Finance Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Chancellors sometimes glance back at the effect of their Budgets with rose-tinted glasses instead of seeing the real effects of their economic policies, including the decisions made in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

I congratulate the Government on moving their rhetoric to the right place: suddenly, words such as “growth” and “investment” are as prominent in their lexicon as they always should have been. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has pointed out, their promise on infrastructure spending is to spend tomorrow—most of it in 2014, 2015, 2016 and even 2017—rather than now. It is spending decisions taken now that will have an impact on the lives of people today, rather than waiting and hoping for things that may happen at a future date.

Boosting growth and living standards this year and next year would bring in more tax revenues and reduce the scale of the cuts needed in 2015. Taking action now to boost economic growth—by, for example, bringing infrastructure plans forward so that they happen now rather than tomorrow—would make a real difference. That is why the new clause would be helpful: it would test the impact of the spending round on tax receipts and, as my hon. Friend has said, do so in time to make any necessary adjustments to improve not only the economy, but people’s lives and living standards.

The figures revealed by the Government last week showed another cut of 1.7%—or nearly £1 billion—to capital investment in 2015-16. One would not have thought that to be the case on hearing the announcement, but having looked at the plans I know that that is what they reveal. Capital spending is down by 1.7% in education, by 2.3% in defence and by 17.6% in the Home Office. In the Department for Communities and Local Government, including housing, it is down by a massive, staggering 35.6%, and by 57.6% in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Those are large figures and we need to know whether their impact on the economy’s behaviour will be beneficial or, as I fear, not.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The coalition has more or less mirrored the capital spending plans of the former Labour Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), so is the hon. Gentleman saying that he was wrong in his allocation of capital spending?

[Nic Dakin]

If we move away from the rhetoric and look at the facts, we will see that in their first three years this Government have spent £5.6 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans they inherited from Labour. That amounts to a £5.6 billion cut to spending that would have taken place had this Government continued with the plans they inherited from the previous Government. What has happened illustrates the importance to the health of the economy of continuity in large infrastructure projects. It is difficult to get that right between the parties, but we must recognise that there are plans for infrastructure spending so that the tap cannot be turned off easily, as the Government did with the Building Schools for the Future programme. If that programme had been carried forward, it would have assisted economic development, as well as continuing to revolutionise the learning environment of children up and down the land.

In the three months to April 2013, output in the construction industry was 4.7% lower than in the same period a year earlier. Construction output is down by 11.2% since the 2010 spending review. Construction—that energetic sector that drives the economy—continues to struggle. That is why we need to check, three months down the line, the effect on the economy of the decisions that are being made today to ensure that we are moving in the right direction.

The volume of new construction orders fell by 10% between quarter 4 of 2012 and quarter 1 of 2013. That is a massive dip. The number of new orders for infrastructure fell by 49.8% over the same period—the largest fall since 1987. The value of public sector infrastructure orders fell by £2 billion between quarter 4 of 2012 and quarter 1 of 2013. Those are significant contractions of demand in the economy.

That clearly has an impact on jobs. At the end of the day, jobs are what transform people’s lives. There is unanimity about that across the Chamber. The construction sector has lost 84,000 jobs since the Government came to power. That has an impact on the well-being and quality of life of individuals, as well as on the economy and the livelihoods of people beyond the construction industry.

There is much more that I could say, but I will return to the essence of this simple, helpful, concise new clause. I can see no argument for the Government not accepting it. It would help us all if they accepted it gracefully so that we can move forward together in harmony.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, if we had a house for every press statement issued by the Government, we would not have a housing crisis.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points, and I entirely agree with him on the need for a house building programme. Would not the advantage of such a programme be that there would be a ready revenue stream in the form of rental repayments?

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All the benefits that I have referred to, plus others, would result from such a programme. If we were to invest in retrofitting as well as in new build, we could tackle some of the chronic problems that are costing the national health service £2.5 billion a year. We could also tackle the problem of a whole generation of young people being held back at school because their overcrowded homes impact on their ability to do their homework. That impacts on their exam results, which in turn impact on their lifelong earnings potential. If the Government were to invest in housing as we would do, they could also reflect the demands of an ageing population. They would be able to help people of all tenures to downsize, rather than using the obscene weapon of the bedroom tax, which has no place in a civilised society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Minister will be aware that the Silk commission on Wales stated that the Finance Bill would be the appropriate legislative vehicle to implement its findings. Those findings have not been implemented in the Bill, so what legislative vehicle will the Government use to implement the Silk report when they respond?

[Mr Gauke]

As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government will respond to the report in due course. Further details will be provided at that point.

On simplification, we continue to shape the tax landscape. A tax system should be easy to administer and to understand. To that end, the Government set up the independent Office of Tax Simplification in 2010. I pay tribute to the invaluable work that it has done. The Bill takes forward the recommendations from its review of small business tax. It introduces two optional simpler income tax schemes for small incorporated businesses and a new time-limited disincorporation relief for small businesses that feel that a corporate form is burdensome. Small businesses make a vital contribution to the UK economy and public finances, and these measures recognise that contribution. We have acted to provide certainty and clarity in other areas. The statutory residence test and the reforms to ordinary residence are a significant and welcome simplification of the tax code, if not a shortening of it.

Many of the measures in the Bill have been subject to extensive consultation and scrutiny—processes that are entrenched in the Government’s approach to making tax policy. The statutory residence test was consulted on three times between summer 2011 and February 2013. The Chartered Institute of Taxation said that that was a

“good example of how to make good tax law”

and we would agree.

The Government have shown their commitment to greater transparency and broadening the range of impacts that they consider. For the Finance Bill 2013 we published more than 400 pages of draft legislation, and we are grateful for the 400 or so responses we received. Through such engagement we have considered the views of interested groups and taxpayers, and we considered them further in Public Bill Committee with more than 49 hours of scrutiny—to some of us, it may have felt longer.

I thank all those involved in the Bill, whether officials, interested parties, parliamentary counsel, my hon. Friends the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Opposition Members, and Back Benchers, who all contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. This Finance Bill delivers real reform, supports business and growth, upholds principles of fairness, rewards work, and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to creating a tax system that reduces the deficit and builds a prosperous economy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Finance Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

In essence this debate is about political choices and not just the technical efficiencies of marginal rates of tax. When this Government took over from Labour in 2010, two thirds of the deficit had been created by the banking community and a third by pump-priming in response to the financial tsunami after a history of sustained growth under the Labour Government. The new Government decided to focus not on growth, but on cuts to get down the deficit, which was a fundamental error that has led to a flatlining economy. They then had to decide who should bear the brunt in order to pay down the deficit—80% in cuts and 20% in taxes—and the answer that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats came up with was that it should be the poorest who were hit hardest.

The recent spending review and infrastructure plans replayed the same Tory agenda: the cuts will hit hardest in the poorest areas, including Wales and the north, and 80% of the investment in infrastructure for growth will benefit London and the south-east in order to shore up the Tory and coalition votes. This new clause is about making a move in the other direction so that the very rich make a slightly greater contribution, which will be redistributed to people in the middle and at the lower end of the income scale.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman may have read an Institute of Welsh Affairs blog today by Gerry Holtham, the well-respected Welsh economist, who was scathing in his criticism of the hon. Gentleman’s party for adopting Tory austerity policies. How concerned is the hon. Gentleman, on the back of his criticisms of the UK Government’s austerity policies, about the fact that his party has adopted the very same strategy?

