt with that point. As far as I am concerned, it was proven conclusively in the ’80s that taking the rate down from 83% to 40% increased the revenue very substantially and on a sustainable basis. That was sufficient to persuade the official Labour party—perhaps not some Labour colleagues here today—not to increase the tax rate from 40% throughout its long years in government until the very end.
Ian Swales
I am not committing anything for our next manifesto, just as the hon. Gentleman’s party is not as yet. Our manifesto is being discussed now.
Ian Murray
I will check Hansard to make sure that this is accurate, but I think the hon. Gentleman said that some of the figures were dubious. If he genuinely believes that, why does he not vote for the new clause so that we get figures that are not dubious? Perhaps we can then assess whether a 50p tax rate is correct. Indeed, while he is going on about tax rises, will he confirm to the House whether he thinks a VAT increase is a Tory tax bombshell?
Ian Swales
I do not see VAT mentioned in the new clause. I was pointing out that, as the hon. Gentleman’s own Front Benchers say, the analysis of the benefits of the policy comes out as plus or minus zero: it could have a large cost or be a significant benefit. If we are in that sort of ballpark, we are clearly not talking about huge measures that will cut the deficit.
Under this Government, the wealthy have been paying a lot more every year in income tax than they ever did in any year under Labour. They are paying more in many other ways as well. The Labour Government thought it was okay for the wealthy to pay £250,000 in pension contributions and get full tax relief; the coalition Government have reduced that to £40,000, making £95,000 a year of tax benefits that the Labour Government were happy to give but this Government are not. Capital gains tax was at the derisory level of 18%, and is now 28%. The level the Labour Government charged on capital gains was lower than the rate of income tax, so hedge fund managers could be paying a lower rate of tax than the people who cleaned their offices, a truly shameful record.
If anyone is lucky enough to be spending £1 million a year, they will be paying £25,000 more in VAT. To answer a point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier, people on low pay spend very little on standard rate VAT items. Once again, the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned this: most of the day-to-day living costs of most people—housing, energy, food and many other costs—do not carry standard rate VAT, so the wealthy are paying more there.
The thresholds for inheritance tax were going up under Labour but have been frozen under this Government through the efforts of the Liberal Democrats. We know that the party with which we are in coalition would like to return the level to £1 million, as it campaigned on that during the last election and I believe it will do so again next time. We are pleased that the threshold for inheritance tax has been frozen throughout our time in Government, because we feel it is the right thing to do at this time. We also saw industrial-scale tax avoidance under the previous Government, and many cases now arriving in court go back to the days when they were in power. The idea that this Government are not taxing the wealthy does not stand up to examination.
Chi Onwurah
I will not give way because other Members want to speak.
From the “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson and Pickett through “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by the current economic rock star Thomas Piketty to “The Entrepreneurial State” by Mariana Mazzucato, economists and social scientists are raising their voices against the claims from Government Members that inequality is good for growth. Recent analysis concluded that
“inequality is bad for both the magnitude and sustainability of growth”.
Before Government Members jump in, that is the view not of some left-leaning sociologist but of the International Monetary Fund.
Equally, President Obama’s chief economic adviser has said that reducing inequality is good for growth. In other words, we must not balance the efforts to reduce the deficit unfairly on the poor, as they are less likely to be in a position to reap the benefits of any growth that follows. None the less, that is exactly what the Government are seeking to do.
The new clause would make the impact of the Government’s policies absolutely clear. I know what the impact of their policies is from my Newcastle surgeries. One constituent who is on a low income uses his so-called second bedroom to store his wheelchair and oxygen bottles. The result is rent arrears and constant anxiety. The threat of eviction hangs over his head. He is only hanging on because he believes that the next Labour Government will abolish the hated bedroom tax. And yet, at the other end of the income scale, taxes are being cut. If the rest of the House does not join Labour in voting for the new clause, people will know what to think.
The next Labour Government will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for the top 1% of earners to ensure that the books are balanced in a fairer way. We will cut taxes for 24 million working people on middle and low incomes with a lower 10p starting rate of income tax. At the next election, the Labour party will put an alternative vision to this Government’s classic 1980s trickle-down economics to the British people. Our vision is to build a new kind of economy that works for communities and ordinary people, and that does not put a premium on social and economic inequality.
