Sovereign Grant Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
All I would say is that I have followed the advice of the House authorities throughout. The procedure has been unusual. People have said that this is the most important change since 1760, but of course in the early 1970s the House made some significant changes, so we are partly following procedures laid down then.
Let me get on to the substance of the Bill. Everyone has now had a chance to read it. Amendments have been tabled by Opposition Back Benchers, Opposition Front Benchers, and Government Front Benchers, and I shall say something about that. We have basically accepted some of the amendments that the shadow Chancellor and his team tabled, and I will explain why later.
I will begin, as we should do on such occasions, by putting on the record the House’s gratitude for the service that the Queen has provided to our country over many decades. Indeed, her time on the throne recently exceeded that of George III and she now has Queen Victoria in her sights. The recent visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and California reminded us that other members of the royal family also make an enormous contribution. As I said a couple of weeks ago—it is a view shared by nearly everyone in the House—we want a system that provides the Queen with dignity and allows her and her family to do their official jobs, which in her case is Head of State, but to do so in a way that is accountable, transparent and delivers value for money for the taxpayer.
The current system of financial support has some very serious shortcomings. It is very inflexible, so money saved in one spending area such as travel cannot be spent in another area such as the maintenance of royal palaces. It is not very transparent, as the National Audit Office is not the auditor of royal finances; that is done by the permanent secretary to the Treasury. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, for the work it did in recent years to look at value for money studies on particular areas of royal financing, which has been quite opaque and which this Bill seeks to change. Critically, the current system has relied on a reserve of public money that was built up over the past 20 years and is now depleted. That was a crucial part of the royal household’s annual funding for the continuance of their official duties. That money has run out, so in other words the system is broken and we have to fix it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to have true transparency in the costs of the royal household, we need to know about all expenditure, including, as I suggested a couple of weeks ago, the contribution made to the household by the Ministry of Defence in terms of staff? We learnt last week from The Mail on Sunday that Prince Charles has apparently objected to the full costs of the royal flight being put on the royal household, which effectively means that the MOD is subsidising the household. If we are to get the true costs, do we not need full transparency on everything paid to the royal household?
Mr Osborne
I will move on shortly to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised two weeks ago on the use of accommodation on the royal estate, for example by the MOD, and say something on that and other areas of royal spending. The Bill establishes a distinction between the royal family’s public expenditure and their private finances. It is a long-established principle of the system that their private finances, for example from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, are their private money. There are checks and balances on that, such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster having to be a member of the Government. We are saying that all the royal family’s public expenditure, which goes to their official duties and those parts of the royal estate that are not part of their private income or assets, should all now be auditable by the National Audit Office and that the Public Accounts Committee should be able to look at it. That is a fairly dramatic increase in the transparency before Parliament.
Mr Osborne
Let me just answer this point before giving way again.
Although I do not want to speak for the Comptroller and Auditor General or the PAC, I suspect that if they wanted to look at the funding arrangements between the MOD and the royal family, they would be able to do so under the provisions of this Bill.
Mr Jones
A couple of weeks ago I welcomed the increased transparency in the auditing process that the proposals bring forward, but if we are to determine the size of the sovereign grant—it is £30-odd million a year—surely a good starting point would be to find out what the actual cost of the royals doing their public duties is. I accept that some of the things the Ministry of Defence does are directly linked to the royals’ public duties and I do not suggest for one minute that the royal household should subsidise that, but surely to determine the size of the sovereign grant we need a better understanding of all costs coming from the public purse, whether from the Ministry of Defence or any other Government Department.
Mr Osborne
Let me give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and then I will answer both hon. Gentlemen’s points.
Mr Osborne
I would like to make a little progress, if both hon. Gentlemen will allow me. Let me say a little more about the Bill, and then I will be happy to take questions.
Clause 1 proposes the creation a sovereign grant designed around three principles. First, it is sustainable, so that it provides reliable, long-term financing for the sovereign that is free from annual political argument but gives the House of Commons proper checks and controls. Secondly, it is flexible in dealing with the problem I described whereby money saved on travel cannot be spent on palace maintenance and vice versa. Thirdly, it is accountable, as I have been saying, because of the historic increase in parliamentary scrutiny of royal expenditure.
The Queen is one of the few Heads of State in the world who is genuinely completely above the party political fray. I want to take this opportunity to thank my opposite number, the shadow Chancellor, and his team for conducting themselves in a very proper way as the loyal Opposition in asking questions. We will come on to the questions that he has rightly asked. [Interruption.] I suggest that his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), banks this moment, because it might not come again in this Parliament. We have tried to be as open as possible. I know that members of the shadow Chancellor’s team met the Treasury officials on the Bill team yesterday. As I will explain, I propose to accept a couple of his amendments.
The shadow Chancellor asked four questions in the debate two weeks ago. I propose, for the rest of my remarks, to answer those four questions. It will be up to him and the House to decide whether they are adequate answers, but I thought that that was the best way to approach this matter. His first question was about the level of the sovereign grant, the second was about the mechanism for uprating it, the third was about the new arrangements for greater parliamentary scrutiny, and the fourth, which relates to some of the interventions we have just heard, was about the way in which the Government provide other forms of support to the royal family. I will take each question in turn.
Mr Osborne
Let us try to keep focused on the issue at hand.
Secondly, I completely accept that I could have brought other mechanisms before the House, but the Crown Estate is a large commercial property company that is run in a pretty conservative way. It is not a bad proxy for how the country and the economy are doing. That is why we are proposing this mechanism, but of course if people want to propose something else they are entitled to do so.
Mr Osborne
I think I will leave it to the Deputy Prime Minister to update the House on that. It is one of the many benefits that come from being Deputy Prime Minister that he gets to conduct these important negotiations. [Interruption.] They are extremely important negotiations. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) makes a good point in reminding the House that this question involves a lot of other countries. That explains why something that people assume would be quite simple to deal with in the House of Commons is not.
Let me talk about the actual numbers. How much is 15% of the Crown Estate profit, and how does it compare with what the royal family has spent in recent years on its official duties? In 2006, they spent £33 million; in 2007-08, they spent £35 million; and then £37 million and £34 million. The latest annual accounts, which were last week, showed that they spent £32 million. The amount varies a bit, because one-off capital projects are either undertaken or not in given years, but the average of the past five years is £34 million. It is interesting to note that it was £49 million 20 years ago, so the latest figure shows quite a dramatic reduction compared with what they used to spend. In real terms, the reduction is more than 50%.
Mr Kevan Jones
That is very interesting, but if we do not know which Government Departments are subsidising the royal household, how can we tell whether those efficiencies are real ones? I suspect that in some cases, Departments are cross-subsidising them. At the moment, the grant in aid for certain palaces comes from, for example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I know that in 1999, Marlborough house was included as part of that. Will there be limitations on what other royal properties can be added so that the sovereign grant can be spent on them?
Mr Osborne
I will get back to the hon. Gentleman specifically on that point—I do not have specific information on Marlborough house with me at the moment—but on his broader point, for the first time, we will allow the National Audit Office to crawl over the arrangements that he describes.
I was going to go on to explain that some senior members of the Ministry of Defence and our military live in properties that are rented from the Crown Estate at below the market rate. The properties are within extremely secure zones, and it would not be possible to rent them to virtually anyone else. That arrangement suits the MOD, because it gets properties—not very many—at below the market rate, and equally, it suits the royal estates, in that they can rent out properties that they would not be able to rent out otherwise.