[Geraint Davies]

A moment ago I talked about Arab oil sheiks and now I am going to talk about Welsh milk shakes. On a serious note, what the Labour party has said is that when we take over in 2015, should the people of Britain give us their confidence, as I hope they will, we will inherit—this is self-evidently true—the current Government’s spending plans for 2015-16, so we will carry them out. As we make progress, I hope that the focus will switch to growth more than cuts, as it did after we inherited the Conservative party’s spending plans when we took over in 1997. We ran with those plans for a year and then we had consistent growth. The economy grew by 40% from 1997 to 2008 before the financial tsunami caused by sub-prime debt. I imagine that we will do the same in 2015. We offer no apology that we will have fiscal discipline alongside a focus on growth and that we will get people into jobs to pay down the debt. We will also change the composition of cuts to the rich and poor in certain areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

It has been a number of weeks since we debated the provision in earlier stages of the Bill. My concern about the mansion tax policy, which I support in principle, is whether agricultural land would be included as a part of the estate that would be taxed. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that farmers are protected?

[Geraint Davies]

But only Welsh farmers—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Much as I think the Liberal Democrats believe that the world revolves around them—[Interruption.]

[Jonathan Edwards]

Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman out. He will be aware that in Wales we had a council tax revaluation for domestic properties in 2005. Does he think that a similar evaluation for England might achieve the objectives of a mansion tax and probably raise far more?

[Chris Evans]

I find myself in shock, but I agree with a member of the Welsh nationalist party. There is some merit in that idea, which is something we can look at.

This new clause presents an opportunity for the Conservatives to reverse the inequality that I have talked about—the two Britains that are starting to emerge in our society. If we agree with a mansion tax, we will be able to fund a tax cut for millions of people. We support the increase in personal allowances, but the reintroduction of the 10p tax would mean that work pays once again. I know that the Tories will say that we abolished it. We must be big enough in politics to admit that we got something wrong, and we got it wrong when we abolished the 10p tax rate, which would give the lowest in society an opportunity to go out to work and make work pay. This is what I mean when I talk about how difficult it is to get back to work once someone is out of it. We can do this today.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

I do so wish I had been offered the chance to sit on the Finance Bill Committee in order, day after day, to be able to get into the details and hold the Government more to account, although sadly next year ends with a 4 and I am unable in any year that ends with a 4 to sit on a Finance Bill Committee.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Following the G8 summit, the Prime Minister said that the provisions of the summit would raise about £1 billion for the Exchequer, which leaves about £29 billion unaccounted for, according to HMRC. Has the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench team informed him how much new clause 12 would raise for the Exchequer?

[John Mann]

I am sure that it will be a damn sight more than that.

Spending Review

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

When I became Chancellor we were borrowing £157 billion a year. We are forecast to borrow £108 billion a year, which is a reduction in borrowing.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Why is the Chancellor going to decide what capital investment projects should be delivered in Wales if the Silk commission is implemented, considering that transport is devolved?

[Mr Osborne]

There is a specific issue around borrowing powers and the M4 corridor through Newport. That has to be done in partnership with the Government in London, but we are very aware of the benefits of that scheme. The Welsh Assembly and the people of Wales will welcome what we are proposing to do on the devolution of further tax and borrowing powers. We will set that out shortly.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raises a good point, and it is actually quite easy to find out—although I do not think the previous Government wanted to advertise it, and nor do I think the current Opposition want us to continue highlighting it—that when RBS was bailed out, the then Government overpaid by over £12 billion and wrote that off at that time. They did the same in the interventions in Lloyds bank and Northern Rock, and, as we know, all this was a direct result of the previous Government’s failure to regulate our banking and financial system properly.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Minister referred in his statement to the regulatory role of the new Prudential Regulation Authority. What mechanisms have the Government and the Bank of England put in place to ensure that the PRA does not suffer from the “revolving door” disease, which afflicted its predecessor, the FSA?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. That was a problem at the previous regulator, the FSA. When the PRA was set up, its head, Andrew Bailey, prioritised the issue, making sure that he hires the best people and that they are rewarded accordingly, to make sure they can do a good job in looking after the interests of the taxpayer.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely strong point, and one that I have made repeatedly. This might seem like small change to the Chancellor, but it could make a very big difference to some of the people affected by his failing economic plan.

I am sure, given the concerns recently expressed by apparently senior Liberal Democrats, that Lib Dem Members will join us in calling for a commitment from their Conservative colleagues in the Government. Indeed, only last month a member of the Liberal Democrat tax working group stated:

“While the Treasury’s own figures about the 50p are highly questionable, the politics of cutting tax for the very rich make no sense; there is no reason why a 50p rate shouldn’t be part of a solution for tough times.”

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I agree with many of the hon. Lady’s points. Plaid Cymru will fight the next Westminster election on a pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate. Will the Labour party do the same?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We have made it perfectly clear from day one that we do not support the cut to the 50p rate now, and we call on the Government to analyse the impact of the introduction and premature removal of the 50p rate. When we come to publish our next manifesto, we will review the state of the economy and whether a 50p rate would be the right response. I hope that Members of other Opposition parties, as well as Liberal Democrats, will support our amendment, because it would help to establish whether the 50p rate would bring in the additional Exchequer revenue that was anticipated—but if the Government refuse to back it today, we will never know.

The President of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), said:

“Cutting the top rate was a stupid thing to do. It probably raised up to £3bn a year. We should pledge to restore the 50p rate at the next election. It’s not enough to be fair, you have to be seen to be fair.”

Their current, or former, Treasury spokesman—I can never work out which he is—Lord Oakeshott—

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are seeing that in their constituencies. I hope that Government Members will visit food banks in their communities to understand the causes of food insecurity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, it is about the choices the Government are making and their priorities. Earlier we heard the most uncomfortable and distorted logic: when the economy was growing, unemployment was falling, we were investing in health and helping young people into employment, the Labour Government should have taken more money from the rich through a 50p tax rate, just for the sake of it; but when the economy is flat-lining, unemployment has just risen again, poverty and the gap between rich and poor are increasing, it is the right time for this Government to give a tax break to people earning over £150,000. I cannot follow that logic.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has estimated that almost 2.5 million families on low incomes will pay £130 more in council tax this year, adding further to the squeeze that working families are suffering. This Government have made their choice, and I think that, as they drive towards the next general election, if they glance in the rear-view mirror, two hazards will make them fail the electoral test. The first is their decision to scrap the 50p rate of tax. The second is their choice to introduce a bedroom tax at the same time. There is a family in Wallyford in my constituency, the Anderson family. Mr Anderson is a full-time carer for his wife, who has a severe form of epilepsy. He is saving this country a small fortune by caring for his wife, but he does it because he wants to, not because he has to. There are times when he needs not to sleep in the same room as his wife—I have his permission to discuss his case in this amount of detail—and he needs to be able to make that choice. He also has a son with spina bifida, who is now enjoying a degree of independence and living away from his family, but he can maintain that independence only by returning home for about three days a week when the weather is bad. Recently, he has been at home for longer—so that bedroom is needed for Mark and his equipment.

I feel ashamed that Mr Anderson should have to come to see me to ask why the Government are choosing to give money to people who are not even asking for it, when he is going to be taxed for having that bedroom. And it is a tax; when the Government take money out of people’s pockets, that is a tax. This Government are choosing to make life much more difficult for a man who has given up work to care for his wife and to support his disabled son and enable him to live as independent a life as possible. That says a lot about the Government’s approach, and it does not surprise me that Government Members are not seeking to contribute to the debate today.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the tax cut for people earning more than £3,000 a week was introduced in the last Finance Bill. Members of the parliamentary Labour party abstained in the vote on that Bill. She has made some pretty strong comments today. Is she now saying that that abstention was a catastrophic political mistake?

[Fiona O’Donnell]

No, I am not. I would say that the catastrophic political mistakes are most often made on the nationalist Benches. We are stating clearly that, if we were in government today, we would not be scrapping the 50p rate. There is no ambivalence or doubt about that. That is the position of Labour Members in the Chamber.