Ian Murray
It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). New clause 14 is simple, and I cannot understand why the Government would not want to produce figures showing whether the 50p tax rate raises more or less money. When the Budget was announced, the Red Book stated that the tax cut would cost £3 billion. If politics is the art of the possible, it is also about priorities, and if we consider the priorities of this Government, we see clearly why that cut was unfair and should be reversed, and why the Government should accept new clause 14 and state why they think that lowering taxes for millionaires is the right thing to do.
We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about the bedroom tax—that was a priority introduced by this Government. The bedroom tax raises only 10%, if not less, of the £3 billion that the 50p tax rate cost. The use of food banks has exploded across the country in all our constituencies, which is a disgrace in a modern society, and people on welfare are waiting for their personal independence payment applications to be processed—at the current rate it will take perhaps 42 years. Tuition fees have trebled, which is hitting young people and aspiration in this country, and we have seen the NHS privatised, with money spent on a top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for. Those are the priorities that the Government have introduced, which is why it is important to get from them in black and white as part of the Finance Bill the implications of what a tax rate does, what it raises, what it does not raise, and how much other levels of tax could raise. It may be that some of the pernicious policies introduced by the Government could be reversed if they realised that they could raise more money from different levels of taxation.
Ian Murray
I am afraid we do not have much time, but if there is time at the end I will take an intervention.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the wages crisis in this country, which is of course connected to taxation. We also have a cost of living crisis: people will be £1,600 a year worse off by 2015. We have a youth unemployment crisis, and we are in danger of writing off another generation of young people, as happened in the 1980s when all those wonderful top rate reductions in tax were being made; and we have the lowest rate of house building since the 1920s. All these are priorities that the Government could put to the top of their policy agenda instead of concentrating on a tax cut for the wealthiest.
On the back of all this, we have a Chancellor who has set golden rules for the economic cycle but who has failed on pretty much all of them, while taking £3 billion from the Treasury’s coffers with this tax cut. The UK has lost its triple A rating, and not only will the Government not balance the books by the end of this Parliament, but they will borrow £75 billion this year alone— £190 billion more than planned. They have missed their targets for the deficit and for debt, and they broke every fiscal rule that they set themselves. What is their answer to the conundrum? It is to cut the top rate of income tax for the very richest in the country. Everyone has seen an increase in VAT, which is the most regressive tax; and we have had the granny tax—the list is endless. If politics is about priorities, the Government should come forward with a report, as suggested in new clause 14, and say how much the tax would raise or not raise. We can then decide whether it was the right idea and priority to lower that tax, alongside the long list of this Government’s failures, including social policy failures.
I was interested to hear the intervention from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place. He wanted to talk about the 50p tax rate. I am very surprised that our Scottish nationalists have not mentioned it—they refuse to confirm whether or not an independent Scotland would back a 50p tax rate because the answer is no.
Ian Murray
I am being told to wrap up, so I shall do so by saying that a tax cut for this country costs £3 billion, according to the Treasury’s figures. The Government are standing up for the wrong people, they have the wrong policies, and new clause 14 needs to be approved by the House.
Stewart Hosie
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that if an hon. Member is mentioned in the Chamber, the Member who mentioned them is obliged to accept the intervention?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We both know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is not obliged to give way. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has made the point well, and I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh South will finish now because Frank Dobson is waiting.
Ian Murray
I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), but you were indicating that I should wrap up my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker; otherwise, I would have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Perhaps he will speak later and tell us his views on the Scottish Government’s refusal to back a 50p tax rate.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair is not going to take a decision or be blamed for anybody.
Mike Kane
The best organisations offer benefits in kind, which can be shares to their employees. I and many in the House have no problem with that.
This measure is wrong for business and wrong for employee-business relations, and I urge all hon. Members to support the new clause.
Ian Murray
I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. The previous debate finished slightly earlier so there was a clash with something else that I had in my diary. However, I want to make a few comments on this because it harks back to new clause 14, which we debated earlier. All we are looking for in new clause 11 is some transparency on this policy. We know it was introduced with great fanfare by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference last October when he said:
“Workers of the world unite.”
