Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I certainly do. This country is spending £120 million a day on debt interest, which is now one of the largest items of Government spending. These are taxes we raise from people and money we borrow to pay debt interest. The truth about Labour’s plan is that it would mean billions of pounds more in debt interest—something that will become clear later in the Parliament.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I am sure the Chancellor and his Front-Bench colleagues will be aware of the recent Scottish Affairs Committee report on the computer games industry in the UK, which states that there are “compelling reasons” for introducing tax relief. Will he tell me, the House and people in my constituency, where the industry is very important, just what progress has been made?

[Mr Gauke]

That industry, like other industries, will benefit from the policies that we have introduced to ensure that we grow more strongly and have pro-business policies. On video games tax relief, we looked at it and did not feel that it achieved good value for money for the taxpayer.

Scotland Bill

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

This evening’s debate has centred around the complexities of this hugely complex legislation. I had not intended to speak, but I, too, was prompted by the contribution of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), which led me to think about my experience of running a small business with 12 to 14 staff, doing payroll on a weekly basis and the huge complexities of keeping up with changes in legislation and making sure that my staff were aware of such legislation. Hon. Members would not believe the number of staff I have employed over many years who did not understand what a tax code was, how they were taxed on their income and how national insurance was involved.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Some of the previous speakers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), should remember that these proceedings are televised and that the public hope to understand what we are talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has kept his contribution fairly simple so far, but I failed to understand some of the earlier contributions.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which highlights the fact that the Government’s agenda for growth is about growth in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, and making sure that small businesses in particular can contribute a significant amount to the private sector to take up the slack caused by the job cuts in the shrinking public sector. However, the complexity of the legislation we are examining is detrimental to the many small business owners who will be concerned about the complex process they will have to go through to make sure that they employ people in accordance with the right piece of income tax legislation. Many issues have been raised about travel—I do not call the train the Caledonian sleeper; I call it the Caledonian keep-you-awake, as I have yet to sleep on it—and I hope that the legislation does not include provisions on where someone falls asleep, otherwise my own tax affairs could be rather complex.

We must consider the issue of close connection. People may work in a different part of the UK, but it is not necessarily the place that they call home. Any Scottish MP who has regularly done the trip from Scotland to London will recognise many faces on their train or flight as people who work in London Monday to Thursday. They leave Scotland on Sunday night, and return on Thursday evening or Friday morning to their family. They would not regard themselves as English income taxpayers. They would very much regard themselves as being resident in Scotland. It is where they call home, but, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, it would not necessarily be classified as their place of residence for the payment of income tax.

[Jim McGovern]

My hon. Friend will have used the Caledonian sleeper. Does he agree that “Murder on the Orient Express” has nothing to do with that train?

[Ian Murray]

I was about to say that I was delighted to receive an intervention from my hon. Friend, but perhaps I should say that I have noted his comments, and will move on.

I should like to mention Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. At my surgery—no doubt this is the case at the surgeries and advice sessions of many right hon. and hon. Members—I have been beset by the complicated problems that my constituents have experienced as a result of their not understanding the HMRC process. Indeed, taxation errors have been made by both HMRC and employers. HMRC is undoubtedly under pressure, with more job losses over the next few years. In fact, I think its work force will have halved by 2015. I hope that the Government will take into account the complexities of the legislation to make sure that HMRC has the resources to be able to deal with it properly. The Federation of Small Businesses has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) in connection with the number of small businesses that use the pay-as-you-earn system. There are problems with self-assessment, which can become complex for someone who satisfies some of the tests of the legislation, but conducts personal business in different parts of the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) raised the issue of tax avoidance. If there are different income tax rates in Scotland and England, I hope that HMRC will have the resources to deal with that so that people do not deliberately try to satisfy the tests of the legislation to benefit from a different income tax rate on the other side of the border. Many of the constituents of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) will be affected by those cross-border issues, as we have heard.

HMRC definitely needs the resources required to be able to deal with that properly, and to put provisions in place to make sure that people understand the system. All too often, as the Member representing Edinburgh South, I have dealt with self-employed constituents who have filled in self-assessment forms and then experienced a hard-nosed approach from HMRC in some pretty dreadful letters. Some letters say that it will send agents round to seek to pin down possessions and sell them to cover the debt when, in fact, HMRC has made an error in its tax coding and the problem has to be sorted out at a different level.

All those issues come together. The measure is welcome, as it gives the Scottish Government and Parliament real accountability for the proportion of tax that they can raise locally in Scotland for the people of Scotland. However, we must be aware that there will be many small businesses, employers and employees who will be concerned about how the measure will operate. If the system is to be accountable and is to operate practically for the benefit of the people of Scotland and for the Scottish Parliament, we must make sure that it is not undermined by a complex set of rules that are easily circumvented as a result of tax avoidance or because genuinely self-employed or small businesses cannot understand it sufficiently. We must put support in place to ensure that they follow the rules properly and so that the measure operates in the most effective manner.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important therefore that, where necessary, any order made under the powers given by section 80G can take effect from the start of the tax year. The Scottish rate is to apply for a tax year, and preventing amendments under section 80G from applying for the whole of the tax year could create difficulties for individuals and businesses alike. It is also identical to the power already in section 79 of the 1998 Act introduced for the Scottish variable rate.

[Jim McGovern]

On the subject of retrospective taxation, the previous Government committed to tax breaks for the computer games industry. Will the coalition Government commit to introducing tax breaks for the computer games industry retrospectively to April 2010?

[Mr Gauke]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that that is entirely in order. I am sure the Chair would not want me to be diverted into that matter.

I assure hon. Members that the Treasury is not seeking a general power to impose retrospective legislation. I am not in a position to predict what consequential changes might be needed to other legislation because of future finance or other Acts in relation to the Scottish rate of income tax. The period of potential retrospection is rightly restricted to the start of the tax year in which the order is made, so that if we need to make a consequential change it can take effect at the same time as the provision to which it is consequential. To do otherwise would create complexities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The ordinary meaning of the main place of residence is set out in case law. It is not necessarily determined by the number of days one spends at a location. To use the example of my hon. Friend’s father, if a commuter has his family home in Hamilton and stays there every weekend, although he might spend more time at work in London, Hamilton would be his main residence. HMRC guidance will provide a number of worked examples of that. I am reluctant to give too much information that could constitute specific advice, as I obviously cannot comment on individual cases, but I hope that that is helpful.

[Jim McGovern]

I presume, and hope, that the Minister has discussed what he is talking about with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[Mr Gauke]

I will come to condition C in a moment, which I hope will provide the hon. Gentleman with the answer that he and others are looking for.