I appeal to Liberal Democrat Members to remember their Lib Dem values, and to all Government Members to think about the people who are contacting them. Are they the people who earn more than £150,000 a year, or are they the families and pensioners who are struggling with the cost of daily living? I urge Government Members to vote according to the representations that they are receiving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Some Members have chosen to talk about billions of pounds. I will speak about the odd pound and the odd penny, because that is what makes the difference to many of the people I represent.

The cost of living is one of the defining issues of this Parliament not only because of what the Government are doing but because of what they are not doing. Following the announcement yesterday of a huge increase in unemployment—12,000 in the north-east of England—in the last hour, we have learnt that another 160 jobs are going at SABIC, a pharmaceuticals company on Teesside. That is not good news.

The Chancellor’s VAT hike has been shown to be a mistake and it is hitting the vulnerable and those on the lower end of the income scale the hardest. Yes, one of the millionaires who uses his £100,000 tax cut under this Government will pay more VAT than the vast majority of other people when he buys himself a luxury car, but that will not make the difference to whether or not he can buy an extra loaf of bread or a pound of mince for his family’s evening meal. A cut in VAT of 2.5% may just buy some extra peanuts when the banker buys his champagne to celebrate his latest million-pound bonus, but it is the people earning peanuts for working hard to support their families who can put the extra pound or two from a cut to good use.

The previous Labour Government showed that that works when they temporarily reduced VAT to 15%. The reduced tax on sales provided an effective stimulus to the economy. Likewise, a VAT hike was always going to suppress consumption, and hit ordinary families in places such as my Stockton North constituency hard.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the rise came in the emergency Budget in 2010. There was a vote on the rise and the Labour party abstained. Can he explain the voting record of the Labour party?

[Alex Cunningham]

That is a very difficult question to answer but easy enough to ask. I regret that that happened.

The Chancellor once spoke of the liberal credentials of his public school, so he could change and understand a bit more about the people out there. At the time, The Guardian quoted him talking about St Paul’s. He suggested that everyone was treated the same and said:

“It didn't matter who your parents were. Your mother could be the head of a giant corporation—or a solicitor in Kew”.

I have news for the Chancellor. Contrary to his blinkered view, solicitors and captains of industry do not encompass the full imaginable spectrum of socio-economic status. Not everyone out there can absorb VAT increases and not notice the difference. One has to add teachers, police, social workers, canteen cleaners, domestic staff, joiners, bricklayers, call centre staff, health care assistants and so many more to one’s list of acquaintances if one is really to understand the impact of his policies on people.

The statistics speak for themselves. The impact of the VAT increase will cost the lowest-paid workers four times more than any gain from the £10,000 personal allowance, when it is introduced in 2014. Like other Labour Members, I approve of the allowance being at that level. It is good that hard-working families can get extra money, but when the Government take it away with the other hand and people end up paying more, that is not a good thing.

Food prices are also up. I know it has probably been a long time since the Chancellor has nipped around the supermarket to do his weekly shop, if he ever has done so, but if he did so regularly he would see that food and other grocery shop prices are somewhat higher than he imagined and, for many items, way ahead of what his inflation figures are suggesting. Whether it is the price of caulies or a budget chicken, my constituents tell me they are having to pay more, or sadly just do without. Families at the bottom of the income scale—on average, on £53.81 a week—will suffer a 6.3% drop in their overall income following the VAT rise, personal allowance increase and other minor tax changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I will come to that in a wee minute. The hon. Gentleman will have to bide his time and be patient, or, as we would say, houl yer whisht. Perhaps he knows what I mean by that.

It is important to put on the record that Northern Ireland has an international connection and an international carrier from Aldergrove airport to Newark airport, which is just outside New York. It flies every day in peak season—one flight a day in, one flight a day out. We have no other international carrier. However, the same carrier operates from Dublin, which is 90 miles down the road, to Newark. In the last number of years, the business in Northern Ireland was put under threat for one reason only: the airport authority and the carrier had to subsidise one another to the tune of £1.5 million. Had they not done so, the business would not exist, and people would be forced to travel 90 miles down the road and pay a lesser tax.

The price difference was staggering—it meant that it was possible to travel 90 miles down the road. Filling a car with petrol or diesel and driving to Dublin costs about £50—there would also be a car park charge—but the APD for that international flight from Northern Ireland was £150. The duty in the Republic of Ireland was €3. The difference would have ruined that business. It was essential on those terms that we got rid of APD for that international flight. My position is that I want the duty removed for the whole UK. That is what the debate is about. The measure is about internal flights in the UK, including, of course, our glorious and noble Scotland.

I am concerned that there is an element, or even a huge big bit, of fudge, which we should avoid. The policy, which should be set out loud and clear, should be the scrapping of APD for all of the UK.

[Jonathan Edwards]

It is with pleasure that I introduce my new clause 4 and new schedule 1; I hope to press the new clause to the vote at the appropriate time.

The UK Government’s Commission on Devolution in Wales, headed by Sir Paul Silk, published the first phase of its report in November 2012. This phase concentrated solely on fiscal powers. Here we are, five months later, still waiting for the UK Government response, which was originally said to be due this spring. In a matter of a few weeks, the cricket season will be upon us and it will be summer, yet we are none the wiser about the intentions of the UK Government.

In short, the Silk commission recommended that powers over stamp duty land tax, the aggregates levy, air passenger duty for long haul, landfill tax and business rates be devolved in their entirety and as soon as possible. It also advocated a sharing arrangement for income tax. In addition, it argued—importantly—that should corporation tax be devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales should not be left behind. I reiterate the point that I made on the closing day of the Budget debate—that we are very interested to see the strong lobby, led by the CBI, coming from Northern Ireland. In total, the fiscal powers advocated by Silk for immediate devolution—the minor taxes—together account for about £1.2 billion of the Welsh Government’s budget.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does my hon. Friend find it strange, as I do, that no one representing the Labour party in Wales is present to back the policy of the Labour Government down in Cardiff?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, as we had a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on this issue, and Labour speaker after Labour speaker lined up to say that they not only were in favour of the Silk recommendations on minor taxes, but wanted them devolved immediately. They went even further, saying that the Finance Bill was the appropriate vehicle for achieving that.

[Mr MacNeil]

I have a certain understanding of the word “immediately”, and I am sure that my hon. Friend does, too. Does he think that that understanding of the word is shared by Labour in Wales?

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is the exact point. This was said to be the appropriate legislative vehicle for devolving airport duty to Northern Ireland, and if it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it is certainly good enough for Scotland and Wales.

Needless to say, the proposed powers fell far short of what Plaid Cymru was advocating as a party. We wanted a more comprehensive list of job-creating and economy-boosting powers, including VAT, corporation tax, resource taxes and capital gains tax. In the interest of compromise, however, and not second-guessing Silk, we are happy to proceed as the commission recommended—not least because the fiscal powers recommended by Paul Silk and his team in the commission’s report are desperately needed for the sake of the Welsh economy. The minor tax powers, the income tax sharing arrangement and the borrowing powers that would be triggered as a result would enable us in Wales better to deliver job-creating and economy-boosting measures and policies to help turn around the continuing dire state of the economy.

Yesterday’s unemployment figures showed a small drop in unemployment in Wales, but the number of economically inactive people went up by 7,000. The rate is still 0.4% higher than in the UK, and there are still nearly 50,000 more people unemployed in Wales than there were before the recession began, and another 50,000 more people who are under-employed. That is on top of the extra 50,000 public sector jobs we expect to be lost in the coming years on top of the 24,000 that have already been lost.

Last week’s research by Sheffield Hallam university and the Financial Times, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) referred, highlighted that more than £1 billion is due to be taken out of the Welsh economy over the next year by cuts to social security. This will have a devastating human cost, which is becoming all too clear.