The conclusion to the workers of the world uniting was that everyone united against this policy.
This is incredibly relevant to the Finance Bill because it has created a significant tax loophole. On new clause 14 on the 50p tax rate and the need for transparency on how much tax that takes, the Government said clearly that 45p brings in more tax at the top rate than 50p, which brings in less because of tax avoidance. In this case, we are looking at the biggest tax avoidance measure we can get. It has been described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as a billion-pound tax lollipop on the table. If we are serious about tackling such tax avoidance, it would be great for transparency, not just for the House but for the country, if a report were produced showing take up and the consequences of that.
Because it is such an important prospect, we need to look at what the Chancellor tried to do in his conference speech. We will end up in the situation where people are able to sell their rights for a few pounds that might be worth nothing. That is not the kind of working society that we want. It is not the kind of partnership that we want between employers and employees and trade unions, whereby people can sell their rights for maternity pay, unfair dismissal, and all those rights referred to by Beecroft in his report for the Prime Minister. We now have a fire-at-will culture, which does nothing to dispel the Government’s move towards a hire-and-fire culture with this proposal. There are the hallmarks of another tax avoidance scheme. Why on earth would we want to produce a scheme that not only allows people to sell their rights and not be covered by any employment rights, but to be in a situation whereby those at the top end of businesses can use these mechanisms to avoid paying tax? I hope that the Minister can address some of those serious concerns when he replies.
I cannot understand why the Government would not accept new clause 11 if they are so confident that this measure will be well used, resulting in a transformation in entrepreneurship, with people hiring more and more employees because they do not have what the Government would call the burden of employee relations. Why would they not want to produce a report showing how many people are using the measure? I do not understand why they do not want to produce a report showing the impact on the Treasury coffers, through capital gains tax and any other tax receipts that might be lost.
It is important for the Government to have confidence in their proposals. The Chancellor was confident when he announced it with great fanfare. I am not sure whether it will have any take-up, because of the way it has been presented and the message it sends out. Justin King, the former chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said that it sends out a poor message. Many chief executives and business owners say that it sends out such a poor message on the partnership we want in the workplace.
Therefore, if the Government wish to have confidence in their own policies, it is only right that they agree to new clause 11, bring forward the report setting out the take-up and the data collected on the scheme and publish further reports every year. If the scheme is denying people their rights at work at the same time as denying the Treasury valuable income, this House should know about it and be able to debate it so that it can hold the Government properly to account.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, new clause 11 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the new employee shareholder status on tax revenues and to publish a report setting out the impact on capital gains tax receipts, the estimated value of shares owned by employees with employee shareholder agreements and the number of such employees. Let me set out why I believe the new clause is unnecessary—a word the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) rightly predicted would come up, although, to be fair, we have had this debate before.
It is far too early for any detailed information on the employee shareholder status to be available. It has been available only since 1 September 2013, and we have not yet reached the deadline by which companies must submit their annual share scheme returns covering that period. Therefore, the Government do not yet have full information about the use of the new employment status. Once received, it will take time to process and analyse those data. The Government set out the potential impact on tax revenues in our tax information and impact note for the employee shareholder tax reliefs, and there are currently no additional data available that would allow that to be updated.
In addition, it is not necessary for a requirement to publish information to be placed in legislation. HMRC publishes a wide range of information about employee share schemes with no such statutory obligation. For example, only last week it published a wealth of data on the use of the tax advantaged employee share schemes during the year ending 2012-13.
We will consider whether that type of publication is appropriate for employee shareholder status or whether a different approach might better enable an evaluation of the employee shareholder status. As the Government have made clear, the employee shareholder scheme is different from the existing tax advantaged employee share schemes. It is primarily designed as an employment measure to encourage choice, growth and flexibility over the long term, rather than being focused on tax advantages. We will want to take those broader factors into account when evaluating the policy. However, given that employee shareholder legislation has been in operation for less than a year, it is simply too early to be finalising any details in that area.