Having dealt with condition A, it would be remiss of me not to address condition B. It is possible for some people with two or more places of residence in the UK to be unable decide which is their main place of residence. I do not think that that applies to Mr Stewart senior, but it might apply in some cases. It is for such people that condition B has been designed. Someone who cannot determine under condition A which part of the UK they have a close connection with will need to count the number of days they spend in Scotland, compared with the number of days they spend elsewhere in the UK—in other words, a straightforward day count test. If they spend more days in Scotland than they do elsewhere in the UK, they will be a Scottish taxpayer. If they spend more days elsewhere in the UK than they do in Scotland, they will not be a Scottish taxpayer. We recognise that it might be onerous in some cases to have to keep a day count record, but the number of people within that category should be relatively few.

To deal with one question that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) raised, for the purposes of the day count, an individual has spent a day in Scotland or in any part of the UK when they are present at the end of the day—in other words, at the stroke of midnight. That is consistent with the existing and long-standing rules that determine presence in the UK for the purposes of tax residence.

Condition C, which I suspect is of particular interest to a number of hon. Members, is set out in proposed new section 80D of the 1998 Act and is very straightforward. If someone represents a Scottish constituency in the Scottish, UK or European Parliaments for any part of the year, they will be a Scottish taxpayer for that tax year, provided of course they are UK resident, which I assume will generally be the case. The definition has also been designed in such a way that an individual will be a Scottish taxpayer for a full year. They cannot be a Scottish taxpayer for part of the year and not a Scottish taxpayer for the rest of the year. That again helps to reduce unnecessary complexity in applying the definition and understanding of whether or not an individual is a Scottish taxpayer.

It is envisaged that the new Scottish rate of income tax will first be applied from 6 April 2016, as we have already heard. There are more than five years before the provisions take effect, and during that time we will continue to discuss with businesses, employers, taxpayer representatives, charities and software providers the necessary practical steps to achieve a successful implementation. The measure will need to work successfully throughout the UK tax system, as it will not impact on Scottish taxpayers or on Scottish employers alone.

HMRC has therefore established three technical groups with representatives throughout the UK, including a pensions group, charities group and an income tax group. Those groups are reporting to the high-level implementation group, which the Secretary of State and I established last summer. We are discussing with the technical groups the implementation issues—for example, the application of differing rates throughout the UK on tax relief for contributions to pension schemes and on gift aid. It is also conceivable, given the lead time to implementation, that there might be changes in the business or tax environment or to processes.

As we discussed when considering the earlier amendments, the clause includes a number of supplementary powers to allow certain modifications to be made at a later date—for example, enabling certain types of income or relief to be included or excluded from the Scottish rate to provide the flexibility to respond to stakeholder input and to the changing environment.

I shall pick up on some of the questions that I have not dealt with in my explanation, which I hope the Committee has found helpful. A worker who spends significant amounts of time on an offshore oil rig or another place of work off the UK coastline will not usually need to count the number of days they spend there to determine whether they are a Scottish taxpayer. The oil rig is not likely to be their sole or main place of residence in the UK, so any time spent on it can be disregarded when deciding whether they are a Scottish taxpayer. The only exception is if the location of the individual’s main place of residence is genuinely unclear. In such cases, whether someone is a Scottish taxpayer will be determined by the day count. If the oil rig is in Scotland, those days will need to be included for the Scottish count.

We continue to look, with the Ministry of Defence, at the issues surrounding our armed services, and we will come to a firm conclusion on that in the near future.

The question was raised of whether a personal representative of a deceased person will be a Scottish taxpayer, and the answer is no. A Scottish taxpayer will be an individual, and after their death that will not extend to the personal representative. It follows that any income arising during the administration of the deceased’s estate will not be subject to the Scottish rate of income tax.

I was asked whether it was fair that people will not receive split-year treatment when they move between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and I touched on that briefly a moment ago. No split-year treatment applies to those leaving or arriving in Scotland: an individual will be a Scottish taxpayer for a full tax year or not at all. There is no prospect of double taxation when someone lives part of the year in Scotland and the rest of the time in another part of the UK. It would be administratively much more complex were we to try to split the year.

On whether proposed new section 80G is too broad, that goes back to my earlier discussion of the amendments in this group. The power in the new section is needed to deal with mainly technical changes and to decide which reliefs should be taxed at the variable or UK rates. That is almost a mirror image of the power to deal with the consequences of setting the Scottish variable rate, which is already in section 79 of the 1998 Act. It is worth pointing out, as I said earlier, that we have set up three technical committees, on charities, pensions and income tax, to discuss the impact that the Scottish rate of income tax will have on the wider tax system, and to consider where modifications might be required. Therefore, we need the power to deal with that situation.

I reassure the Committee that the Treasury does not seek a general power to impose retrospective legislation; the measure set out in proposed new section 80G is limited to the start of the tax year. If we need to make a consequential change, we will ensure it takes effect at the same time as the provision to which it is consequential. We think that that will be helpful.

A point was made about what HMRC and the Government will do to support employers, and about the concern that the measure might be administratively difficult for employers when identifying who is and is not a Scottish taxpayer. Let me assure the Committee that it will be HMRC’s responsibility to identify who is and is not a Scottish taxpayer. Scottish taxpayers will then be given a Scottish tax code by HMRC, and employers will use it in the PAYE system, just as they do with other employees. It is also worth mentioning that there will be an awareness campaign in Scotland and in the rest of the UK ahead of the system’s introduction.

The rights of appeal will be based on existing mechanisms, but they might need to be adapted, and HMRC will discuss that with the professional associations in due course through the technical groups that it has established. The self-assessment form for the self-employed will need to be altered to reflect the existence of Scottish taxpayers.

On condition C, which applies to Members of Parliament and of other elected bodies, the question was asked, “Why not Scottish judges, other senior members of the Scottish civil service and so on?” We have singled out only elected representatives; others will be subject to the same rules as other Scottish taxpayers. We think it appropriate that there is no ambiguity in the case of elected representatives, and those representing Scottish constituencies at whatever level should be Scottish taxpayers.

That is a rather lengthier speech than I had hoped to make, but a number of questions were raised and I wanted to provide as many answers as possible to what is one of the most technically challenging aspects of the Bill. The solutions that we have reached are those that improve what we are building on, and they should provide as much clarity as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

Indeed. The hon. Lady attracts me into an interesting debate on the difference between residency and domicile, but I am not going to bore the Committee—I can see that the Under-Secretary is getting a bit concerned—about the distinction between the two. That sort of thing keeps tax lawyers very busy.

[Jim McGovern]

Surely my hon. Friend would agree that going to Blackpool in the summer guarantees that one is Scottish.