Let me talk about those sums. As I have pointed out, the average over the past five years is £34 million, which is much less than 20 years ago, when it was £49 million. In 2013-14—the first year in which the new sovereign grant mechanism will apply—the level will be determined by the profits in 2011-12, as I said earlier. We do not know precisely what those profits will be, because we are in the middle of the financial year, but the recently published Crown Estate annual report for last year showed profits of £231 million, and the Crown Estate confirms that that is pretty much what it is expecting in profits for 2011-12. The result of all that—this is the key point for the House—is that the sovereign grant in 2013-14 would be £34 million, which is in line with the average for the past five years. I would not say that that is a coincidence, because we have partly designed the mechanism to ensure that that has happened.
If projections for the Crown Estate are correct over the rest of this Parliament, we should see a real-terms cut of up to 9% in the funding for the official duties of the sovereign in that period.
Mr Osborne
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make some progress.
I hope that I have answered the shadow Chancellor’s first question about the level of funds. In the end, it is a matter of judgment whether £34 million or so is the right amount for the future. The newspapers’ reaction to my statement a couple of weeks ago was not much of a guide. The Independent headline read, “Queen guaranteed £35m ‘recession-proof’ income”, while The Daily Telegraph wrote, “Monarchy ‘shorn of its dignity’ to save money”. I think we probably got it about right somewhere in between the two.
That leads to the second and probably most important question that the shadow Chancellor asked: how can we ensure that the sovereign grant is neither too high nor too low, and what can we do about it if it is judged to be either? Basically, the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards. First, it provides for a reserve fund so that any unspent surplus from the sovereign grant that year will go into a reserve fund. Under the civil list, there has always been a reserve fund. Indeed, it reached £37 million early last decade. We propose that the reserve fund should be capped so that it does not go above about 50% of the annual grant. In other words, assuming that the grant is likely to be £34 million, the reserve fund would not be allowed to rise above £17 million. However, it is right that the royal household has a reserve to call upon for major capital works that it needs to undertake, although, as I said, we are introducing for the first time a cap on that reserve.
The Bill retains as the three royal trustees the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. It is our responsibility to act in any given year to ensure that the reserve remains within that 50% cap. If it is going to be higher, we can act to reduce the cash going to the royal household through the grant to below 15% of Crown Estate profits. That is one check.
Mr Osborne
May I set out the checks and then invite questions—I mean interventions? I am not going to make the mistake of some right hon. Members in thinking that interventions are questions.
The second check concerns the in-year controls that the Treasury operates for all public expenditure. The permanent secretary to the Treasury remains the accounting officer for the disbursal of Treasury funds, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse will be the accounting officer for the royal spending we are talking about and can be summoned and asked to give account for that. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) asked whether Buckingham palace will be able to open for longer this year than it did last year. I can confirm that that will be the case, as the palace is looking for additional sources of income.
The key check, however, for ensuring that the level of funds is appropriate and that the 15% amount is being paid will be the review of the 15% mechanism. The legislation requires that a review is carried out seven years after the Bill comes into effect and every seven years thereafter. The shadow Chancellor and his team have suggested some amendments. I have discussed them with him and I am now proposing, through Government manuscript amendments today, basically to accept his amendments. That means that the first review will be carried out four years after the grant comes into effect—he suggested three years, but having discussed it, I have decided on four years—and therefore that the first review will be carried out in 2016. That will be one year after the general election, which is a good and sensible moment for us to review royal finances.
I am also accepting the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment that proposes a five-yearly, instead of seven-yearly, review thereafter. In other words, in every Parliament, assuming that the fixed-term Parliament provisions are adhered to, the review will take place one year after the general election. There will be a review in every Parliament, assuming that they are five-year Parliaments.
Mr Kevan Jones
Will the Chancellor explain how the controls over the reserve will work? Who will take the decisions about how it is spent? It does not take a genius or a financial wizard to work out that, if we draw down the reserve, we can certainly keep up the annual income at 15%. Who will have a say over how the reserve is spent? Will the Government of the day have any control over how it is spent?
Mr Osborne
First, the reserve will be audited by the National Audit Office, as the Bill makes clear. Secondly, the trustees of the royal finances—the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who is the Queen’s appointment, but also the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of the day—have oversight of the reserve. That is similar to the current arrangement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—who undertakes this work more than the Prime Minister—and the Treasury will ensure that the reserve is used for proper purposes. As I have said, the reserve is also accountable to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Mr Osborne
The honest answer is that I have absolutely no idea, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. I might even be able to find out during this debate.
Mr Jones
Has not the Chancellor just confirmed that we are giving the royal household freedom to spend the sovereign’s grant on additional properties? [Interruption.] It is an additional property if the facts are understood. At the moment, the properties covered by grant in aid are Buckingham palace, St James’s palace, Clarence house and Marlborough House Mews, the residency opposite Kensington palace, the Royal Mews royal paddock and Windsor castle and the buildings in the Great park. Are we thus going to see an extension? Who in the royal household makes the decision on that, or does the Chancellor have any say over which other properties not currently covered by the grant in aid from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be added in, increasing costs?
Mr Osborne
We do not propose to add anything in. Frogmore is part of the Windsor castle estate, or part of the Windsor Great park, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman knew before he made his intervention.
Let me sum up this rather lengthy clause 1 stand part debate. We do not want a cut-price monarchy; nor do we want an excessively lavish monarchy. What the country wants is a monarchy properly funded to do the job we ask of it. It does that job well. Long may that continue. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr Kevan Jones
I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but unless we know the full amount of money that is being paid to the royal household by other Departments—for instance, the Ministry of Defence—how can we determine, first, that those efficiencies are real and this is not just about moving money across and, secondly, that 15% is the right level?
Ed Balls
It is obviously nostalgic for me to be back in Committee debating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the Dispatch Box, although I would remind my hon. Friend—these moments have been rare in my parliamentary career—that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are both Members of this House. Therefore, they are representatives of both the Government and the House of Commons in those discussions. The important thing is that the trustees should not be able to sit on their hands if there is an unexpected surge in revenues that is faster than the trend growth rate of the economy. When the trustees produce a report, Parliament should be able to scrutinise it properly, after a report of the NAO. The latter is clearly set out in the Bill, but at the moment, whether there is a review in the five-year period is at the discretion of the trustees. Parliament should legislate today to say, “If you see something happening to revenues that is outside the Chancellor’s intentions as clearly set out by him, then there should be an immediate review.” It would still be for the trustees to decide what recommendation to make. We are not imposing a cap, because although some would like that, it would be outside the Chancellor’s intentions. I said from the beginning that I would support his reforms, and our amendment 8 delivers his reforms in detail. Therefore, I hope that he will reconsider and support our amendment.
Mr Kevan Jones
I think the Chancellor has tried to have an effect on that by, for example, putting a cap on the reserve, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also important to see how the reserve is spent? I said to the Chancellor that it does not take a genius or a financial wizard to work out that the way to do it is by keeping the reserve as low as possible by spending the money, so the Government’s proposals will actually lead to more inefficiency, rather than driving up efficiency.