The private sector is already on its knees in Wales due to the depression caused by the disastrous economic policies pursued by both Labour and Conservative Westminster Governments, which have destroyed the productive economies within the British state. It will deteriorate further as money is sucked out of local economies through further austerity. We are yet to see any realistic plan of how jobs and growth will come about in these depressed areas or any effort to counterbalance the austerity cuts, despite the high rhetoric of geographical rebalancing.

There are three important reasons why the Welsh Government should be empowered with fiscal powers as advocated by the Silk commission and as proposed in my new clause. First, it would make the Welsh Government more accountable. Secondly, it would incentivise the Welsh Government to concentrate on developing the economy to raise the necessary revenue to invest in public services. Lastly, an independent fiscal stream would enable the Welsh Government to access the borrowing powers they have agreed with the UK Government.

Labour’s proposals for substantial cuts in Welsh capital spending in the last Budget that it presented before losing office were supported in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat comprehensive spending review in October 2010, which cut the Welsh capital budget by 42%. Announcements in subsequent UK Budgets or autumn statements have meant that the final cut is about 39%. Although that is admittedly a smaller reduction than the one planned by Labour, it represents a huge hit for economic activity in Wales. The devolution of minor taxes and the triggering of borrowing powers would go some way towards filling the gap, enabling the Welsh Government to invest in infrastructure projects and generate economic momentum.

[Hywel Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again; he is being very generous. Does he agree that the term “minor taxes” is a misnomer, given that those taxes constitute a key that could unlock substantial moneys which the Welsh Government could invest in dealing with our economic difficulties?

[Jonathan Edwards]

That is exactly the point. We have experienced twin processes in Wales. We have had the Silk commission, but there has also been a bilateral negotiation between the United Kingdom and Welsh Governments. The consequence of that negotiation was that the Welsh Government would be given borrowing powers if it had an independent fiscal stream. That is why my new clause is so vital for the Welsh economy.

In January, the Welsh Grand Committee debated the commission’s part II recommendations. Although there was a difference of views over the proposals for income tax-sharing arrangements, it was broadly accepted on all sides that the minor taxes recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible. I must confess that during that debate I became slightly confused. Unionist politicians were in favour of full devolution of some taxes, but opposed to a sharing arrangement between the UK and Welsh Governments in relation to income tax. My natural conclusion following the debate was that as there was a consensus at least in relation to the minor taxes, we ought to get on with devolving them swiftly rather than waiting for what could be years for a new Government of Wales Act.

The most prominent of the minor taxes is covered by the air passenger duty recommendation. It is difficult for us to table amendments relating to the other minor taxes at this stage because consideration in Committee is in the hands of the usual channels, from which my party is excluded, but we are at least able to consider the devolution of air passenger duty. I suggest that that should serve as a spur for the implementation of the other minor tax powers recommended by the commission.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Silk commission said that his package should be viewed as such—as a package? I share the hon. Gentleman’s impatience as we wait for the Government to respond to part I of the Silk recommendations, but we should nevertheless see them in that light.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I think that the question for the hon. Gentleman is this: if he favours the devolution of fiscal powers to Wales, should he not walk through the Lobby with us rather than waiting for another Government of Wales Bill? When will that Bill come before the House? When will the legislative gap arise? If he is promising me that the Bill will be in the Queen’s Speech, we may consider whether or not to press new clause 3 to a vote.

If the Committee supports the new clause, I shall expect the Treasury to include the other minor taxes and business rates as the Bill proceeds, and to implement fully this aspect of the Silk recommendations.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is it not strange that no Welsh Labour Members are present to debate air passenger duty, given that the Labour First Minister of Wales has spent many millions of pounds of Welsh money on buying an airport in Cardiff?

[Jonathan Edwards]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, to which I shall return. Fifty million pounds of Welsh taxpayers’ money has been spent on buying an airport, and no Labour Member from Wales is present this evening to vote for a proposal that would enable the Welsh Government to make the most of that asset. It is a disgrace, and I hope that the Welsh media are listening to the debate and will report on it fully.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the hon. Gentleman actually informing the House that Labour at Westminster does not want to give powers to Labour in Wales because it wants to leave those powers with the Tories in Westminster? Is that the situation with which we are dealing? Does Labour prefer to put power in the hands of the Tories rather than in the hands of Labour? Does Labour trust the Tories more than Labour trusts Labour? This is bizarre.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I believe that that is indeed the case.

Admittedly the revenue gathered from the minor taxes, although not insignificant, is relatively small in comparison with the revenue that would be available through the income tax-sharing arrangement recommended by the Silk commission. That would make the Welsh Government responsible for 10p in every pound of income tax raised in Wales. It would enable the Welsh Government to increase their borrowing capacity substantially, and would strengthen the accountability test. My intention is to return to that at a later stage of the Bill’s progress. It would also undoubtedly incentivise the Welsh Government to grow the economy in Wales and provide responsibility for its expenditure. It is also clear that fair funding and the proper resolution of the blatant inadequacies of the Barnett formula, whereby we estimate that Wales loses out on an average of £500 million a year, are desperately needed, but that resolution must not be used to block the partial devolution of income tax or the minor taxes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is clarifying the matter. The power has been devolved but it has not yet been implemented and, like him, I would urge our Executive to implement it. It will help business and the whole of the United Kingdom could benefit, including Wales, Scotland and England, if they get on with it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is especially the case in Wales, as the Welsh Government own our national airport.

It is clear that the Bill is the appropriate legislative vehicle to move this issue forward. There is a clear precedent and, as I said, I believe the Treasury should accept the amendment, as it includes all the minor taxes recommended by Silk.

The Labour Welsh Government have recently acquired Cardiff airport, and the ability to attract long-haul flights to Cardiff would significantly improve the airport’s competitiveness. Cardiff airport has 1.5 million people in its catchment area and long-haul flights could attract people from even further afield. The development of Cardiff airport could act as a spur to growth in the south Wales economy, bringing in greater foreign direct investment through better business links, in turn bringing jobs and growth.

Quite frankly, I am amazed that the Labour party has not tabled its own amendment. That goes to show that the First Minister has absolutely no influence over his bosses down here. On Tuesday of this week, he stood in the National Assembly telling the Members and the people of Wales that

“the most important thing is to ensure that Silk part 1 is progressed”.

I would expect Labour MPs to file through the Aye Lobby when we vote, or his authority will be fatally undermined—but as the Labour Whips have sent them home, that will not be the case.

The fact that the Treasury has not used the Finance Bill to implement Silk also shows once again that Wales is an afterthought in the machinations of the British state. Those powers should be devolved, yet there is delay even though it is apparent that there is broad consensus among the main parties who represent Welsh constituencies, as evidenced in the Grand Committee debate and despite the fact that the commission received representations from all parties. Each month that passes by without these powers being devolved, the Welsh economy further deteriorates with job and economic prospects diminished, hopes and dreams shattered and lives ruined.

Over Easter, I attended a major forum meeting organised by Carmarthenshire county council to move the proposed Llandeilo bypass project forward. Despite being high up the Welsh Government’s priority list as a transport infrastructure project, it is being held up as a result of the savage cuts to capital budgets in Wales. If the amendment is successful, it will enable the Welsh Government to access borrowing powers to move the scheme and many others like it forward. In Carmarthenshire there is cross-party support for the project, and I would like to close by kindly informing my political opponents that should they fail to support the amendment their grandstanding in supporting projects such as the Llandeilo bypass will be exposed and there will be a heavy political price to pay in my constituency—a constituency I believe the Labour party view as a target seat come the next Westminster election.

[Pete Wishart]

No chance, not with you there.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Well, I am grateful for that comment.

Plaid Cymru has made jobs and the economy its absolute priority. That is why we have tabled this amendment on air passenger duty. We want to create a modern and prosperous Wales, and unlike our political opponents we have little faith in London Governments of whatever colour achieving that ambition. That is why we want the tools to get on with the job ourselves without delay.