[Ann McKechin]

Indeed. Travelling down there on the train to the Labour party conference on a Glasgow holiday weekend was an interesting experience. One could easily distinguish between those who were delegates and those who were on their holidays. I remember one occasion when people had brought along half a band, which was playing on the train.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and others commented on the Caledonian sleeper. Let me say that the Caledonian sleeper provides an essential travel service for many of us, and long may it remain so, because otherwise our travel plans would be even more difficult than they are given that certain flights will be withdrawn at the end of this month. That brings to mind a story that I recall being told about a colleague who represented the city of Glasgow many years ago, and who was a member of the railwaymen’s union. He regularly managed to sleep on the train. One night, he asked the guard to make sure that he was taken off the train at Motherwell, not Glasgow, because he had to address a union meeting just before the workers went on shift. There would be several hundred people there, and it was absolutely essential that he got off. He duly woke up in the morning and found himself at Glasgow Central station. The guard opened the door and said, “I know you’re really angry, but you’re not as angry as the man we shoved off the train at Motherwell.” I am sure that there are many such stories about Members of Parliament.

I note the Minister’s comments regarding residency of Members of Parliament. Some people might think we are getting special preferential treatment so that we can easily distinguish whether we are UK tax residents who are not living in Scotland or vice versa. However, I do not object to the definition. Perhaps it makes things a little easier if, when the Bill becomes law, we are asked awkward questions about our own position. I am sure that some of the points raised today will be considered by implementation committees.

On the Minister’s comments about armed forces personnel, we need to be able to define this at a fairly early point. It would be preferable if at some point during the passage of the Bill—certainly before it comes back from the Lords—we knew about the position of the armed forces. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to ensure that we have a definitive response before we reach our final conclusions on the Bill?

The Minister’s comments on amendment 70 were helpful in defining the circumstances in which retrospective amendments may be made. I acknowledge that there will be limited circumstances where that is appropriate. Given the timing of the Budget, it is almost inevitable that this may occur from time to time. His clarification helped to show that he regards this as a de minimis clause rather than one that will be used to the maximum extent. However, I hope that he can assure us that Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government will be provided, at the earliest opportunity, with information about how this is likely to impact on them. Perhaps it is part of the Exchequer’s standard consultation process and pre-Budget report that it is fully engaged with the Scottish Government so that they are able to make appropriate contingency plans should a clause in the Finance Bill then be passed by this House and by the House of Lords.

I believe that we have had a reasonable level of reassurance from the Minister on those questions. These are primarily probing amendments. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26

Scottish rate of income tax

Amendment made: 61, page 20, line 31, after ‘Treasury’, insert ‘by order’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Amendment proposed: 42, page 20, line 31, after ‘Treasury’, insert

‘, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament,’.—(Stewart Hosie.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

The borrowing powers in the Bill are at the heart of devolution. On Second Reading, a number of serious questions were raised on both revenue and capital borrowing powers. I shall come to the detailed issues in the main part of my comments, but, fundamentally, I am seeking to put in place a code of practice for the Treasury and the Scottish Government to address limits, restrictions, thresholds, maximum amounts and the nature of borrowing, be it through bonds or direct loans from the consolidated fund. That is a sensible way to amend the Bill. To make such provisions otherwise would require draft orders to be tabled, but amendments to Bills cannot be made with draft orders. Much of the narrative on this matter is in the Command Paper, but it is likewise impossible to amend by amending the Bill.

The amendments are pretty self-explanatory but I would like to detail the reasons for them. The revenue-borrowing powers are fundamentally linked to the wider taxation proposals in the Bill. Both the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government have previously made clear their concerns about the tax proposals. If a full range of fiscal policy levers were available to the Scottish Government, it would have to include a borrowing regime with sufficient flexibility to allow public spending profiles to be managed across entire economic cycles, not simply four-year forecast periods. The UK Government’s proposals, however, fall far short of that, yet by exposing the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to cyclical fluctuations in income tax they embed a high degree of volatility in Scotland’s public finances, which cannot be right when we are seeking to protect public services and find means to grow the economy.

The Bill proposes to allow for annual borrowing of up to £200 million in any one year, and for a maximum limit of £500 million to finance current expenditure where there are differences between forecasts and the outturns of Scottish tax revenue under the Bill’s income tax proposals. Loans must be made within four years of being taken out. I understand that these provisions are additional to the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows revenue borrowing for the purposes of providing cash balances and maintaining cash flow. The aggregate limit of the Act is also £500 million, so the additional purpose proposed in the Bill, plus the passage of the 13 years since the original limit was set, has apparently not been considered sufficient reason for lifting the limit. We do not believe that that is credible.

The Bill also lacks flexibility to deal not necessarily with forecast errors, but forecast falls identified in advance. I will return later to the reason that that is a problem. More crucially, the provisions in the Bill are insufficient to manage volatility in tax receipts that might reasonably be expected to occur. Importantly, over the past decade, UK Government income tax forecasts have, on average, been overly optimistic, and the annual cap of £200 million would have been insufficient to offset deviations in income tax receipts relative to forecasts in recent years.

[Jim McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman might have heard me earlier saying that these proceedings are televised. The general public would like to know what we are speaking about, so will he keep his remarks as understandable as possible?

[Stewart Hosie]

I thought that my remarks were always understandable. The problem is that we are dealing with the technical provisions—the fiscal and borrowing powers—of a Bill. It is necessarily technical. However, I shall try to summarise it in plain English, if possible, when I get towards the end of my remarks.

In 2010-11, the difference between the Treasury’s original forecast for UK income tax and the most recent estimate is about £35 billion. Under the Scotland Bill, an equivalent forecasting error would have reduced the Scottish Government’s budget by approximately £1 billion. The implication of that and the four-year payback period is that had the system been in place during the last spending review period, repayment of the loan would have had to be made within what are now pressurised budgets—a £1.3 billion cut to Scotland this year, and over £3 billion in the comprehensive spending review—between now and 2014.

In contrast, the UK Government can spread the repayment of cyclical borrowing over a significantly longer period to ensure that it does not adversely impact on the resources available for public services. That is important, because it is accepted in all parts of the House that in times of recession or downturn, tax revenue falls and borrowing goes up—that is an automatic stabiliser—but the same implicit provision has not been made in the Bill. That is a flaw that I know is now recognised by people in many parties.

The inadequacy of the borrowing powers for this purpose was highlighted in the written evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee from Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett and Professor Drew Scott. They said:

“Over the decade before the current recession, 1997-2007, the UK governments track record for income tax receipts is one of forecast errors that range between +7% to -4%, with an average of +1.1%”

a year. They continued:

“Since borrowing will follow from overestimates”—

the real amount will be less than the forecast—

“this means the Scottish Government will need to cut spending or borrow every year on average and should expect to exhaust its borrowing limit several times in a decade.”

To have such a flaw built into a Bill from the outset is profoundly unhelpful to the efforts of the Scottish Government to protect public services and grow the economy. The proposals also lack any ability to smooth the effects of cyclical downturns.

Unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government will have no opportunity to use borrowing to compensate for a forecast decline in income tax revenues in the event of, for example, an anticipated slowdown in the global economy. Scotland would have no option but to cut spending to match the reduction in revenue at precisely the time when we might want to invoke an economic stimulus—a policy of the previous Government that we supported. However, it would be impossible to do that, because cuts would be required to match a forecast fall in revenue.

The Bill misses the fundamental point about being able to respond effectively to the natural volatility of tax revenues in managing public expenditure. Paradoxically, the more accurate the Office for Budget Responsibility is at forecasting falls in future revenue, the greater the volatility in the budget, because borrowing is permitted not against a forecast fall but only against a discrepancy between the forecast and the actual level. That is a huge problem with the borrowing powers at the heart of the Bill. If the Exchequer Secretary or his Scotland Office colleague wants to indicate that they intend to table the necessary amendments on Report or later to rectify that, I would be happy for them to intervene at any point.

--- Later in debate ---

The Command Paper that accompanies the Bill, “Strengthening Scotland’s Future”, sets out in limited detail how the proposals are intended to work. Borrowing is to be available for specific projects, subject to Treasury consent, from 2013, and we discussed that on Second Reading. From 2015, a capital borrowing of 10% of Scotland’s capital departmental expenditure limit, around £230 million a year, up to a cumulative total of £2.2 billion, will be available. To put that into context, the Scottish Government could use up the entire cumulative limit by, for example, paying for the Forth bridge replacement crossing. If my memory serves me correctly, that cumulative amount of about £2.2 billion is less in capital terms than the Scottish Government have been spending in any of the past few years.

[Jim McGovern]

Most hon. Members will know that the hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour. He mentioned “Strengthening Scotland’s Future”. Does he actually believe that separating Scotland from the UK would strengthen Scotland’s future?

[Stewart Hosie]

I certainly think that improving the provisions of the Bill that relate to capital borrowing would strengthen the Scottish Government’s ability to do the right thing, whoever was in power. If we want to have a debate about the relative merits of independence versus the Union, I am happy to do that—[Hon. Members: “When?”] Not today, because we are dealing with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

Since I have been in a position to see this matter at first hand, I have received many representations over the years from constituents who have concerns about the system, as I am sure has my hon. Friend. As a result of my tabling the new clauses, a number of individuals have written to me to tell me that I was spot on in making this argument. Therefore, there have been a number of representations. Not many people have come to me and argued for the continuation of the crazy system that is in being. I will expand on that point later in my speech.

Never in the history of politics has a political party given so much power to its opponents as in the Scotland Act 1998. Since then, all sorts of people have come on to the scene, cherry-picked within the constituencies and caused mayhem. That is why I have tabled the new clauses. Obviously, we must look at this whole question. We must go back to the first election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. In my constituency, there was the crazy situation in which not only was the person who came second under first past the post elected to the Scottish Parliament through the pool for constituency Members, but the people who came third and the fourth. As my constituents tell me, something is fundamentally wrong when such a system is allowed to continue. That is the crux of my argument this evening.

[Jim McGovern]

I go round the doors every weekend, as I am sure does my hon. Friend and most Members here. Does he agree that most people on the doorstep are confused about how they vote for the list person? In politics, the people who know about it regard it as the assisted places system.

[Mr Donohoe]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will develop that argument in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I did not think he would. That demonstrates exactly what I am saying. There is no accountability, and no structure to allow it, for list Members. That is a major problem, and why I have tabled new clauses 1 and 2.

[Jim McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend agree that most people would recognise their MP, some would recognise their MSP, and some may even recognise their MEP, but very few would know who their list MSP is?

[Mr Donohoe]

The only one I could think anybody would recognise would be the ex-Member for Cumnock, Carrick and Doon Valley, George Foulkes. Whether that is because of his politics or because he was the chairman of Hearts I do not know.

Fuel Costs

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I live in rural Aberdeenshire, and at this time of year, I fully appreciate the need for vehicles that are suitable for the roads on which they travel and the driving conditions.

There is a huge irony in this situation for people in my constituency, who have had an oil terminal on their doorstep for many years. People who live at the heart of Europe’s oil and gas industry pay among the highest prices for petrol and diesel in Europe. That irony is certainly not wasted on folk in my part of the world. Nearly 62% of what we pay at the pumps goes directly in tax and duty to the Treasury. My concern—this is the chief point that I want to make this evening—is that that is a disproportionate tax on people who live and work in rural and remote areas.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May I say that I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was not here at the beginning of the debate? I was in Dundee for the launch of the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry into the video games industry. The hon. Lady is a member of that Committee, so I am sure she will understand.

Does the hon. Lady agree that while figures suggest that fuel duty puts 1p on the price of a litre of petrol or fuel, VAT puts somewhere in the region of 3p a litre on it? Should we not attack the coalition Government for increasing VAT instead of looking for fuel duty regulators? I see that she is being advised by her colleagues on that.

[Dr Whiteford]

Had the hon. Gentleman been here earlier, he would have heard that point addressed in previous contributions. Both VAT and duty have a part to play. The previous Government’s record on this was shameful in not allowing motorists to benefit from the falls in VAT at the beginning of the recession. The key point is that the disproportionate tax on rural parts of these islands does not only harm individual motorists, but inhibits our business growth and the development of our rural economies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

rose—

[Jim McGovern]

rose—

[Mr Weir]

I will not give way at the moment.

Many of my constituents have to travel to work, and they have no alternative to their car. There are bus services, but if we look at how people work today—many work split shifts and might have one or two jobs to make ends meet—we see that it is very difficult for them to get to their workplaces by bus. This places a great deal of pressure on family budgets. If we are talking about creating work and getting people back into it, we must make it easier for people to travel.

[Jim McGovern]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Weir]

I want to finish the point; I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

As I mentioned in an intervention, The Guardian this morning features an article saying that bus routes are about to be slashed, and I understand that the rural bus rebate given to local authorities is also going to go. All that will cut back even further people’s ability to get to work by bus. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) before he jumps up again.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I must say first that I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) criticised me for repeating a point and for not having been here earlier. I did explain why I was not here, but my main point is for the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). I am sure he is aware that Stagecoach, a company owned by Brian Souter and one of the biggest donors to the Scottish National party, has said that the fuel price increases will help its business.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman is bringing irrelevancies into this; we are talking about the real problems that rural areas face, and I am sorry that he does not understand that.