Ed Balls
As I said, part of the motivation behind our amendments to the clauses that deal with the role of the NAO is precisely to ensure that the value-for-money question is at the centre of the NAO’s thinking and the PAC’s reports to this House. I am happy with the Chancellor’s view that it should be for the PAC and the NAO to decide when to do those reports, but they clearly cannot have a report looking at value for money without looking at all aspects, and that includes all expenditure that is financed by the taxpayer, and the use of reserves. For Parliament, that is the right mechanism. I understand that not everyone in the House will agree with those proposals, which is why it is important to get on to that debate.
Mr Leigh
This debate is useful in a way, because it shows precisely the problem. I understand that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have taken extremely modest entourages and staff on previous trips. Apparently, the Duchess has had more than 37 different changes of outfit in America and Canada. I do not suppose that the Prime Minister or even the hon. Gentleman changes his outfit 37 times when he goes on Select Committee trips abroad. There is a completely different order of scale between a Head of State, who is part of the ornamental part of the constitution and who represents our country, and even the Prime Minister. If we are now to have questions and relentless pressure in the PAC about how many dresses need to be taken on every royal trip, it will be ridiculous, and it would start to make the royal family look more and more ridiculous. That is what I am warning against.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman think that this country’s defence budget should subsidise the royal flight? If we believe what was reported in The Mail on Sunday last week, the Ministry of Defence did the right thing by charging the going rate for use of the royal flight. Only because of complaints to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Prince of Wales was that amount reduced. Therefore, every flight that the royal family takes is being subsidised by the defence budget. That cannot be right.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Members can see, there are at least six people trying to get in on the debate on this clause; we are incredibly time-limited, and I ask people to respect that.
Mr Kevan Jones
The aim of the Bill is right: to provide the sovereign with the funds that she and other members of the royal family require to do their public duties. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that at all.
On the point about how we arrived at 15%, I welcome the Chancellor’s acceptance of some of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but there are a few questions still to be answered. I understand why the amount is set at 15%—to get to the figure of £34 million in future years—but my concern is that if we are to have a proper look at what the sovereign costs, we should include all costs, and then determine that the Government or state should provide the money to the sovereign for carrying out those duties.
I accept that there is greater transparency under the Bill, which is welcome, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) seems to think that we will somehow be intruding into areas into which we should not go. I am sorry, but if we are talking about public money, its spending has to be scrutinised, as does the spending of public money by any Government Department. My concern is that we arrived at the £34 million figure, based on 15%, without taking into account the moneys that go from Government Departments to the royal household to support the royal family in their duties. I shall talk about defence, an area that I know more about, as a former Defence Minister.
A large number of individuals in the armed forces—I have asked how many—have a role supporting the royal household. Some people might question whether that is necessary, but I think that it is, because they play an important role in supporting the monarch and other members of the royal family. However, I do not think that the costs involved should come out of the defence budget, as they currently do. The costs should be taken from the moneys we pay to support the sovereign’s work, because those men and women of the armed forces clearly do an important job in supporting the sovereign in her duties as Head of State, but we do not know what those costs amount to.
Similarly, is it legitimate for Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family to use private aircraft for state duties? I fully support that, not just from a security point of view, but because of the status that we wish to give members of the royal family when they represent this country on royal duties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested. However, I do not think that the defence budget should be used to subsidise that expenditure. For example, if it costs a set amount for the RAF to fly Her Majesty or any other member of the royal family somewhere, that amount should rightly be met by the taxpayer if it is an official duty.
Mr Spencer
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that defending our nation includes defending our Head of State?
Mr Jones
Yes, but what I am talking about does not relate to security. I am talking about equerries and other people who play a vital role in running the royal household and who are important in Her Majesty’s representational role. In the previous debate people tried to conflate the two issues, but I am talking about ceremonial duties that are being paid for from the defence budget.
Dr Murrison
Until recently the hon. Gentleman was a Defence Minister, and a very good one, so I wonder, since he feels so passionately about this, what efforts he made to identify those costs.
Mr Jones
I also chaired the value for money group in the Ministry of Defence, and those costs were on the radar screen for the work it was carrying out. There is a sense of grievance in the MOD and the armed forces that this money comes out of the defence budget. There should be some recognition of this vital work, but it should not come out of the defence budget. That would also avoid the nonsense that we saw last week in The Mail on Sunday, which claimed that the Prince of Wales and other members of the royal family stopped using the royal flight because the cost was being charged to the royal household. I understand that after representations were made to the Treasury the cost was reduced by £6,000 an hour for the use of one of the royal flights. Therefore, a basic subsidy is going to the royal household from the defence budget, which I do not think is right. If the full cost of the royal flight is £13,000 an hour, the Government should pay for that to support members of the royal family who need to travel on official duties. I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with where it comes from and how it is accounted for.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that these military equerries and the like are on secondment from military duties? They remain military officers in the service of the Crown via the Ministry of Defence, so it is quite appropriate that they should be paid by the Ministry of Defence?
Mr Jones
No, I am not suggesting that somehow they should be taken out of the military while they do these duties, because there is an important link between the royal household and the military, but I do not think that they should be paid for from the defence budget while they are on these duties. In trying to get full transparency in what the royal household costs and therefore what the sovereign grant should be, we need to know about all these other costs so that we assess what is needed to support the sovereign in her work as Head of State. There needs to be transparency.
The Chancellor said earlier that the NAO could look at this, but there is nothing in the Bill that says it will look at costs in kind in relation to the Ministry of Defence and other budgets. If we are to ensure that the royal household has the money needed for the royal family to do their official duties, it is important that there is transparency and that the costs do not fall on the Ministry of Defence, for example.
Some people argue that there should be a cap every year on the sovereign grant. That is possibly a bit too blunt a mechanism. I accept what the Chancellor has said about the size of the reserve. However, if we are to ensure that the efficiencies that have taken place so far in the royal household continue, we need to consider not only how the sovereign grant, but the reserve, is spent each year. It would be quite easy to run the reserve down each year to ensure that more money is needed every year. There needs to be some scrutiny of exactly how the reserve is spent.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman refers to concern about value for money. Does he accept that the royal family bring in hundreds of millions of pounds to the state every year as juxtaposed with the few millions that it costs to run the royal family, most of which is spent on public buildings?
Mr Jones
That is another debate and it is difficult to quantify what the hon. Gentleman says is brought in. I do not just look at this in terms of money, but take the more fundamental view that we have a Head of State and should support her in the work that she does on behalf of this nation. What I am saying is that we need to be clear about what that costs. We should be honest about how much it costs, even if it costs more than £34 million, and not hide the way in which moneys are spent.
I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill, but I hope that the NAO report looks not just at how royal expenditure is spent on the sovereign grant, but at other moneys that are paid to the royal household. It might suggest, for example, that the money that comes from the Ministry of Defence should not come out of defence expenditure.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The shadow Chancellor concluded his remarks by saying that he had looked up the Commons Journal for 1760. He is, of course, a very modern man. I went a little earlier and looked up the Commons Journal for 1575. I thank the Library for its assistance in helping me to find what I was looking for. I was looking for the behaviour of the House towards a Mr Peter Wentworth, a man who represented a Cornish seat and had the temerity to criticise the then sovereign, Elizabeth I. He said that
“none is without fault, no, not our noble Queen”.