Ian Murray
I appreciate the intervention just made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). The issue is surely not one of employment flexibility; it is about maximising tax advantages. The policy has been announced on the basis of allowing companies—particularly high-growth technology companies—to employ people on a more flexible basis, but the example just given by the hon. Gentleman goes completely against that. That shows that the scheme is being used for tax-avoidance purposes.
Mr Gauke
I do not accept that. As far as avoidance is concerned, the tax reliefs are intended to encourage the take-up of employee shareholder status by individuals when that is offered to them. However, those reliefs are not an end in themselves. A number of rules in the legislation will prevent abuse of the new status while keeping it as simple as possible for employers and employees to use. For example, there are rules that will stop people with a material interest in the relevant business exploiting the tax reliefs for their or their families’ benefit. We will always keep the matter under review. As I said, if we see any abuse, we will act. However, we believe that we have put in place rules that protect the Exchequer from such tax avoidance.
I want to say a little more about take-up. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) made a good point: the argument is simultaneously that no one is making use of the scheme and that the scheme will cost a lot in tax avoidance. There is something of a tension between those two positions.
We decided not to introduce a pre-registration or pre-approval system for those wishing to make an employee shareholder agreement. The Office of Tax Simplification has told us that HMRC pre-approval of share schemes is outdated and time consuming for businesses. Data on employee shareholder status will therefore be picked up from companies’ annual share scheme returns to HMRC. As I said, the scheme has been in place only since the beginning of September 2013, so we have not even reached the deadline by which companies must submit their returns to HMRC for that period. It is far too early to finalise any details of publication.
Mr Gauke
No, that is not the case. As I said, when the original legislation was passed, protections were put in place; a moment ago, I gave an example of one designed to prevent abuse. We will continue to monitor the issue. As with all activities, if evidence of avoidance emerges, the Government will be determined to act, as we have time and again.
On the data on employee shareholders and on take-up, a question raised by a number of hon. Members, I am simply seeking to explain that I am not in a position to give the information that the hon. Lady and others have asked for because we have not required pre-approval or pre-registration for the scheme. That point is also relevant to the FT figures on take-up that have been mentioned. As there is no need for companies making use of the employee shareholding scheme to contact BIS in advance and there is no registration or approval system, we do not expect BIS to have a definitive list of all those companies that have made use of the scheme. That is why I am not in a position to give that information to the House and why the figures that were used by the Financial Times should not necessarily attract a huge amount of excitement.
The scheme is a new facet of our employment practices. It is probably unfair to judge a scheme such as this in its first few months because it will need time to bed in before there is wider knowledge about it and it is more widely used. As I have said, I am not in a position to provide information at this point.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my favourite Treasury Minister for allowing me to intervene again. What the Minister is missing is that, according to his Government’s own figures in the Red Book, £1 billion has been allocated to this proposal. Why will he not agree to the new clause, which would allow the House to scrutinise what that £1 billion of public money is being used for? That way we could avoid the situation raised by the hon. Member for Redcar in which people use the scheme to avoid tax rather than as a proposal to create growth and to get more people into employment by denying them their workers’ rights.
Mr Gauke
It is always a great pleasure to give way to my favourite Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South. In quoting the figure of £1 billion he is somewhat conflating two things. One is the OBR’s estimate of the potential cost of the scheme some years into the future, if a whole set of circumstances apply and we do not take action to deal with any concerns that might emerge. As far as the Red Book is concerned, the published estimates of the annual cost of the measures are £10 million in 2016-17 and £45 million in 2017-18. Those are the numbers and we have no reason to believe that they will prove inaccurate, so to correct the hon. Gentleman for the record, we are not talking about a cost of £1 billion.
New clause 11 would impose an obligation on the Government that is not only unnecessary but, as I have set out in some detail, could not be met given the current availability of data on take-up of the employee shareholder status. Given that the new clause is unnecessary and would be unworkable, I ask the Opposition not to press it.
Catherine McKinnell
It will be no surprise that I find the Minister’s response extremely disappointing and a little concerning in its complacency towards a policy about which widespread concern has been expressed. Taking away the rights of working people across the UK is no substitute for a proper strategy for economic growth. The policy makes it easier to reduce rights at work and fire people, rather than making it easier to hire people. That shows just how out of touch the Government are.