There is another problem with cars. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) made the point that many people in rural areas have old vehicles and cannot afford to buy new ones. That brings several problems. Those vehicles are not only less reliable, but use more petrol than modern vehicles do and cost more to maintain and more to run in road tax and other things. People are suffering seriously by having to travel to work by car.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) talked about what the devolved Administrations could do. The devolved Scottish Administration have introduced a business bonus to help with the costs of running small businesses. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the ending of the Severn bridge toll. There is a huge cost in fuel for transportation, which is really hitting small businesses.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned the green argument, and I would like to address some of the related issues. Strangely enough, I agreed with a lot of what he had to say—I shall surely not make a habit of it!—but it seems to me that there is nothing green about strangling local economies in rural areas. Some say that people can move on to drive electric cars. I would like to see an electric car that would take me around my Angus constituency, never mind Argyll or Caithness and Sutherland, but the range is simply not available.

[Jim McGovern]

Does the hon. Gentleman have time to give way again?

[Mr Weir]

No, I do not.

There are real problems with fuel prices and they are strangling business in rural areas. They are an attack not only on the business itself, but on the family budget.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who is no longer in his place, mentioned home fuel oil. I appreciate that it is taxed differently from petrol, so it is a different issue, but he is quite correct to say that throughout rural Scotland, the escalating price of home fuel oil—used in many hard-to-treat homes that are otherwise unable to get central heating or any heating at all—is a huge problem, which is also hitting many people. These costs are devastating the rural economy.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen also mentioned supermarkets giving discounts on petrol, but in some ways that is a somewhat insidious practice. The Minister talked about people going to petrol stations, but in many rural areas such stations have ceased to exist. One of the hidden costs of living in rural areas is that people often have to travel many miles to fill up their vehicles with petrol in the first place. Cars cannot be driven right until the orange light comes on; if they are, they are unlikely to get to a petrol station for a fill-up and will be stranded somewhere along the line. If supermarkets offer discounts, people travel long distances to get there to fill up their cars, which has a knock-on effect on business in rural areas.

The key point is that the fuel issue is at the centre of the rural economy. Unless we sort this problem out, there will be no rural economy. We will not see a recovery of businesses that are strangled by rising fuel prices. Businesses will not survive for much longer if the price continues to rise as it has recently.

I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) who talked about the Barnett formula. Frankly, that is completely irrelevant to this argument. If we had a fuel duty stabiliser, it would apply throughout the country. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman is thinking about the derogation, which is a completely different matter: we are talking about two different systems here.

We have pushed for a fuel duty stabiliser to give certainty about the price, to allow hauliers, for example, to be able to quote in advance for a contract and know what the fuel prices are going to be. This will also allow people to look at their family budgets and know what they have to spend to get to work on a weekly or monthly basis. We need to remember that our constituents are not getting pay rises—in some cases, they are getting pay cuts—so they cannot cope with these rising prices, which impact directly on family budgets. For all those reasons, we need action now. It is all very well to talk about the problem and to look at the practicalities, but if this drags on into next year, I am afraid that many businesses will fail to survive.

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have a lot of respect for the Minister; he is one of the most able in the House. [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”] However, it was not his best speech.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point about emergency measures, but the Minister did not call the Bill an emergency measure—he just said that it is an important Bill and that it be would rather nice to get it through quickly. It is absolutely true that the Bill is not an emergency measure and there is no such urgency for it. However, it is not the duty of the House to say to the Executive, “It will be jolly nice to get the Bill through quickly.” We are here to scrutinise the Bill. It matters not what team Back Benchers are on: they are here to hold the Government to account. I said that as an Opposition Member and I shall say it as a Government Member. The Minister remarked that the longer he spoke, the more he would eat into time on Second Reading, but the Government designed the allocation of time motion in that way. When we were in opposition, we said that that such remarks were appalling, and they are also appalling in government.

This motion contains one of the most draconian guillotines we have ever seen in Parliament. It contains 16 separate restrictions on debate, it is longer and has more words than the Bill itself, and it is designed purely to restrict debate and to remove the right to vote on amendments in Committee. I am afraid that it is as bad as those we used to see under the previous Government. It is rubber-stamping at its finest. The motion proposes to rush through legislation at a speed that would win approval in North Korea and to take Parliament for granted.

This is not my first time scrutinising a Government who are trying to rush a Bill through Parliament. Coincidentally, the circumstances of a debate on a Northern Ireland Bill on 4 March 2009 were very much the same, in so far as the Government tried to rush through a Bill in one day when, as now, it was not necessary to do so. Therefore, I feel that we have come full circle. Here we are with a different Government—a coalition Government—who are trying to rush through another Bill.

As a trained chartered accountant, I am rather partial to my numbers. Therefore, I would like to read out a few. Three and a half hours is the amount of time that Parliament is being given for the Second Reading debate of the Bill; £3.25 billion is the minimum amount that the Bill proposes to give the Republic of Ireland; and zero is the probable chance that the House of Lords will be able to scrutinise it, because it will most likely be certified as a money Bill. Let me expand on those three figures. Three and a half hours for Parliament to debate a Bill on Second Reading—actually, I should have said that three and a half hours is the maximum time that we are being given, because the time starts from the moment that the allocation of time debate starts. If the allocation of time debate runs its full course and there is a Division, the time for a Second Reading debate on a Bill that proposes spending £3.25 billion will be a maximum of 15 minutes. The Chancellor will not have cleared his throat in 15 minutes. In other words, we will be spending £216 million a minute during that debate.

One could argue that none of these things matters—we saw it all the time in the previous Parliament—because we have the backstop of the other place, which cannot limit debates, and Members can scrutinise the Bill clause by clause and vote on amendments. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this Bill: because it will be certified as a money Bill, there will be limited time for debate in the other place. We therefore do not have the backstop, so it is up to this House to scrutinise the Bill properly. This is a most draconian guillotine motion and is entirely unnecessary, and I intend to try to divide the House on this most important matter. Whether one is for or against the principle of the Bill—or, indeed, whether one is indifferent to it—we as parliamentarians must demand proper time for debate.

It is important to set out the reasons why all stages of the Loans to Ireland Bill should not take place on one day. Let us consider the circumstances under which the Government can legitimately push their legislation through all its stages in one day. I understand that in national emergencies, such as those relating to terrorism, the swift progression of a Bill through Parliament is needed. However, the Loans to Ireland Bill is not one of those Bills. Since 1997, only a handful of Bills have been pushed through the Commons in one day alone. The last one was the Northern Ireland Bill in 2009, which I referred to a few moments ago, but let us look at the typical Bill that has gone through in one day and the precedents that this motion creates.