For this “prepared speech” and
“divers offensive matters touching Her Majesty”
he was taken prisoner to the Tower and held there for a month at the insistence of the House of Commons. I must say that I think they knew how to behave in 1575, and it is a model for us today.
I want to come on to who really owns the Crown Estate, because that is important in this discussion. That is why I intervened on the Chancellor, and I am grateful to him for taking my intervention. It is important to remember that the Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign in an ultimate sense, though gifted for a reign. The importance of that is that the sovereign therefore has a right to ask for money. One might think that they would get the money anyway, but sovereigns have been promised money by Parliament that has been stopped. One just needs to go back to Charles II, who handed over all his feudal dues to the Government for £100,000 a year in perpetuity for all his heirs and successors. I am not sure that that £100,000 has been paid once in the last three hundred and some odd years. The Crown, by virtue of owning the Crown Estate, can guarantee that it is entitled to a revenue. The fact that at the beginning of each reign it could theoretically demand the Crown Estate back is important reassurance and a reassertion of that right.
Civil List
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I, too, broadly welcome what has been said today. It is a credit to Her Majesty that she has agreed to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said is a revolutionary change, bringing openness and transparency to the royal accounts. Having tried to get the expenses of BBC executives and certain producers made public, I totally agree with him about the BBC. It resists freedom of information tooth and nail. If it is good enough for the palace, I am sure that it is good enough for the BBC.
I accept that today’s statement is a strange way to proceed and that the debate will come later, but there are questions that need to be asked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said that if the royal accounts are to have full transparency, we have to look at them in total, not only at the civil list as it is now or at the new sovereign grant. As the Chancellor said, it is ridiculous that we pay the royal household money and then pay it back to ourselves, which is very inefficient administration.
If we are to get an idea of the full costs, we need to see what Departments pay the royal household in other ways. I give an example from the Ministry of Defence, which rents certain properties from the royal household, including the Chief of the Defence Staff’s current apartments in Kensington palace, which costs the MOD £108,000 a year. There is also military support for the royal household. That, too, comes from the MOD budget, but is vital to the workings of the household and to supporting Her Majesty in her duties. If we are to have full transparency we need to know what that costs. There is an argument to be had about whether some of the costs that fall on the MOD should come out of that budget. If we are to have a look at expenditure overall, it is important that that is taken into account. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor mentioned security, which should also be included.
The general point of the proposals is to get consensus both in the House and across the country that not only are we getting good value for money from the expenditure, but we are accounting for it all. Certainly, it is very welcome that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will be looking at the entire issue.
Something that will come out in the Bill is the way the fund will work in practice. I am not quite clear how the 15% formula will work. In some years the amount will go up, and in others it will go down, and I accept that there has to be a floor; we do not want the royal household suddenly to find that it does not have enough in-year money. I am, however, a little concerned about the idea of allowing it to build up a surplus. It was reported today in The Daily Telegraph that the Treasury is looking at a yearly cap on that figure, which I think would be better than allowing the royal household to build up a surplus over the seven-year period, which many people would criticise. I ask the Chancellor to look at an annual cap on the investment that comes from the Crown Estate, because otherwise the current efficiency drives might not continue.
I accept that giving the royal household more flexibility in how it spends the money is sensible, but there must also be some debate on who benefits from the current civil list and who will benefit from the new sovereign grant. Will it just be left to the royal household to decide which members of the royal family benefit? That will need to be clarified in the Bill, because there is clearly a public perception that some people on the civil list do not deserve the support they receive, and that needs to be looked at. Having said that, I know from my time at the Ministry of Defence that many of the minor royals do a lot of work to support armed forces charities and others. They do not get a great deal of publicity but should be commended, and it is important that that should be allowed to continue.
I broadly welcome the proposals and look forward to the Bill, but if we are to have proper scrutiny of what the royal household costs, it should include everything. I ask the Chancellor to look carefully at the MOD’s budget, which I know he is already doing, and to consider whether it is realistic that we pay it money that is then paid out to the royal household for something that is not a core military task but which is important to the household.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I personally commend and congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only for taking the initiative in this matter, which has been pressing for many years, but for making excellent and historic improvements to the current arrangements, which have been unsustainable for some time?
The royal family are one of the few departments of Government—just about the only thing that the Government funds, I would suggest—that make a profit for the taxpayer. They brought into the revenues of the Treasury something in the region of £200 million than was paid out last year. That was a profit for the taxpayer in raw figures. It has also been estimated that one weekend, the weekend of the recent royal wedding, brought hundreds of millions of pounds into the Revenue in tourism, merchandise sales and the like. That profit for the taxpayer is well worth sustaining.
Mr Kevan Jones
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about tourism and other matters that provide a net contribution, but surely under the settlement of the 1760s we cannot really consider the Crown Estate as still being owned by the royal family. It was given up so that it could produce the money for the state that it currently does. I would not look at it in the same terms as the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman may not, but others may choose to do so. In fact, I happen to think that the 1760 arrangements were an historic injustice to King George III and his heirs and successors. There is every reason to say that if the hon. Gentleman is not happy with the arrangements being proposed, perhaps the royal family could sustain having 100% back.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I clearly have not asked for full transparency on the royal tax affairs. Indeed, I would argue for the precise opposite, because I do not think it is particularly sensible to be investigating in close detail how the royal family spend their money. I recall a line about motes and beams; we have had quite a problem with our own expenditure in this House and I am not sure that we have got things entirely right. Before we start criticising the monarchy and looking over every biscuit that the Queen buys, we should make sure that we have our own house in order.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman would not be suggesting that a way of controlling the royal household would be to have the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority running it, would he?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I would most certainly not be recommending that IPSA comes anywhere near our sovereign.
When the Crown Estate was granted in 1760 by George III, at the same time as he gave up his claim as King of France, the monarchy was in deficit and it needed extra money to fulfil the functions that were being fulfilled. Some of those functions were greater than those now paid for by the civil list. That is all certainly true, although Parliament would vote excess resources to pay for things such as the Army, so my hon. and noble friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) was not entirely fair on the point about paying for the Army.
Now the Crown Estate is in substantial surplus and I think that the Chancellor, in his proposals, which in many ways are very good, may be being somewhat canny, because the next sovereign would be able to cancel this arrangement and say, “I should like £200 million a year, thank you very much.” There is no requirement on a new sovereign to agree to hand the Crown Estate over in return for a civil list. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said that this is taxpayers’ money and not the Crown’s money, but it really is the Crown’s money because, on becoming King, the Prince of Wales or any other sovereign could simply rescind the agreement and claim it back. The Crown Estate is the sovereign’s property, which the sovereign gives to Parliament to help to pay for the costs of the nation; it is not taxpayers’ money that is being handed over. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) want me to give way?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
How on earth do I follow that, Mr Deputy Speaker?
We have had an interesting debate and, as has been said, this is just the start of the process. It is an unusual process, given that we have not yet had sight of the Bill and that this is a preliminary debate. The debate has ranged from yachts, trains and the prospect of the monarch taking out a Boris bike for the day to other important issues that are perhaps slightly off-topic, such as primogeniture, succession and whether first-born females and Catholics will one day be able to take precedence in succeeding to the throne. We heard from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that St James’s palace was once a leper colony that was given to Eton. By the time the Bill goes into Committee—I very much hope that he will be a member of that Committee—I might have worked up a gag about that. I am still working on it at the moment.