[Mr Reid]

It is important to set out first of all what the debate is not about. It is not about whether air passenger duty is a sensible tax; it is about whether we should be devolving air passenger duty on long-haul flights to Scotland and Wales. I must admit that I was disappointed by the lack of preparedness of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) for the debate, as he was not able to answer a simple question from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe). It must be remembered that the SNP has the whole Scottish civil service machine to back it up. I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not come armed with an impact assessment produced by the Scottish Government to show the benefits of devolving the tax to Scotland. He had no impact assessment whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

The right hon. Gentleman asks how closely I have been monitoring the situation. I have not only been doing that; I have had discussions with a number of Members, including those from Wales. My hon. Friends from Wales, and from Scotland, appear to be able to distinguish between what has been put on today’s Order Paper as a political fix or stunt in order to grandstand and make some wider arguments, and having a sensible debate about the real issues, which is entirely different.

[Jonathan Edwards]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. Since when has an amendment agreed by the Clerks of this House been a political stunt? This is what the Labour party is saying in the media. It is a disgrace and it brings dishonour on this Chamber. [Interruption.]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Everything that is being debated today is in order; otherwise it would not have been selected. It sounds to me like part of the current debate.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Apparently, it is still advocated by the Liberal Democrat, but Liberal Democrats tend to have a habit of voting against it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Those on low incomes have had their tax credits cut, their child benefit has been affected, and their wages and living standards have fallen, but millionaires on average benefit from a £100,000 tax cut. Surely it is time to help lower and middle-income households with an extra level of tax support, directed from revenues raised from a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we had a Labour Opposition day debate on this issue before the Easter recess, following which the shadow Secretary of State for Wales said that productive agricultural land would not be included in estates for the purposes of the Labour party’s mansion tax proposal. Is that the case? Will farms be excluded or included in Labour’s proposed mansion tax?

[Chris Leslie]

We hoped that the Liberal Democrats’ plan relating to property values of £2 million was a well-worked-through basis on which we could build and develop a policy. We even tabled a suggestion that the OBR should have some options for how this mansion tax would work in detail. There are bound to be issues on the margins that need to be resolved, and I accept we should definitely be talking about those, but the principle could be established. The Bill has 50 or 60 clauses relating to what are known as enveloped dwellings. The Government do not dare call it a mansion tax because Conservatives do not like it, but they have introduced a scheme to enforce a certain number of stamp duty requirements where an annual charge can be placed on properties worth more than £2 million, but only if they are owned by a company in a corporate tax wrapper. It is therefore entirely feasible and plausible to consider whether that scheme could be extended into a mansion tax proper, and the Government have well-worked-through plans on the books, on which they have been consulting, which could be the basis for a mansion tax. This is not something that has not been thought through by the Government.

The Opposition believe that any revenues from this need to be given back to lower and middle-income households through a 10p starting rate of tax. When the economy is flatlining and tax rates are rising in so many other ways, particularly VAT, we must do more to help those 25 million basic rate taxpayers. It is incredibly important that we do that, and we will be giving this Liberal Democrat, and any others who happen to be in the building, the opportunity to express their views on it when we finish this debate. I commend new clauses 1 and 5 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

After that diversion, I want to get back to new clause 5 and to explain how I think the mansion tax will work. Perhaps that will help the shadow Minister scope up the study that he wants the Treasury to do—to help the Labour party with the policy making that it does not seem capable of doing itself. We have said consistently that the mansion tax should be a 1% annual levy on the excess value of a property over £2 million. If a property is valued at £2.5 million, a 1% levy will be paid on £500,000—a mansion tax of £5,000 a year.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I could not get an answer from the Labour Front Bench, but under the Lib Dem proposal would productive agricultural land be included in the estate for mansion tax purposes?

[Stephen Williams]

The mansion tax, as the name suggests, is a tax on mansions. If a farmhouse on agricultural land was of mansion proportions and, whether it was in Carmarthen or elsewhere, was valued at more than £2 million, it would fall within the scope of a mansion tax, but the agricultural land itself—whether it is in the curtilage of the house or in the wider area of the farm—would not fall within the remit of a mansion tax. However, my party is currently reviewing all its tax policies, including the taxation of land. I do not want to be diverted too far down this route, although it is an issue on which my party has campaigned since the days of Lloyd George, who, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, was probably the most significant Prime Minister of the 20th century. I will say no more on that on this particular day.

I will do my best to help the Labour party with some of the other details of how the Liberal Democrats think that the mansion tax should work. A criticism that is made of the mansion tax is what happens if a pensioner or someone on a low income is living in a house valued at more than £2 million—the so-called asset rich, but income poor. Our answer is straightforward. Someone in those circumstances would defer payment of the tax until the property was sold or their income rose to a level at which they were able to pay it. The most likely scenario is that when the property was sold, the deferred, rolled-up tax liabilities would crystallise and be met out of the proceeds of sale. That is the answer to the asset rich, income poor conundrum.

Another major principle, which might help the Labour party, is that we see the mansion tax as a national tax. There is a debate to be had about what we do with our only existing property tax—the council tax—such as introducing higher bands, but that is a debate for another day. In any event, the council tax is a local tax and we are clear that the mansion tax, as the Liberal Democrats propose it, should be a national tax and form part of the rebalancing of the tax system away from taxes on work and enterprise and on to income from wealth speculation and pollution.

Our principles on the mansion tax are well thought through. Unfortunately, they are not currently shared by enough of our Conservative coalition colleagues. Some share our enthusiasm for a mansion tax, but a majority—certainly ministerial colleagues—do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am afraid that the situation is even worse than my hon. Friend thinks. It is not only the past financial year in which the Minister and his colleagues took their eye off the ball on the bank levy: they did so in the financial year before that, too. In 2011-12, the combined shortfall from the bank levy, netting in £1.8 billion or so and added to the corporation tax cut, was £800 million less than Ministers promised. It is not good enough to say, “Oh well, this is an aberration, and it is something that we can tweak and correct.” Ministers are not going back as far as they should and correcting that shortfall in the steps they are taking in the Budget. It is just not good enough. They have not thought through the design of the bank levy carefully enough.

It is not as though Ministers were not warned. I am sorry that the Exchequer Secretary is not in his place, as I warned him in a debate in July 2010—it seems like only yesterday, but it was nearly three years ago—when I said, “The bank levy is too weak. It will not work and it will not have those yields.” It does not give me any satisfaction to say, “I told you so”, but I did tell them so, and Ministers cannot therefore claim that it was something that happened by chance.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but rather than introducing a new tax, what consideration has he given to just increasing the levy?

[Chris Leslie]

That is an option, and we certainly need to go back to the drawing board and make sure that we design the bank levy in a way that actually works. The proposition we have made in the amendment is to repeat the bank bonus tax that worked very successfully in 2009. That could be incorporated into the bank levy process—that is one option—to ensure that we get a fair share for the taxpayer, who has suffered as a consequence of the requirement to bail out the banks.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson]

It certainly should. I am astonished that no one in this country has yet been prosecuted for the fraud involved in the LIBOR rate-rigging, including the British Bankers Association, which was, after all, running the LIBOR system. People were defrauded, so why has no one been prosecuted? I do not know, but someone should be.

Another excuse for not sorting out the problems in our banking industry is that we must not go it alone because that would put the industry at a disadvantage compared with others. We are told, for instance, that we cannot possibly be the first country to introduce a financial transaction tax—a Tobin tax, a Robin Hood tax—because to do so would put our banks at a disadvantage. However, Germany and France have now proposed an EU-wide financial transaction tax, yet our Government still say no. What are they frightened of? The rate of tax proposed on derivatives transactions that the 11 countries led by Germany are establishing in Europe is 0.01%. Apparently, our financial services industry is so pathetic that it would be driven to ruin by a transaction tax rate of 0.01%.