On 4 April 2001, the Elections Bill went through all its stages in one day, owing to the national crisis caused by the foot and mouth epidemic. Clearly that is not a reason for the Loans to Ireland Bill to go through in one day. On 2 September 1998, Parliament was recalled from its summer recess to pass all stages of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, as an urgent response to the terrible Omagh bombing. Again, that does not apply to today’s Bill. On 19 February 2008, the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill was passed in relation to Northern Rock, and therefore needed to be rushed through the Commons. The House sat until midnight on that day, which I understand was because of market sensitivity. Again, that does not apply to today’s Bill. None of those exceptional circumstances applies to the Loans to Ireland Bill. If this guillotine motion goes through, the Government will have set a dangerous precedent for curtailing debate and excluding proper parliamentary scrutiny on controversial issues.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) say in his intervention on the Minister that we should not waste any more time on the motion than is necessary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend, and is he as intrigued as I am to know under what circumstances time wasting would indeed be necessary?

[Mr Bone]

This Government have put us in a Catch-22 situation, which the previous Government used to put us in too: time for debating guillotine motions is taken out of time on Second Reading. That never used to happen; it was something that the previous Government got into the habit of doing. That means that all these people on the Government Benches want me to shut up, so that we can get on with Second Reading. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Well, my colleagues behind me are going to be disappointed. The newer Members of this Parliament are going to learn—I know that they are keen on this, because they want parliamentary scrutiny, not rubber-stamping—that there is a simple way for all my colleagues on the Government Benches and for Opposition Members to get into the debate, which is to defeat the guillotine motion in a vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think we have got the drift.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Can the Chancellor or another Minister tell us what assessment has been made regarding potential job losses due to changes in the benefit system? Much concern has been expressed in my constituency, particularly yesterday in the local press, that up to 700 jobs might be lost in the HMRC office in Dundee as a result of such changes. What assurances can Ministers give me and my constituents that that will not be allowed to happen?

[Danny Alexander]

The welfare reforms that we are proposing are designed to support people off benefit and into work. That is the whole point of the reforms that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined last week. The reforms that will create a universal credit and some of the changes that we announced in the spending review are all there to help people off benefit and into work, and to help people get jobs, which is what the hon. Gentleman should support.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. First, there would be relatively few annuitants from further back in time. Clearly, a person who retired in 1981 or 1985 would be getting on a bit in years now, so only a small number of people would be involved. Secondly, Equitable must have records showing what bonuses were paid at different times.

The further back the scheme goes before 1991, the fewer annuitants there will be who demand or need that compensation, but the need will be greater because of the frailty and the loss in the value of those annuities since then. Since 1991, those annuitants, even though they may have had bonuses before that, continue to see a decline because of the maladministration, which affects them as much as it affects post-1992 annuitants. I hope I have at least partly answered the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Actuaries are sometimes disdainfully referred to as people who found accountancy too exciting, but surely a good actuary would be able to calculate the sums in question, whether for pre-1991 or post-1991 annuitants.

[Mr Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very good point. We are talking about many hundreds of thousands of policyholders throughout the United Kingdom, but we know that there are about 37,000 or so post-1992 with-profits annuitants. We think there are about 10,000 pre-1992 such annuitants, but the further back we go the fewer there will be, so if it was a difficult, time-consuming exercise to work out relative losses for all policyholders, which it certainly was, which is why Sir John Chadwick was engaged, it will surely be a much easier exercise for the far fewer people who are with-profits annuitants prior to 1991. My hon. Friend’s point goes some way to answering the question.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

We are happy to consider on a case-by-case basis whether tax relief helps to generate employment and earn business and crucially—I think that this is the right hon. Gentleman’s point—to maintain that business in the United Kingdom rather than transferring it overseas. The film tax credit has proved that that can be the case, and I suggest in the new clause that we consider it for the video games industry.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the British film industry. Is he aware that figures provided by TIGA, which represents the computer games industry, suggest that the cost of a tax break for computer games would be £55 million, whereas the film industry already gets a £110 million break, even though the revenue generated by both is much the same?

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed, and TIGA—my hon. Friend says “tiger”; I say “teega”, but we both mean the same thing—has estimated that we can make savings to the Treasury by investing in a tax relief up front and keeping jobs in this country. That is the crucial point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

I accept that. There is also little doubt that we have some tremendously high-quality people working in this business. I must say, in parenthesis, that one difficulty is that hitherto we have had to import far too many such people from beyond these shores. I know that our university media studies industry is much discredited, but those media studies courses that are linked to the video games industry in particular often ensure that we get some of the brightest and best of the home-grown talent in our universities entering the industry.

I take on board the concerns of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), given that the issue before us has been in the ether for years. I would prefer not to rush into anything, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the deep concerns expressed today so that we can come back, perhaps during next year’s Finance Bill, with a workable model based on the proposals before us.

I would like to put in a word not just for the video games industry, unique though its interests are in the minds of those who run and work in those businesses, but for the animation industry. It is a related industry within the media sphere, and faces many of the problems expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee East and businesses in the industry. The animation industry is deeply concerned that it is losing some of its brightest talent, and feels that—this is felt not just in the animation sector—it is facing unfair competition not only from the Canadian and French models, but from Ireland and, dare I say it, Scotland. It feels that it is losing out to a large degree. I would therefore like to see a clause that brings the video games industry, the animation industry and all these other industries under a single protocol. Such a protocol could operate well and effectively, so I hope that the Treasury will consider one in next year’s Finance Bill.

[Jim McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman has indicated that part of the computer games industry is based in his constituency—in fact, he seemed to indicate that the industry originated there. Does he agree that a change of name or title is required? When people hear “computer games industry”, they think of young lads between 15 and 30 sitting in front of a computer screen playing “APB” or “Grand Theft Auto”, when in fact, as people who have visited Abertay university in Dundee will have seen, it is used in medical research, construction and architecture. Perhaps we need a change of focus, rather than continuing to call it the “video games industry”.

[Mr Field]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make that important point, although it also raises the question of how we couch such a new clause and schedule in a future Finance Bill to ensure that it takes on board an industry that we want to encourage rather than see go much further afield. I am not a young lad of 15 or 30—or even of 46—so the industry has passed me by, but there is no doubt about the enthusiasm of the companies operating in this sphere. One of my biggest concerns is that all too often those companies have to employ programmers from eastern Europe and other parts of the world in order to get the relevant level of expertise. That is a regrettable state of affairs. None the less it is undoubtedly a thriving and enormous industry, in which we are cheek by jowl with the Japanese in terms of our expertise and export potential.

I implore the Minister to take our concerns seriously. Now would not be the time to accept a proposal such as the one before us, but I hope that he will give sufficient comfort to Opposition Members to ensure that they do not press the matter to a vote. However, the issue is worth discussing at length today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

New clause 1 and new schedule 2 seek to provide additional tax relief for companies producing video games. The measure was announced, but not implemented, by the previous Administration. As the Chancellor said in the emergency Budget statement, this tax relief for the video games industry is poorly targeted, which is why we have decided not to introduce it.