As we have heard, the demands on the royal household are vastly different today from when the House last discussed the issue. The financing arrangements are largely unchanged since 1760. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made clear, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the new sovereign support grant, which we feel will be better equipped to meet the royal household’s needs. We will support the Chancellor in reforming the arrangements although, as he would expect, we will ask questions and will want to know in detail how the arrangements will work.
Efforts have already been made to ensure that grant support to the royal household is fair to the taxpayer in the context of wider Government spending and we welcome them, too. Last year, the Chancellor announced in his spending review that support for the royal household would be frozen at £30 million in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before the new arrangements are put in place. That will necessitate a 14% reduction in royal household expenditure in 2012-13.
We have also heard from a number of speakers about the significant efficiency savings made by the royal household in recent years, although the hon. Member for North East Somerset also expressed the view that the monarchy should not go down the Tesco value route, which led my hon. Friends to ask about the Lidl—or Aldi—monarchy. I suspect that that those are not places where the hon. Gentleman often shops.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asked whether the efficiency savings would be a continuing process or whether the end of the road had already been reached, with all the savings being made that could be made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) highlighted some points where further savings could be made and I hope that that will be addressed when the Bill goes to Committee.
As hon. Members have said, the Treasury’s choice of a level of 15% of the revenues of the Crown Estate needs proper scrutiny. The Chancellor said that that figure was chosen to maintain the current level of expenditure, or something in that ballpark, to the end of this Parliament. It has been estimated that 15% of the Crown Estate profits would provide some £37.5 million a year, 25% higher than the total grants that are currently provided. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, we need to consider the appropriate level of expenditure for the royal family. There might be a case for increasing that amount and we must consider carefully how demands on the royal household have changed. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in his opening speech, the pressures on the royal household from issues such as security have increased greatly.
There could also be a case for reducing the royal grant if, for example, there were further efficiency savings. I note that the Chancellor is proposing a cash floor to avoid real-terms cuts to the royal grant in future, which is a significant commitment in the context of wider Government spending cuts, but we should, however, also consider whether there is a potential need for a cap on the amount raised. We should consider the proposed mechanism for uprating the royal grant each year, too.
As has been said, profits from the Crown Estate could rise significantly, particularly because of its links with wind farm developments, which could bring in substantial revenues. The rise is described as exponential in the short term and significant in the longer term, so we need to consider whether a cap might be appropriate.
Parliament must also be certain that any new arrangement will be stable and work in the long term. If the royal grant or reserves fluctuate significantly, that could, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, lead us into the unwelcome situation of an almost annual review of the finances. We will need to strike a balance when building flexibility into the formula, and some might say that seven years is too long a gap to leave between reviews, but we will need such flexibility if Crown Estate revenues rise significantly.
One fact that has come to light, as Members have already said, is that the Crown Estate owns 55% of the foreshore around the United Kingdom and all the seabed up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. Although I do not think that the House will go down the hon. Gentleman’s suggested path and transfer ownership of the foreshore to coastal communities, despite some in the south-west facing high water bills because of the extra costs associated with being on the coast, I think that we need to look at the issue in the context of the UK being the world’s leader in offshore wind power.
Opposition Members and Members in general very much support further investment in renewables, but is it appropriate that increased Government investment in such technologies should directly support the royal household? Indeed, that goes for private and public investment. The Government have made available some £200 million of public funding for investment in renewables, a proportion of which could end up accruing to the royal household via the sovereign grant, so what flexibility can be built into the new grant to deal with such situations?
There is a need to ensure the appropriate parliamentary oversight of the sovereign grant and of royal household expenditure, and we heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), as the current Chair. She described the measures as a sensible act of modernisation, and both Members said that they look forward to getting their teeth into scrutinising the process and making it more transparent.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must start by looking at everything, the total expenditure, including not only, as I said, support from the military, but, for example, the cost of the lord lieutenancy service? If we do not do so, we will not be informed or really understand what the monarchy costs.
Kerry McCarthy
As I have already said, security is a big element of spending on the royal family, but other elements need to put into the mix, and the Chancellor’s announcement of the merger of the three separate funding pots will help with transparency and with looking at everything in the round.
We very much welcome the agreement that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will audit royal household funding, but as the Bill goes through the House, we will seek clarity on when and how often those audits will be carried out, clarity on what disclosure there will be of the information and evidence used in the process and, indeed, clarity on the Committee’s remit to look at issues such as those that my hon. Friend has just raised.
In conclusion, we support the Chancellor’s initiative, but we will seek clarity on the level at which the new grant is set, on the arrangements for uprating it each year and on whether there will be flexibility on that and on the level of parliamentary oversight. We hope that by the time the Bill reaches its final stages there will be cross-party consensus on the new arrangements.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
The last time that the House substantively debated this issue was during proceedings on what became the Civil List Act 1972, and, as the system that the Act implemented comes up for renewal, it is only right that we debate its merits and potential for reform.
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for, in particular, a lively and informative debate about reforming the sovereign grant. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), the royal family contributes a tremendous amount to our country, and they paid fitting tributes to its work on behalf of the nation. We also heard from other Members their thoughts about the royal family and how they should be funded in future.
Of course, the last time we had such a debate was back in 1972. I have not yet had time to read that debate; I am not sure whether it would have been as entertaining as the one we have had today. We heard suggestions about whether we should have a biking monarchy. I am sure that Members will be interested to know that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were given a tandem Boris bike by the Mayor of London; I am sure that they will use it frequently.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we believe that the system is in need of change. I greatly appreciate the support of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) for the measures that we are bringing forward. We want to reform the system so that we can put the grant funding on a sustainable, long-term footing and, as we have said, open it up to full parliamentary scrutiny. I think the colleagues I mentioned appreciate the objectives that we have in mind. In addition, we want to take the opportunity to modernise and simplify some peripheral elements of the current legislation.
As the Chancellor set out, we have been guided by three principles: first, ensuring that we have sustainable, long-term financing for the royal household, free from annual political interference; secondly, ensuring that it has some flexibility so that the royal household can manage its finances efficiently; and thirdly, ensuring accountability by establishing proper checks and balances to prevent sums from becoming excessive. Following those principles, we have arrived at the proposals that we are debating—initially, although we will have a Second Reading debate shortly—for a new sovereign grant.
These are genuinely significant reforms that are designed to last. Linking the sovereign grant to Crown Estate profits means that arrangements will be durable where the old system was not. As we have heard, 15% of Crown Estate profits is the starting point for deriving the grant amount. It will be based on 15% of profit in the year two years prior—so, for example, the grant for 2013-14 will be 15% of the profit for 2011-12. That will provide an amount that should keep royal spending broadly in line with spending in recent years in real terms. The percentage will be reviewed every seven years. In the unlikely event that an increase is proposed, it will require affirmative resolution in Parliament; and, of course, there are powerful control mechanisms that ensure that the grant never becomes unmanageable.
Furthermore, the Bill brings accountability arrangements for the royal household into line with those for other Government Departments. We think it is important that Parliament should have the ability to scrutinise the expenditure when it sees a need to do so—
Mr Kevan Jones
If a large surplus builds up in the seven-year period, what will happen to it? Will it be retained by the royal household for their use, or will it be paid back to the Treasury?