I commend the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on his thoughtful speech. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on his mammoth and excellent speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Opposition Members have put forward a powerful argument for the reasonable new clause that we have tabled. It simply asks the Government to make a proper assessment of who is taking up the shares for rights offer and what the cost to the Exchequer will be, including any loss from tax avoidance or abuse. As far as we can see, this is just another way in which the Government are trying to water down the rights of people at work.
Frankly, to Opposition Members and the many business organisations that have expressed their concerns, this policy stinks. The House and members of the public deserve to know exactly what the implications of the policy will be before the horse has bolted. The Government say that they will only shut the gate once that has happened. [Interruption.] I hear hon. Members groan at that, but I quote Lord Deben:
“I cannot imagine any circumstances whatever in which this would be of any use to any business that I have ever come across in my entire life.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 293.]
I think that he puts it very well.
Ian Murray
The Minister tried to respond to my two interventions about tax evasion by reading figures from the Red Book. However, the accompanying document to the autumn statement of 2012, at which this policy was announced, states that the policy could cost upwards of £1 billion because there are uncertainties around
“the extent of tax planning”.
That sounds to me like tax avoidance.
Catherine McKinnell
I, too, took great interest in what the Minister said, because he seemed to disown the figures that were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility on this policy, as though they were in some unknown ether in the future. He appeared to be saying, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv.” The figures that the OBR predicts are very clear. It will cost £1 billion and a quarter of that can be attributed to tax planning and, if the concerns of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) are borne out, tax avoidance.
Undeclared Work (Reasoned Opinion)
Ian Murray Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
I beg to move,
That this House considers that the draft Decision on establishing a European Platform to enhance cooperation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work (European Union Document No. 9008/14 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Forty-ninth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xliv); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
This debate will give the House a welcome opportunity to discuss the proposed platform on undeclared work, and to decide whether to send a reasoned opinion to the European Commission. The Commission proposal seeks to establish an EU-level platform on undeclared work. Undeclared work is defined by the Commission as paid activities that are lawful but are not declared to public authorities. This matter is high on the European Commission’s agenda, against a backdrop of efforts to improve job creation, job quality and fiscal consolidation.
The proposal highlights a number of concerns, based on a perception of high levels of undeclared work in the EU, including tax evasion, mis-declaration of hours worked and benefit fraud. The Commission is proposing a platform, whose members will be drawn from member states’ nominated enforcement bodies, to try to improve co-operation, share best practices and identify common principles for inspections. I should of course stress that addressing undeclared work is a priority for the Government. We have taken action at national level to detect and deter fraud through inspection, as well as to encourage good practice by providing guidance for employers.
The debate has been called because the European Scrutiny Committee requested an opportunity to discuss its concerns about whether the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity. There are also very short time scales and deadlines to which the European Commission is seeking to secure agreement on a position; hence the debate taking place tonight.
Let me first turn to the issue of subsidiarity. The concerns that I set out in the explanatory memorandum—the Committee shares those concerns—were based on the initial draft of the proposal, which sought to mandate member states to participate both in the platform and in any enforcement activities arising from the platform’s recommendations. Like the Committee, we remain to be persuaded that the Commission has demonstrated a need to mandate member states to take part in the platform or that EU-level intervention action will add value.
However, it emerged in negotiations late last week that although member states’ participation in the high-level platform would be mandatory, participation in any cross-border operational activities recommended by the platform would be voluntary. The Council’s legal service has indicated that that is the case, and we have asked it to clarify its official position. Therefore, the principal concern about subsidiarity that we identified in the explanatory memorandum—based on an earlier text—drops away. We could decide, issue by issue, whether the UK should participate in further activity, and we would of course seek the Committee’s views on such matters. However, we have not yet had advice from the Council’s legal service in writing, and the proposals are still being negotiated, so they may change. I therefore understand that the Committee will want to decide for itself whether the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity.
Our concerns about the detail of the proposal have been shared by other member states and, together, we have secured some changes. The changes, alongside the fact that the activities identified will not be mandatory, mean that the majority of member states will support the proposal. Therefore, the original subsidiarity risk that we identified does not still stand. Moreover, we should be involved in discussions about activities in relation to which we could be asked to take action, even if we probably do not want so to act. Negotiations are ongoing and the European Parliament is yet to begin its consideration of the proposals, so we will be continuing to work throughout the negotiations to ensure that our concerns about subsidiarity are addressed in the final text.