The United Kingdom’s video games industry is recognised as a world leader, having produced hugely successful games such as the “Grand Theft Auto” series, and has led to innovations in industries as diverse as defence and health care, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) pointed out. All that has been achieved without specific Government intervention for the sector through the tax system.

We estimate that the relief proposed by the Opposition would cost some £40 million to £50 million a year—that was the costing for the previous Administration’s proposal—and we believe that without strong evidence of a market failure in the games industry, it is difficult to justify spending that amount of money on such an intervention, particularly given the state of public finances.

[Jim McGovern]

At a recent meeting with the Minister, I told him that before the Budget that announced the intention to promote tax breaks, there were at least six ministerial visits to Dundee, which included the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Chancellor. There was a lot of consultation before the then Chancellor eventually announced the decision on tax breaks. Will the Minister tell the House how many visits were made to Dundee before this Government’s decision to withdraw them?

[Mr Gauke]

The circumstances facing us in the run-up to the June Budget were such that we wanted to introduce a more fundamental reform of corporation tax. In that Budget on 22 June, we announced a reduction in the main corporation tax rate from 28% to 24% over the next four years. In doing that, we wanted to show a sense of direction, to ensure that Britain was open for business, and that we were providing lower rates. Our approach is to have a broader base but lower rates rather than targeted intervention, unless there is clear evidence that intervention is the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have also reduced the small profits rate of corporation tax from 21% to 20%, when it was set to go up to 22%, and we have effectively reversed the jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions that would have hurt start-ups. We are also offering start-ups, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, a national insurance contributions holiday for the first 10 employees, so there were plenty of positive policies for start-ups announced at the time of the Budget. Indeed, given the state of the public finances, it was a very pro-business, pro-growth Budget in the way that it set up proposals for lower taxes.

On tax simplification, the Office of Tax Simplification earlier today announced the list of reliefs and exemptions within the tax system. When its work began in the summer, the general expectation was that there would be about 400 reliefs and exemptions; the total reached is 1,042 such reliefs and exemptions. Many play an important role within our tax system—I do not wish to decry that—but we have to think carefully about introducing new areas of complexity and new reliefs and exemptions, unless there is a strong case for doing so. Members have already made the case for video games, but the Government remain unconvinced.

[Jim McGovern]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very active on this issue.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He talks about hearing what has been said in the Chamber, but as far as I am aware he has not yet met Richard Wilson of TIGA. Like everyone else who mentions the organisation, I originally referred to it as “teega” but Mr Wilson continually refers to it as “tiger”, and I assume that he knows better than I do. I believe the logo resembles a tiger, so there is a connection with the pronunciation there. Will the Minister agree to come to Dundee and I will arrange for Richard Wilson to be there? If figures are to be bandied about, with the Minister saying they are erroneous and Richard Wilson saying they are correct, it would be better if those two were in the same room at the same time to discuss the issue.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that invitation. I am sure it will be small comfort to the hon. Gentleman, but I will accept the pronunciation “tiger” and concede that point. I am not sure that it would be terribly helpful if we were all in the same room to discuss these particular numbers. As I say, we are not convinced by the case made on these numbers. Of course, Members with constituencies that have a concentration of video game companies will want to make that case, but it is right for the Government to look at the economy as a whole and to bring forward policies that benefit all parts of the country and all sectors, including the video game sector. As I said in the meetings I have had with the hon. Member for Dundee West, there is no sense in which the Government are in any way anti-video games or think it is an antisocial issue or anything like that. It is a question of economic efficiency and where we believe the role of Government can be best used—and that is in providing a favourable climate for businesses.

I appreciate that the new clause and new schedule proposed by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) are probing measures, but I would like to touch on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). This relief is targeted at a specific sector and it would be considered to be state aid; as such, it would require notification to and approval from the European Commission. The new clause and new schedule would be effective from Royal Assent. As the Government would not be able to secure approval in such a short period, the provisions would create an illegal state aid. As I said, I understand that the amending provisions are probing, but the same issue applies to the previous Government’s proposals—and they, too, would have required state aid approval, which is worth putting on the record.

The new clause would create unjustified distortion and complexity in the corporate tax system. We do not think that such an intervention would represent good value for money for the Exchequer or be conducive to providing a simple and competitive tax system. The UK needs a tax system that supports all businesses, because it is the private sector across the board that will drive the recovery. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause and new schedule.

Banking in Scotland

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

If people just mention the arc of prosperity the nationalists tend to become somewhat overexcited. I understand that and accept that it was my responsibility. I will try not to say anything else that might prove unduly provocative.

Visiting Ireland was interesting because—

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davidson]

I hope my hon. Friend is not too excited.

[Jim McGovern]

I will try not to be.

Charges of €50 to visit a general practitioner, €85 per month prescription charges, 25% VAT, 50% income tax and £8 for a pint of beer, which is hard for some people to swallow, are all characteristics of small European countries regularly used as examples by the separatists who want to take Scotland out of the UK.

[Mr Davidson]

Indeed, all that is true. However, I am in danger of becoming diverted. Far be it from me to allow that to happen. I look forward to hearing exchanges on such matters later.

Our visit to Ireland was helpful and constructive. I want to put on the record that we were pleased that all those whom we met were prepared to be perfectly open with us and that they put everything that we asked for in front of us. That made the trip more interesting, enjoyable and educational than it might otherwise have been.

It is clear that in Ireland there was a sort of crony capitalism, where everybody not only knew each other, but lent each other money. The housing prices in particular rocketed upwards to such an extent that when the crash came the central bank was not able to bail out those who found themselves in difficulty in quite the same way that we in the UK were able to. Scotland had the great advantage of being part of the Union and therefore the Bank of England was able to bail out the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

Indeed, Mr Rosindell, I was led astray by bad boys.

I was asked about conclusion 3. The Committee stated in its report:

“We welcome the optimism of those working in the financial services sector who believe that the reputation of that sector in Scotland has not been permanently damaged by the difficulties experienced by two of Scotland’s, and the UK’s, largest banks. We are reassured that the quality of the location, the lower costs and the depth and diversity of its labour pool remain attractive to global corporations.”

That is particularly welcome in view of one of the Committee’s anxieties. We asked everyone we saw whether they believed at that time—the hearings took place in December 2009 and January 2010—that the financial crisis that had arisen from the activities of those working for the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland would have a long-term impact on the finance industry in Scotland. It was reassuring and supportive of what we were seeking to do to have a clear view from virtually everyone we spoke to that there was no doubt about that. A few people had some doubts, but we subsequently spoke to some of them informally and were reassured that they believed that the waters had calmed and that the Scottish finance industry, although shaken, had not been brought tumbling to the ground. I am glad to see the Government’s response to that conclusion, which is:

“The Government will continue to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that the financial services and banking sectors remain strong in the future.”