Justine Greening
There will be a cap at 15% of the spend by the royal household in the previous year. If the hon. Gentleman waits for a few more minutes, when I will have a chance to present the Bill to the House, he will have even more information at his disposal to understand exactly how that cap will work, how the review will take place, and who will perform it.
The Bill brings accountability arrangements for the royal household into line with those for other Government Departments. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise that expenditure when it—
Finance Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford
I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only that, it would allow spaces for the NHS to provide choice and opportunity.
The new clauses would allow basic tax relief at 65-plus and rising, and the age would rise as the pensionable age increased. It would encourage people either to keep or take out health insurance just as they reached the period of life in which demand can be expected to increase. If they do not have or cease to have insurance, they will add to the call on the NHS. This approach in no way degrades my or, indeed, their respect for the NHS, but it is intended to take some of the load of numbers and cost off our tax-paid national health service.
As UK life expectancy increases, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) just mentioned, and as the wonders of medical research improve, our pensioners’ life expectancy and well-being will increase. That will be an incentive for more to choose not only to pay their taxes—thus supporting the NHS—but to use health insurance to take an increasing load off our NHS, to the benefit of others.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the new clauses. I have to say that it is pleasing to see the real Conservative party still alive and kicking on the Back Benches, wanting to create a privilege for a small section of the population. I understand that when tax relief was in operation, it affected only about 5% of the population. It feels as if we are going back in time a little, because if we accepted the new clause we would be stepping back to the late 1980s, when the Conservative party introduced relief on private health insurance—I acknowledge that the new clause would apply to the over-65s, rather than to the over-60s, as was the case then. That was introduced to address a lot of the arguments put by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford); the aim was to try to ensure that people would be given choice. I hasten to add that people have a choice if they can afford it, but they have no choice whatsoever if they cannot. I believe, as I understand the Conservative Front-Bench team does these days, that we should seek to improve the health service and opportunities for all, rather than give a tax cut and perk to a very small section of the population.
Mr Leigh
Surely the point is that the proposal applies to pensioners, that they have paid tax all their life and that, just at an age when they might need private medical care, they find that their insurance premiums rocket. Surely it is only elementary natural justice that they should get tax relief on those insurance premiums.
Mr Jones
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand why a low-paid worker in South Stanley in my constituency who has worked hard all his or her life should be given no tax relief or assistance and should pay their taxes just to give a tax relief and perk to individuals who not only might be able to pay for care, but who have an advantage over them. We should seek to ensure equal access to health care.
I understand what has been said about waiting lists and the health service, but when I was elected in 2001 my constituency contained two old hospitals, one of which—the old workhouse—was a disgrace. We now have two new hospitals, thanks to a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned hip and knee replacements, and I can tell him that the industrial legacy of a mining community meant that my area had a long waiting list; it was not uncommon for people to wait for more than two years. I recall people coming to my surgery arguing about how they could get up the list any faster. Waiting lists have more or less been abolished over the intervening 10-year period, which is testament to the changes the previous Labour Government made and the investment we put in. Investment in the health service should be about ensuring equal access to care, not about giving a tax perk to a very small section of the population—the less than 5% who actually have private health insurance—as this proposal seeks to do.
Mr Redwood
I would be more persuaded by this argument if the Labour party had, when in office, prevented the rich from buying the health care they wanted when they wanted it. The truth is that neither the Labour party in office, nor the coalition Government, have had any intention of preventing the rich from using their power and wealth to get the health care they want. The new clause is a measure to enable people who are not that rich to be able to do so.
Mr Jones
The facts do not bear that out, and I shall return to that point in a moment. If people wish to spend their money on health care, that is entirely up to them—I am not opposed to that. What I am saying is that I and others should not be subsidising that choice. We should be putting the money, as the Labour Government did, into ensuring that the general population have access to good-quality NHS care and do not have to worry about the cost.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful socialist speech, which is nice to hear in this Chamber. Is he not wrong about the new clause, however, because we would not be subsiding from the taxpayer? Anyone who takes out new private medical insurance because of the subsidy would be saving money for the NHS and so more money could be spent on the people who wish to use the NHS? [Interruption.]
Mr Jones
Not necessarily, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) says from a sedentary position. As I have seen in my constituency, people who have access to the private sector cherry-pick. Routine operations might be covered by private health insurance but with the more difficult, specialist treatments, the last recourse is often the NHS. A few years ago, a constituent of mine came to my surgery and complained that she could not get her knee replaced on the NHS. I found that remarkable, because by that stage the waiting lists were reduced in my constituency, until I found out from the NHS trust that there were medical reasons why she could not have that operation at that time—basically, she had weight and heart problems. She subsequently had the operation in the private sector, against all the advice, and lo and behold, when there were complications they were picked up not by the private sector but by the NHS. A full NHS care package and local social services were needed to support that woman through an operation that she was determined to have against medical advice.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am delighted to be regarded as the true face of the Conservative party, but I am also very pleased that there are lots of other true faces of the Conservative party present to listen to this debate. Not everyone recalls the great excitement that there was in the Conservative party and on the Conservative Benches back in 1989 when the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now the Justice Secretary, said that he was going to introduce tax relief for health insurance premiums. That policy, which was announced in a health White Paper and then put into practice in the 1990 Budget by Nigel Lawson, was the action of a self-confident Conservative Government. That same self-confidence carried on through the years when John Major was Prime Minister, and right up to 2001, when a proposal to restore the relief, which had been taken away by the mean Labour Government, was in our manifesto. Since then, we seem to have rather lost our way.
Mr Kevan Jones
I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of losing his way, but can he remember why the Labour Government did that? It was not just because the relief was unfair but because they went on to use part of the money to reduce the VAT on heating fuel.
Mr Chope
That was the excuse put forward at the time, but I doubt whether it was the real justification. I suspect that the real justification was a feeling on the part of a lot of socialists—people on the Labour side of the House—who resented the idea that the health service should in any way be funded by the private sector. The problem we have in this country is that although our health service is funded by taxpayer money to the extent of most health services across the G7 or G8 countries, we lag behind those other countries in that we do not have enough private sector contributions to the health service. That is why the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is brilliant, because it sends out a very strong signal to people that we want to encourage them to participate in and contribute to the cost of their health care.
It is good for people to contribute to the cost of their health care, and that of their family, if they can afford so to do. Some people who can afford to do that pay for their health care outright: in a sense, they pay as they go. Others who can afford to do that pay through insurance policies. Yet others who can afford to do that do not make a contribution at all, because they believe that it is in the national interest that the whole cost of their health care should be borne by other taxpayers, many of whom are less well-off than they are. Those are the three categories, and we should try to move more people from the category of those who could afford to pay for, or contribute towards, their health care but do not, into the category of those who do contribute.
Mr Jones
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I understand where he is coming from. However, the scheme introduced in the 1980s did not do what he wants. It basically just gave a tax cut to about 500,000 people who already had private plans, so it did not work the last time it was tried.
Mr Chope
Obviously, the Treasury will always say that there is what is described as a dead-weight cost associated with such initiatives, in that people who would be paying for health insurance anyway would get the tax relief—but that is looking at only part of the issue. What I am trying to do—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley in his new clause—is to encourage more people to come into that category, so that we grow that cohort of people. We certainly do not want to allow that cohort to be reduced, as it inevitably is when people who were on schemes provided by their employers retire and lose that provision. Taking on that burden, or responsibility, for themselves is a significant expense; my hon. Friend’s new clause would not eliminate that cost, but it would reduce it by a useful amount.