In fact, we already have a transaction tax in this country: it is called VAT. Nearly every other business in this country is paying a transaction tax of 20%. If everyone else is deemed capable of paying 20%, why should the financial services industry be deemed incapable of paying 0.01% on its transactions, 85% of which are carried out within the industry, between its various constituent parts, rather than with anyone else. That is pathetic, and it is about time that we recognised that a substantial amount of money could be raised for the taxpayer in this country, even at a rate of 0.01%.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House what the Labour party’s policy is on the so-called Robin Hood tax? My understanding is that the shadow Chancellor is opposed to introducing one.

[Frank Dobson]

That might be the case, but I live in hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point: when we go to a hospital, we find that no one is there, because those in such jobs are not real people. Indeed, I might add Members of Parliament to that list.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) was desperately trying to be positive about the Budget, but in the process he effectively damned the Chancellor with faint praise. If we had pressed him hard enough, I think he would have conceded most of our points.

The Bill will clearly do nothing to transform our economy. We are in a desperate state—an ongoing recession. The Chancellor says that his Budget is fiscally neutral, but when 2.5 million people are unemployed and we have low or negative growth, we do not want a fiscally neutral Budget. We should have had an expansionary Budget to promote growth, but of course even a fiscally neutral Budget could inject growth into the economy by raising taxes and spending more, rather than doing the opposite. If taxes on businesses and the wealthy are reduced, they tend to save their money—indeed, they put it in tax havens—whereas if ordinary people are given jobs, the first thing they do is to spend their money, and that money goes directly back into the economy and starts to generate demand through the multiplier.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was right that forecasting is difficult. I remember that in 1990—I am older than everybody else in the Chamber—when The Sunday Times carried out a survey of forecasting organisations, it found that the London Business School was bottom of the league, scoring nought out of 10 for its forecasts, although of course that was the forecasting body adored by the Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher. The best forecasts were by the Cambridge Economic Policy Group, a left-leaning Keynesian group, which got six out of 10 to come top of the league. The then Government were so annoyed by the Cambridge group that they took away its Government grant because they did not like people telling them that they were wrong, although they were.

Demand for the things that people produce is a crucial factor if an economy is to succeed, because although Governments can cut taxes for businesses and introduce all sorts of supply-side measures, if no one is buying anything, the economy will not grow. An equally crucial factor for sustaining that demand is an appropriate exchange rate. Successive Governments have ignored the exchange rate at their peril, but there have been times when the depreciation of our currency has had dramatic results, and I can cite three examples under a Conservative Government. Following Golden Wednesday and the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism, the economy grew strongly after a substantial depreciation. By the time that 1997 came along, the Conservatives were still being condemned for the collapse of the housing market and the people voted Labour—thank goodness for that—yet the Labour Government benefited from the strong demand generated by that depreciation. In 1979 Mrs Thatcher was praised for her economic policies, but the 1979 Budget, masterminded, if I can describe it like that, by Geoffrey Howe, resulted in a catastrophic collapse in demand. A fifth of manufacturing disappeared and unemployment soared to 3 million. It was only when those policies were reversed that there was a recovery, and on Nigel Lawson’s watch—I do not necessarily agree with everything he did—the pound depreciated by over 30%. Again, the economy grew strongly and unemployment came down.

Going back even further into history, in the 1931 crisis, a Labour Government mistakenly tried to sustain sterling on the gold standard, and tried to keep its parity up. The Government fell apart, and effectively a Conservative Government with a nominally Labour Prime Minister came in straight afterwards. The first thing they did was take the pound off the gold standard and depreciate, and the recovery began. That was only part of it; other factors were necessary to sustain recovery in the 1930s. We had to spend a lot of money, and towards the end of the ’30s the country built thousands—indeed, millions—of houses, and that was how we recovered. That is what we ought to do now.

In other countries, Germany built arms and autobahns; in America, there was the new deal—spending money on all sorts of public works, which created the demand in the economy that brought about recovery. It was not fiddling around with tax rates and supply-side measures. That did not work then, and it will not work now. The exchange rate is therefore absolutely crucial, and the exchange rate at this time is too high. Part of our recovery should depend on a significant depreciation. An erudite and informed book by my friend John Mills has been written about this, and I have quoted from it in the Chamber. It makes a detailed case for such measures.

The trade statistics are disastrous, and some of us have been worried about manufacturing for a long time. Our manufacturing sector is about half the size of the German manufacturing sector as a proportion of our economy, which is disastrous. We should be a similar economy to Germany in many ways. Historically, we have been very similar in all sorts of ways, but our manufacturing has collapsed. That was partly because in 1997, when Labour came to office, there was at the same time a substantial appreciation of the pound, which began to damage manufacturing. We were sustained by an asset price bubble, which carried on, and thank goodness, we had a relatively strong economy for some time. However, manufacturing did not do well, because of the relatively strong pound. It was only the crisis of 2008, when there was a significant depreciation, that saved us. Had we been stuck in the euro, we would be like Spain now—it would be absolutely disastrous—so we must applaud my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for keeping us out of the euro, despite pressure from the then Prime Minister. I was one of those who supported my right hon. Friend very strongly at the time.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I agree with a number of the hon. Gentleman’s points. The Government talk a good game about rebalancing the economy geographically and sectorally, and about an export-led recovery, but they will not achieve those objectives unless they tackle the exchange rate.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. We have to use all the weapons and measures of macro-economic policy to make sure that we recover. Fiddling around with supply-side measures is no doubt the sort of thing that the London Business School talked about in 1990, but it will not solve our problems.

The macro-economic measures that we must take include, first, tackling the exchange rate. Secondly, we must inject demand through additional public spending, and we can pay for that in various ways without necessarily increasing the deficit. We could raise taxes on the rich very substantially. For example, we could begin seriously to close the tax gap and collect the tax that has been avoided or evaded, perhaps sending a few corrupt bankers to prison in the process. That would concentrate their minds, as I said earlier.

We need to begin to spend in areas of high labour intensity. If we can get people back to work quickly by spending in those sectors—construction and the public services, which have been cut by the Government—we can bring down unemployment. People pay tax when they are in jobs, they do not claim benefits, and the economy begins to recover. At the same time, we can build millions of houses that we need, particularly local authority houses, and we can provide all the nurses we need in hospitals. Hospitals are under stress because of a lack of staff on the wards. We can develop other areas too: local authority services, children’s services, and social services for the elderly, all of which are under stress and are things on which we should spend to generate more employment. We generate employment directly by spending money on areas with high labour intensity.

There is another great advantage of spending money in such areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has left the Chamber, said, the rich do not spend money: they put it in banks and tax havens. But ordinary people, especially if they have been unemployed, spend every single penny of their money on supporting their families, dealing with their debts and so on. They spend their money. They have what the economists call a high marginal propensity to consume. We should give as much money as possible to those who have that high marginal propensity to consume, not to those who stuff it in banks and foreign tax havens. That would help to regenerate the economy.

Another great thing about public services and construction is that they put demand into the domestic economy, not into the foreign economy. If I were given extra cash, which I do not need—I think I should pay a bit more tax—what would I do? I would have another foreign holiday. I might buy another case of French wine. That does not help our economy at all. But if construction workers have extra cash, they go out and spend it in the shops on food, their homes and their family. They spend it in the domestic economy. They do not, as far as I know, buy large quantities of French wine or have fancy foreign holidays, especially when they are just coming out of unemployment. They would spend their money in the domestic economy.

The great thing about construction is that it has a low import content. Most of what is used in construction comes from the domestic economy. Again, the demand goes into the domestic economy so the spending by construction workers in their new jobs becomes someone else’s income within the domestic economy. We get the multiplier effect of one person’s spending becoming another person’s income going around in a big circle and the economy is regenerated.