I hope that they are also prepared to continue working with the Scottish Affairs Committee, as well, to ensure that, as we monitor, we try to pull things together as far as possible.

[Jim McGovern]

Unfortunately, I must leave shortly, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have had the same experience as I have had. I was elected in 2005, and hold a surgery every week. Generally, the people coming to my surgeries had problems with tax, pensions, immigration, visas and so on, but in the past year or so, more and more members of the local business community have come to my surgeries complaining about how they are treated by the banks. Is that a common experience?

[Mr Davidson]

I have certainly had more people coming to my surgeries to talk about how they are being treated by the banks. I am also aware from money advice centres, Citizens Advice and other advice centres in my area that since the banking crisis the number of people complaining about how the banks have dealt with them has risen considerably. One is never entirely sure whether that is because the issues have been given more publicity—what we hear in our surgeries is not necessarily an objective assessment—but it is noticeable that the numbers have risen substantially, and I understand that that is a common experience.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jim McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce]

My hon. Friend and I represent neighbouring constituencies, where a high proportion of people and companies work in the oil and gas industry. Far too often—and this applies to both Labour and Conservative Governments—sudden changes in the tax regime have been deeply damaging, and I am grateful that that is something else that will be done by consultation. It is, I hope, recognition that north-east Scotland, which my hon. Friend and I represent, makes a disproportionately large contribution to the economy of Scotland and of the United Kingdom, not just in oil revenues but in the 450,000 jobs that derive from the activities that run out of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland. There is £5 billion of exports in sub-sea technology, and a burgeoning new industry in marine renewables, which uses the same technology. It is important that the Government understand how they can support that industry, so my hon. Friend’s intervention is pertinent and relevant.

I declare an interest, as I have a grown-up deaf daughter who receives disability living allowance, so I certainly welcome the simplification of the process for applying for that abstruse allowance. It is not means-tested—people do not have to prove that they need the money; in fact, that is not a valid reason at all for qualifying for it—as individuals have just to prove how disabled they are to enable someone to make a judgment. That is difficult, and it goes against the grain for disabled people, who want to show how able they are, in spite of their disability. A simple medical test, if it is applied objectively and fairly, would work, and I hope that someone like my daughter, who can prove that she is profoundly deaf, would automatically qualify, as would others with a similar category of disability.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I would like to take the right hon. Gentleman back a couple of steps. He said that his party, and presumably the coalition, welcome the part-privatisation of Royal Mail, but is he aware that people employed by Royal Mail definitely do not welcome it?

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am aware that some people employed by Royal Mail have argued that they are not in favour of that, but they include people who are involved in the downfall of Royal Mail, too. We have to undertake a consultation, and let those people make a judgment. Royal Mail needs capital, without which it cannot survive and compete. It is a good idea to give the employees a real stake in a reinvested and reinvigorated Royal Mail. I hope that when many of them see what has been proposed they will welcome it as a positive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

What I regret is that the current Government withdrew the future jobs fund and the extra 20,000 places that Labour introduced to universities, and cut the regional development agencies, which were doing fantastic work in my region of Yorkshire and Humberside. Those are my regrets.

Frankly, there is no vision from the Chancellor and the Government of the sort of economy they want to emerge from the recession. What sort of society and economy do they want when they have reduced the budget deficit? Labour wants a sectorally and regionally diverse economy that is robust enough to face future shocks. None of that is on the Chancellor’s or the Government’s radar—let alone within their grasp—because they are cutting the very measures that would ensure not only growth in the short term but future economic security.

The new Government are portraying their cuts as eliminating waste, when in fact they are risking our future economic prosperity. Eliminating the future jobs fund, which has got almost 200,000 people back to work through the recession, axing the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters—an absolute disgrace that has cost jobs and economic growth in my region—cutting funding to universities, and cutting hospitals, transport and school building programmes across the country, including in my city of Leeds, is certainly not my idea of eliminating waste. Rather, it is cutting the front-line services on which my constituents rely.

[Jim McGovern]

My hon. Friend mentioned her regrets and went on to describe some of the things that are happening in her constituency, but does she agree that the Government’s refusal in today’s Budget to honour the commitment to tax breaks for the computer games industry will have a detrimental effect in my constituency?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we could think of countless examples of things that the Government have done today that will risk the future economic prosperity of this country.

Worse than that, ordinary people—those least responsible for the recession—will be hardest hit. In Leeds West, average earnings are £16,000 and unemployment stands at 8.7%. Increasing VAT, reducing access to free school meals, abolishing the health in pregnancy grant, freezing child benefit and cutting tax credits will hurt my constituents. The people who bear no responsibility for the financial crisis and recession will be hardest hit. An extra £13 billion is to be paid in VAT, but there will be only £2 billion extra from the bankers. Is that fair? Is that the way to bring down a budget if we are “all in this together”? I think not. Asking those who already struggle to make ends meet, such as those in Leeds West, to make the same sacrifices as, or more than, those at the top is plain unfair and socially divisive.

I began by urging the Government not to forget the lessons from Japan in the 1990s and the United States in the 1930s. However, I am filled with fear that they want to learn a lesson from Canada, because we are in a totally different position from that of Canada when it approached its fiscal consolidation. At that time, Canada was a partner in the newly formed North American Free Trade Agreement, and was experiencing strong demand for its exports. It was also able to loosen monetary policy, which was integral to getting its economy back on track. Given that UK interest rates are at 0.5%, that rates will be low in the long term, and that quantitative easing has already been undertaken, it is pretty much impossible to see how we can loosen monetary policy further—that is simply not at our discretion. I urge the Government not to manipulate the Canadian experience to justify today’s deep cuts.

I do not dispute that we need a realistic and credible plan for reducing the deficit—[Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”] In response to those heckles, as far as I am aware, it is the Government’s responsibility to come up with the plans, but without a credible plan for growth, we risk a double-dip recession, or a British economy that splutters along in the slow lane of the global economic recovery.

The Government are trying to convince the public that there is only one way that Britain will bring down the deficit—pursuing hasty and unjust spending cuts—but that is simply not true. They are using the budget deficit as a cloak for fulfilling their overriding ideological desire for a smaller state. They are set on achieving that by doing the economy down—as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) did when he made the comparison with Greece, which was the most misleading comparison he could have made—and by panicking the public into thinking that there is no other option.

However, there is another option. The surest way to reduce the budget deficit is to ensure strong and sustainable growth and a rebalanced economy. Yes, taxes need to increase and spending to decrease, but not at the expense of the economic future of this country or of a diverse, strong regional and national economy; and not in a way that will plunge more families and children, who played absolutely no role in causing this recession, into poverty, unemployment and despair.