Mr Chope
Exactly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a lot of resentment about the fact that people who arrive in this country can latch on to the health service, at no cost to themselves, when they have not made any contribution at all. The new clause would give people who have been making a contribution, either through their employers or by paying insurance premiums themselves, a bit of help in the form of tax relief when they retire. We are talking about modest sums, but that would send a useful message and be an incentive.
Mr Kevan Jones
If we were designing a system to increase the number of people with private health insurance, would not this proposal be a very inefficient way of doing it? I must draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and King’s Fund report, which showed that when the scheme was abolished, 0.7% of people—4,000 people—gave up their policy. It strikes me that for most people, the scheme was a not a great incentive to buy health insurance.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman quotes figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that go back, I think, to 2001—10 years ago. What concerns me is that there has been no update of those figures. If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench, comes forward with up-to-date statistics that show that the Government have been considering the issue seriously, obviously I will listen to his arguments, as I always do.
I am concerned that the issue has become one that the coalition Government do not want to discuss, and they are not prepared to commission research into it. They are not prepared to consider the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and myself that our proposal would generate more private sources of income for the health service. The Government are going for the simplistic version and concentrating on the idea that there would be an up-front dead-weight cost. There might be, but that would be outweighed by the other benefits.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think, and some of the research suggests, that when people contribute directly to the cost of their health care they take a greater interest in outcomes and hold the health service to account to a greater extent than when they can be told, “It’s all free, so what do you expect?” We talk about the health service being free at the point of delivery, which of course it is, but I want a health service that is available at the point of need, and the two things are very different. That is the gap that exists at the moment. A little more private sector resource, which would relieve some of the burden on the taxpayer or complement taxpayer resources, would be a good thing.
Mr Kevan Jones
Where is the evidence for that? The old scheme that the hon. Gentleman says was so great clearly did not do that, for example in relation to waiting lists. It would cost £140 million, and it would be far better if that money went into the health service to improve care for all, rather than to the small section of society that he is trying to benefit.
Mr Chope
Of course, the original scheme was brought in on the basis that it would apply to everyone over the age of 60, and initially would give full tax relief to higher-rate taxpayers, so the figures would be nothing like as high under the new clause, because its proposals would apply only to people over 65, and would give only 20% in tax relief.
Frank Dobson
Let us turn to a bit of history. When the previous scheme was introduced, neither the Department of Health nor the Treasury made any calculation whatever of what it would cost the taxpayer. It was a decision flying blind—[Interruption.] I notice the Financial Secretary looking to the Box, but if those in the Box give him an honest answer, he will have to confirm that the Treasury made no calculation of the cost of introducing the scheme originally and neither did the Department of Health. When I had the scheme abolished, I found it very difficult to discover how much it had cost. It took the Treasury quite a bit of time, too, because it had not logged the effect of the scheme—which it introduced.
The proposition is that, if people have private health insurance, they will not place any demands on the national health service. First, however, they would get the tax concession most of the time, but, during the years—one would hope that there were many of them—when they did not need any health care at all from anybody, they would not be relieving demand on the national health service because they would not have any demand to supply.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has already pointed out, large numbers of people—certainly if they have a difficult or complex operation—do not resort to their private health insurance, because private providers are not up to providing them with the quality of care that is needed, so they resort to the national health service.
I remember a proposal to build a private hospital on the Odeon site on Tottenham Court road, and the brochure that the projectors of this brilliant scheme provided had a paragraph that can be summarised as stating, “It doesn’t matter if anything goes wrong in our private hospital, because you’ll be next door to the world-famous University College hospital, so you’ll be transferred there and then you’ll be okay.” Almost all intensive care is provided in the national health service; private sector providers do not generally provide it, so when things go wrong people are shifted.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we wanted to move to the market-led initiative that some Government Back Benchers have put forward, we would find that private hospitals had to train all the nurses and doctors whom they currently get through state-subsidy and training in the NHS?
Frank Dobson
The private sector creams off the straightforward, relatively simple and less risky operations for people who are otherwise healthy, leaving the national health service to provide similar operations for people who are unhealthy, which can be much more complex. For instance, if someone needs their hip joint replaced, and they are okay apart from their bad hip, that is fairly straightforward, but, if they have a dickey heart or something wrong with a kidney, it is altogether more complex, and you can bet your boots that that operation will take place in an NHS hospital. Similarly, an NHS hospital will provide intensive care, accident and emergency care and emergency beds, and it will carry out the training that by and large the private sector does not.
All those burdens stay with the NHS, none of it transfers to the private sector, and we are being asked to provide a tax incentive for people to do something that they do already. There was no evidence in the 1990s of any increase in the use of private health insurance as a result of the Government’s tax benefit.
Mr Bone
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who has been very consistent in his views over the years and, I think, represents the real views of the Opposition.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on proposing—
Mr Bone
The proposal applies to retired people, so I think that it will affect people who have private medical insurance through their companies or who can afford to have it while they are employed, but who drop it when they retire, at the very time when they are most expensive to the national health service. The more people we can encourage to take it up, the better.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am very interested in this point. Will the hon. Gentleman say what evidence there is? When this tax relief was withdrawn, 4,000 people did not continue with their health insurance, so there is no evidence at all that people drop out. Likewise, there is no great evidence that by introducing this measure, the previous Conservative Government increased the numbers. What it did was give a tax break to people who already had private health insurance.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he said first that 4,000 dropped out and then that nobody dropped out. He had already proved that 4,000 people dropped out.
I believe that the proposal will improve the uptake of private medical insurance enormously, which will mean that there will be less of a burden on the national health service and that more money will be put into private hospitals, allowing them to develop. This country needs more health care of a higher quality. That does not need to be centrally controlled, but can be done by a mixture of NHS and private providers.
To get the idea that the priority of this Government has not been the NHS, Opposition Members must have been asleep. A thorough new Bill has come forward, which has been scrutinised by Parliament. There have been slight shrivels on the way, and it has now gone into Committee. This proposal would be a very minor adjustment to the NHS programmes of this Government. It deserves the support of the House and it will be interesting to see what happens when we divide.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is exactly what people with private health care do—they jump right to the front. There might be a six-month waiting time for a minor operation—I suspect that waiting times will get longer—but people who choose to have private health care go to the front of the queue and are seen within a fortnight. I have seen various television adverts for very reputable private health care companies that advocate the services that they provide. I do not think that that should be forgotten.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also recognise that when we had long waiting lists, the incentive that a lot of these companies used in their advertising was that people could get to the front of the queue? Is there not an argument that now that we have short waiting lists—for the time being—there is less need for private health care?
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is interesting that there are now far fewer adverts for private health care. He is right that part of the reason for that is that we have a superb national health service. Having served in the House for longer than I, he should take a great deal of credit for the fact that we have a first-class health service. The second reason why I suspect private health companies are not advertising is that thanks to the policies of the Government parties, people cannot afford to have private health care. Of course, many people are losing their jobs. I will return to that point shortly.