That is what we need—pure Keynesian reflation, but we have other measures to deal with that. If it necessitates some serious tax increases, so be it. The majority of the population have said in opinion polls, I understand, that they would prefer tax hikes to spending cuts. That is absolutely right. We are frightened of saying that we should have higher taxes. Francois Hollande in France decided to introduce a significantly higher tax rate for a substantial proportion of the population. Some people will squeal about it and no doubt the right-wing media in Britain would squeal about it, but there should be a bit more tax, even on MPs such as myself. I have suggested that the first tax rise should be the 50% rate not at £150,000, but at £60,000, so that I would pay a little more tax. I am talking about me as well as about other people. It is easy for us to make changes that affect other people, not ourselves.

Such a change could be made, if need be, but in the short term we do not need to do that. We need to collect the taxes that should be paid and which are the subject of tax avoidance and tax evasion. We need a radical economic strategy, including all the components that I have suggested, to get us out of the mess we are in—and we are in a mess. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor looked like a frightened man. He looked very worried. Clearly, his strategy is not working. He does not know what to do without doing a complete U-turn and adopting a completely different strategy—the kind of strategy that I am talking about—which would mean political humiliation for him. He should worry less about political humiliation than about doing the right thing by the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Members have been addressing two questions in this debate: first, where we find ourselves and why; and, secondly, what we should do about it. In 2008, 63 consecutive quarters of economic growth in this country came to an end with the onset of a global recession that started in America and spread quickly across the world. The Conservatives and their supporters at the Daily Mail like to blame the previous Labour Government for the global crash. Was it Labour that was selling the sub-prime mortgages in America? Of course not.

The response to that unprecedented crisis was to take very significant action, first to arrest it and then to bring some relative stability. Crucially, the previous Government chose to invest in our economy to keep businesses growing and to keep people in work.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that economic performance prior to the crash was based on unsustainable personal debt bubbles and asset price bubbles, with personal debt in the UK equivalent to 100% of gross value added—far higher than in any other modern democracy?

amendment of the law

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The UK economy continues to bump along the bottom with little or no growth in GDP and the revised OBR figure of only 0.6% growth for this year was a dark cloud over the whole Budget. In Wales, the situation is bleak, with the Office for National Statistics reporting 8,000 fewer jobs in the Welsh economy in the three months up to January. The austerity strategy set out in the 2010 comprehensive spending review aimed at the elimination of the deficit by the end of the Parliament has failed. The fiscal position is considerably worse than that forecast three years ago and worse even than that forecast this time last year—and that is with nearly 80% of the cuts yet to be delivered. We estimate that up to another 50,000 public sector jobs will lost in Wales in the coming years, following the 24,000 already lost. The Budget noted that Wales will get £161 million towards capital spending, but that conveniently masks the fact that there has already been a 40% cut to the capital spend budget from the CSR and that the re-allocation announced last week would come from strained revenue budgets.

Plaid Cymru welcomes some of the measures announced in the Budget. We welcome the freeze in fuel duty, but argue that it would be much better to have a long- term solution based on a stabilising mechanism. The announcement on when the £10,000 income tax personal allowance will be reached is welcome, as that is a long-standing Plaid Cymru policy. The £3 billion in infrastructure spending is also to be welcomed although, admittedly, it is a fraction of what is needed and was more of a political gesture than a serious economic intervention. We support the announcement of the introduction of an allowance of £2,000 a year from April 2014 for all businesses and charities to be offset against their employers’ national insurance contributions, as it will give businesses incentives to take on extra workers. We also support the move to change the terms of reference of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to include a growth target. That is potentially the most significant announcement of the Budget and, again, is something that we have long called for.

I have some concerns about the second-home subsidy, not least because it would fuel another house price boom and after the inevitable crash, there will be serious consequences for the public finances.

There are several measures that Plaid Cymru would have liked to have seen included in the Budget. We wanted the Government to use the Budget and subsequent Finance Bill to implement the recommendations of the UK Government’s Commission on Devolution in Wales. We would have wanted the Government immediately to set about devolving minor taxes as well the income tax-sharing arrangements. We want the Treasury to implement the findings of the Welsh Government-commissioned Morgan report on devolved business rates, to incentivise Welsh local authorities to develop their local economy and expand their tax base. I will be tabling amendments to that effect to the Finance Bill, to test the will of the House.

The precedent for devolving taxes via the Budget was set with the devolution of air passenger duty to Northern Ireland in last year’s Finance Bill. On Thursday evening, I was amazed to see a senior Labour Assembly Member on the ITV political programme “Sharp End” dismiss the Finance Bill as an appropriate legislative vehicle to implement Silk. It just shows how visionless Labour has become in my country.

The measures I have just outlined would immediately trigger the borrowing powers—[Interruption.] That is the policy of the Labour party; they want borrowing powers in Wales. How will we get them without devolving fiscal levers? That just shows that Labour Members have no ideas.

The measures I outlined would immediately trigger the borrowing powers agreed during the bilateral negotiations between the Welsh and UK Governments, and are essential if Wales is to invest in infrastructure and create the economic boost that is so badly needed. We also want Wales to receive powers over corporation tax, as advocated by Silk, if they are devolved to Northern Ireland. Today, I read with interest in the Financial Times about the unanimous lobby for those powers in Northern Ireland, and the strong letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Northern Ireland CBI.

The tax cut for those earning more than £3,000, due to come into force next week, should have been overturned in the Budget. The renewal of Trident should be scrapped, thus saving £100 billion over its lifetime. A financial transaction tax, which would raise up to £20 billion per annum according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, should have been introduced. Plaid Cymru would have liked to see a mansion tax on domestic properties.

The Chancellor is boxed in by his own rhetoric and has run out of ideas. It is clear that the Treasury’s only economic strategy is to build up the barricades and hope that the rock star central banker can use monetary policy to turn things around.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

Let me begin by joining the shadow Financial Secretary in his congratulations to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on the birth of her child, as I think will Members in all parts of the House.

The debate has been very well attended. I think that there were 46 Back-Bench speeches. It has also been very well considered and, at times, passionate. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government opened the debate in his usual pugnacious style. He talked about planning, housing, mortgages and the help to buy scheme, which he described in some detail. He did not mention the announcement on zero-carbon homes, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to it in detail.

There were contributions from Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom, and, I think, from all parties in the House except the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—

[Jonathan Edwards]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

Will the hon. Gentleman give me a moment? I am going to say something about him. He made some serious points about borrowing powers. As he knows, they are being considered in the light of the Silk commission recommendations.

Many Government Members celebrated both the reaching of the £10,000 income tax personal allowance and the reductions in fuel duty, which one or two Opposition Members also welcomed. I will not single out every contribution, but my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) spoke passionately about those subjects. They also mentioned housing, including the important role played by affordable housing in the Budget.

Tax Fairness

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

No. The hon. Gentleman is in a coalition with partners, whom he no doubt does not regard as hard lefties, who are advocating the very policy that we recommend in our motion. We took the advice of the Business Secretary, a Liberal Democrat, who said “Table a very simple motion, and we will support it.” According to any objective measure, even the hon. Gentleman can see that we have held back from party-political rhetoric. The motion is very plain and simple, as requested. We have tried to find some common ground. If those 57 Members of Parliament—and perhaps even some Conservatives; who knows?—were to join us in the Lobby tonight, that would make the mansion tax a reality.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

We are minded to support wealth taxes, and we therefore welcome the motion, but it is a bit thin on detail. Can the shadow Minister reassure me that farmers will not be dragged into the new tax because of the value of their land, and not necessarily because of the value of their property?

[Chris Leslie]

That is an important point. I am glad that we have the hon. Gentleman’s support on this issue. Obviously there is a difference between residential and corporate arrangements, but our motion says that we want the Treasury to bring forward proposals at the earliest possible opportunity. We have seen the proposition set out by the Liberal Democrats and used it as the basis for our motion, but let us see what further options can be drawn together. We think that it would be a good idea, for example, for the Chancellor to commission the Office for Budget Responsibility to present detailed suggestions of ways in which the arrangements might work.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I just said that I intend to be constructive and to pursue the approach that we have taken. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will respond shortly to that particular recommendation.