Let me now turn to justice and home affairs. Since publishing the explanatory memorandum, our ongoing analysis has identified that the proposal may include elements relating to justice and home affairs, thus invoking the UK’s JHA opt-in. That is because the proposals suggest, for example, that enforcement bodies such as the police will collaborate in cross-border activity. No decision has yet been made on whether or not to opt in to the proposal. Once a decision has been made, we will write to the European Scrutiny Committee. Having said that, as it is not mandatory to participate in any activities that result from the discussions, no significant burden would be placed on the UK by opting in.
The Commission and presidency are pushing hard on the proposal, and we were informed on Friday that they hope to reach a general approach on 11 June, which is very soon. The deadline for sending the reasoned opinion to the Commission is 11 pm tonight. With the timing of the recess and the Queen’s Speech, this evening was the earliest opportunity to facilitate a discussion in time to meet the deadline, although I appreciate that the timing is not ideal for such an important discussion. If we run out of time tonight, I will be happy to follow up any questions in writing, although given the numbers present, that seems somewhat unlikely—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister may want to raise lots of questions.
Jenny Willott
Oh, I am looking at the wrong side of the House. I hope that we will have time for a reasonable discussion and come to a decision on issuing a reasoned opinion tonight.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this issue and the Minister for her comments. Given the time scale involved and the number who would like to speak, we should try to meet the European Commission’s 11 o’clock deadline, although I doubt that I share the Minister’s enthusiasm or optimism that we will do that, given the Members who wish to speak. Nevertheless, as the Minister said, we have the first opportunity for the House to start banging on about Europe again so soon in the new Session.
It is worth reflecting on what is in the document, because undeclared work is an important issue. We should reflect on how harmful it can be to our economy and to the people who participate in it, and particularly on bogus self-employment in the construction sector. I was going to talk a little about that, but, given the time scale, I would like simply to agree with the Minister on the issues around subsidiarity and what the proposal is trying to achieve.
We have no problem whatever with trying to improve co-operation between member states’ enforcement authorities in order to prevent and detect undeclared work, including bogus self-employment. We should all share that aim, and it is welcome for all member states to work together on that. We should also be improving member states’ enforcement authorities by giving them the technical capacity to tackle cross-border undeclared work. We are very good at that in this country and should be sharing our best practice, as well as getting best practice from other member states on other mechanisms for doing that.
The third aim of the document is to increase public awareness of the urgency of action and to encourage member states to step up their efforts to deal with undeclared work across the European Union. I could spend a few minutes bashing the Lib Dem Minister and ask her what she is doing to persuade the Commission to look seriously at subsidiarity, because if they were to remove the mandatory element of the proposal, everyone would welcome taking it forward on a non-compulsory basis and be able to help other member states to go forward with the rest of the proposal.
The reality on the ground is that people are often looking desperately for work and will sign any contract placed in front of them in order to secure employment. With the freedom of movement across the EU, it is right that member states work with one another to tackle rogue employers who perpetrate undeclared work and attempt to hide behind other member states’ borders—they hide behind undeclared work in order not to pay their fair share of taxation and to undermine workers’ rights. It is that sort of limited and practical proposal that shows how the European collaboration project could work and add value to member states.
I do not know whether the Minister will get an opportunity to respond to the debate, or whether she will have time to do so, but I would like to pose a number of questions; if she does not get an opportunity to respond, perhaps she could write to me to give me some comfort.
What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the scale of undeclared work across the EU, and in particular the UK? What investigation has she made into the cross-border problems of undeclared work? That information may be incredibly helpful in indicating the problem we are dealing with and what the benefits of such an EU-wide platform would be. What recent discussions have current enforcement agencies such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Employment Agency Standards inspectorate, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had with the Government and the European Commission on undeclared work and the usefulness of the proposal? Finally, I do not think the Minister mentioned this, but does she agree with the proposals in principle? The Opposition agree with the Government’s position, and hope we can get it to the European Commission as soon as possible.