Let me summarise the principal contents of the Bill where they reflect the advice of one or both of the commissions, before I set out the areas in which we take a different view. One of the central recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking is that the UK banks should ring-fence

“those banking activities where continuous provision of service is vital to the economy and to a bank’s customers.”

That recommendation has attracted widespread support, and the Bill creates the basic architecture of the ring fence by making it an objective of the regulator—the Prudential Regulation Authority and, if necessary, the Financial Conduct Authority—to secure the continuity of core services by preventing ring-fenced bodies from exposing themselves to excessive risks, by protecting them from external risks, and by ensuring that, in the event of failure, core activities can carry on uninterrupted, the so-called resolution objective. The core activities are defined, as recommended by Vickers, as the taking of retail and small and medium-sized enterprise deposits and overdrafts, but they can be added to if required through secondary legislation.

In response to the parliamentary commission’s recommendations, the Bill is now clear that to be ring-fenced means that the five so-called Haldane principles of separation should be followed, namely that the ring-fenced bodies should have separate governances, including boards; remuneration arrangements; treasury and balance sheet management; risk management; and human resource management. As the parliamentary commission has also recommended, directors of banks will be held personally responsible for ensuring that the ring-fence rules are obeyed. The parliamentary commission also made a recommendation that the ring fence should be electrified. That is to say that, if the rules are breached, the banks should be forcibly split.

While the Bill is before the House, the Government will bring forward amendments to provide a power to require the full separation of a banking group, where, in the opinion of the regulator and the Government, such separation is required to ensure the independence of the ring-fenced bank. As hon. Members know, the parliamentary commission made a further recommendation for a power to trigger separation of the entire system, which I will come to shortly.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

How confident is the Minister that over the coming years the all-powerful financial lobby will not water down the ring fence and return to a business as usual scenario?

[Greg Clark]

That is a principal source of concern. Sir John Vickers, the author of the report, has given evidence in public that he is confident that the arrangements are robust, but we reflected on one of the recommendations of the parliamentary commission to provide this electrification so that there are consequences for a bank that tries to game the system. That is right and it is a valuable contribution from the commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I think everyone in the House would welcome a step forward in trying to gain some control over the excesses of the banking industry, but most Members—at least those who have spoken—seem to be dubious about whether the Bill goes far enough. Following on from the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I tend to be what might be described as a “Bassetlaw-ist”. I think we need to go much further than most people are proposing.

We need to start by recognising that the British banking industry is a failure—it was a failure and it remains a failure. Let me remind the House that, of the big four, HSBC lost $27 billion in the crash, while RBS lost $14 billion, Barclays lost $8 billion and Lloyds lost $5 billion. Between them, these masters of the universe lost $54 billion in the crash. It did them harm, but it did a lot more harm to the rest of us. In the recession that has followed their lunacy—matched all round the world by the rest of the world banking industry—British production has lost £700 billion, as a result of the reduction in goods and services that we have produced.

That is what the banks dropped us in. They did it through all sorts of fancy schemes, in an effort to get rich quick, and for quite a long time they did get rich quick. Everybody was told, “You can’t stop us. We know what we’re doing; it’s the market.” Then the market crashed. Under normal rules, if the market crashes, those who crash stay crashed, but that does not happen with banking. That is why we need to change the rules. The banks demanded taxpayers’ money, either to bail them out or offer them guarantees. They said, “You’ve got to do it, otherwise we will bring the temple down and we’ll bring you all down with us.” In other words, “Heads we win, tails you lose” has been the motto of the banking industry.

That is not all that the banks were doing wrong, we now discover. They were also rigging LIBOR—the London interbank offered rate. Individuals in banks were fiddling, and apparently not a single boss knew what was going on. LIBOR was run by the British Bankers Association, which apparently did not know that any fiddles were going on, so obviously “Ignorance is strength”—this year is the centenary of George Orwell’s birth—was the motto of the British banking industry. People have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution—they have settled to avoid it—in the United States for LIBOR fiddles, but nobody has been prosecuted here. Why is that?

There have been several repeated conspiracies—in fact, dozens and dozens of them—to gain financial advantage by deception, which is a common-law crime, so we do not need an Act of Parliament, but we now know that LIBOR rigging was not the banks’ only wrongdoing. Instead of “The world’s local bank”, HSBC’s motto turns out to be “The world’s local money launderer —helping Mexican drug barons, fighting the United States’ anti-terrorism sanctions”. Lloyds—motto: “Banking worth talking about”—was involved in money laundering to help sanctions-busters. Barclays—“It’s our business to know your business”—was involved in dodgy transactions and busting sanctions against Iran, Libya and Burma. Most of us would think that sanctions against Iran, Gaddafi’s Libya and Burma were quite appropriate.

The banks have also been spending a great deal of time promoting tax dodging. The big four have 1,649 subsidiary companies. For Barclays, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland, a third of those companies are in—where would you guess?—the places where tax is fiddled. They are in tax avoidance places—Lloyds is a bit better, with only 20%.

Up to now, most criticism, both here and in the newspapers and so on, has been of the investment bankers speculating—“It’s a casino. Separate it out; ring fence it; break it up”—on the grounds, apparently, that retail banking has been a really big success, when actually it has an appalling record. It was the retail arms of the big four that did all the PPI fiddles and the IRSA—interest rate swap arrangements—swindles. Indeed, the big four sold 34 million payment protection insurance polices. Between them, they are now having to set aside £14 billion to repay people who were swindled. That is what the money is for—simple stuff: it is a swindle. Between them, the big four are employing 10,000 people to administer the system of repaying the money they swindled. It is almost a banking job creation scheme.

Then there are the retail banks’ interest rate swap arrangements. Some 40,000 agreements with small and medium firms are now being reviewed. The idea was sold by the British Bankers Association to

“help insulate business customers against fluctuations in interest rates,”

as the BBA put it, but that is exactly what interest rate swap arrangements did not do. A sample survey shows that 90% of the agreements being reviewed break existing banking regulations, yet small firms were bullied into accepting their terms in order to get a new loan or extend an existing one—if they did not agree, they would not get it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some instances of products being mis-sold by the retail elements of banks were driven by the investment arms of those entities? Ring-fencing will not go far enough. If we are to stop such abuses by the retail elements of the universal banks, we have to have full separation of investment and retail banking.

[Frank Dobson]

Yes, but if we are to get the changes we need, we also need to change the culture in both sectors.

The banks have never competed with one another, or at least not in trying to get customers. Rather, they have tended to compete by copying one another. When one bank comes up with a wheeze that swindles money, the bosses of the other banks say, “Why are they getting all this money in through this swindle? Can’t we do the swindle as well?” That is presumably how PPI started off at one bank and then went to all the others. Interest rate swap agreements certainly started at one bank and were then taken up by the others, because people in those banks felt they had to compete with the other swindlers down the road.

These people—this collection of money launderers, gun runners, drug money launderers, people who swindle small businesses and people who lose billions in their normal day-to-day business—are still paying themselves huge amounts of money. I know that the Prime Minister has a difficulty with facts, but I did not realise that he had a problem with adjectives, because when the Royal Bank of Scotland announced that it was paying £600 million in bonuses this year, he commended it—this bank of losers —for its restraint. That is not my definition of restraint. “Excess” is probably a better word in the circumstances. Restraint involves cutting the benefits of poor people and the pensions of the police, the nurses and the teachers. Restraint involves capping the pay of public employees. They have certainly been losing out. In 2009, I said that the two banks that were being semi-nationalised should have the normal public sector pay policies applied to them, and I think most people in this country would agree with that.