The other huge issue about burden is that the private health system is a burden on the national health service, because it takes doctors, nurses and other medical professionals away from it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is the top 40% of earners who have access to private insurance? In the bottom quartile, less than 5% have it.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the new clause is, yet again, all about the few, not the many. It would do nothing for the squeezed middle, the people who, thanks to the economic policies of Treasury Ministers, are finding life much harder at the moment. We should perhaps reflect on the fact that for all the passion about tax breaks on insurance, hon. Members of both Government parties did not hesitate to go through the Lobby and vote to raise VAT, which has made life much harder for many of my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine.
There are two reasons why companies have historically offered private health care. One is as an incentive to get people to come and work for them in a competitive market. As I said, thanks to policies of the Government parties, that is not particularly a problem in the current climate of job losses and rising unemployment.
The second reason is a hard-nosed business case for key employees. There is obviously a good reason why companies decide that to minimise the amount of time for which certain key employees are absent from the workplace due to illness or injury, they will provide a fast-track or—wait for it—queue-jumping approach to health care. I understand the argument for that, and it is a matter of choice, but companies have not offered private health care beyond retirement because they have no further use for that employee. That is why we tend not to see companies giving a lifetime guarantee, as they do in the United States. It is therefore a slightly false argument to say that when a company provides private health care up to the age of 65, the state needs to step in after that. It is a hard-nosed business reason.
Mr Jones
Is not one of the hard facts of life in the United States system, as many individuals there are seeing now, that as soon as people become unemployed, their health insurance stops? In some cases the public sector then has to pick it up. Although there may be a benefit when somebody has work, there clearly is not if they do not have work.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is entirely correct that that is the case for the vast majority of people. Of course, care is often continued for highly paid executives, the group of people whom Conservative Members seek to help—as I have said, the Conservatives are the party of the very few, not the many. However, he is entirely right that the vast majority of US citizens lose their private health cover in that situation. That is why Opposition Members have worked so hard to resist the attempts of the Secretary of State and his Liberal cohorts to introduce privatisation by the back door.
I am conscious that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will wish to make his closing arguments prior to dividing the House. We look forward to seeing the strength of feeling that exists, and I urge Liberal Democrat Members to stand up for the health service and stand up to their Conservative allies.
Mr Redwood
That may have been the case in the past, but what we are interested in is the new clause.
The answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool is that no, I cannot tell him that. It is not my new clause and I have not researched the matter. I was about to say that I would be more likely to vote for it if a case could be made on the money involved. It seems to me that it would be a good-value purchase if the savings on health care that it generated for the NHS were considerable. We need to balance the two things—we need to know what the revenue loss would be, based on a sensible estimate of take-up, and what the savings to the NHS would be.
The Labour party has to accept that it is not a one-sided matter. The whole point of the scheme is that there would be cost savings to the NHS. That money going into the NHS could then be spent on other people and other treatment. The NHS may still have to do the really difficult things for the people involved, but there could still be an overall benefit both to them and to the NHS if the extra money coming through the private sector led to extra care.
The fundamental mistake that we have heard from the Opposition tonight in their approach to these issues—although it was not the mistake of many Labour Ministers—is the idea that the resources to be provided are finite, to be used either in the private sector or in the public sector. The whole idea, surely, is that we need more resources, more trained people, more treatments, more supplies and more medical activity, because people are living longer, they need more health treatments and the population is growing for a variety of reasons.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, the one big gap between Britain and our European partners, which are normally the example held out by the Labour party, is the amount of private sector money that goes into health in Britain. It is a considerably smaller proportion than in countries such as Germany or France or the Scandinavian countries. If Labour Members are interested in the squeezed middle, they would be well advised to consider any scheme that might help to increase or release private sector money in health in a way that creates more resources, more medically trained people, and more medical treatment.
Michael Connarty
The right hon. Gentleman leads me to my next point. He recommended that we look at the EU system. I am glad that in reply to an intervention from one of my hon. Friends he said that he objects to the idea of a comprehensive, insurance-based health service in this country. I, too, have looked at that on the continent and in EU countries, and I have seen that it does not work.
In fact, other EU countries do have a larger number of doctors—there are more doctors per head of population in most of them than in this country—but that is because of the elitist structure of the medical profession in this country. That structure keeps the numbers down and pays huge bonuses to people once they get to the higher gradings. Many of those people are the very same ones who moonlight in the private sector for additional personal financial gain.
Mr Kevan Jones
Insurance-based health systems such as that in the United States may have large numbers of doctors, but those doctors are not accessible to the large proportion of the population who do not have private health care.
Kerry McCarthy
I can confirm that the Opposition oppose new clause 1. The Prime Minister spent the years in the run-up to the general election and the year since trying to convince us that he valued the NHS, that it was “safe in his hands”. Sadly, however, given the current shambles over the health Bill, which has yet again returned to Committee, it is safe to say that he and his Health Secretary have spectacularly failed. On current evidence, it seems that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to persuade his Back Benchers—it seems that they now want to reinstate a policy introduced by Baroness Thatcher’s Government.
As we have heard, new clauses 1 to 4 would introduce a tax relief on medical insurance for over-65s. The hon. Members who tabled the new clauses stood on a manifesto that proclaimed we “believe in the NHS”. It turns out that they believe so much in the state that they think even private sector provision should receive state funding.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that this proposal has not appeared in a Conservative party manifesto since 2001? The fact that it was dropped in 2005 and 2010 shows clearly that it is not a vote winner.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe that I will come to the point that he raises in a moment.
New clause 1 would reinstate a benefit that was withdrawn by the Labour Government in 1997 because, quite simply, it had failed. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, it was not picked up by the Conservative party during the recent general election. As noted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who was in government at the time—I congratulate him on his excellent speech—the measure had little impact. One of the problems with the previous Conservative Government's tax relief was that they did not do their homework on what impact it would have. I would be interested to hear what research the hon. Members who tabled the new clause have done. I note that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) pleaded numerical dyslexia when asked about the statistics. I think he should have got someone to do his maths homework for him before proposing a spending commitment. The first thing hon. Members should have done was to see whether it would have the desired effect in spending that money.
The Justice Secretary, the then Chancellor, claimed when originally introducing the relief that it would provide an incentive to older people to buy private insurance and reduce the pressure on the NHS. That has been echoed by many Government Members today. However, the tax relief did not reduce the burden on the NHS or help those patients who relied on it. It simply subsidised health insurance for those who could already afford it and had chosen to buy it. When originally announced in 1989, it was estimated that the relief would cost £40 million. A telling warning for Government Members who want to reintroduce the expenditure at a time of such fiscal restraint is that by 1997 the cost had multiplied to £140 million, because there was no limit on the state’s generosity to private providers. It would be wholly irresponsible to reinstate a policy whose costs could spiral to such an extent.
As NHS patients knew to their cost in the 1980s and early 1990s, the then Government were far more comfortable limiting expenditure on the NHS and letting waiting lists rise for the majority of pensioners and others who could never contemplate private insurance, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, was primarily a way of financing queue jumping for those who could afford it. For just a 10% increase in the number of people covered by insurance qualifying for relief, there was a 100% increase in costs in just the first three years. Over the lifetime of that Government’s policy, the number of people covered rose from 500,000 to 600,000; so, for a 20% increase in the number of people covered, the costs shot up by 350%.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
New clauses 1 to 4 seek to provide for tax relief on medical insurance premiums for individuals above the age of 65. I understand that the argument for introducing such relief is that it would encourage individuals above that age to take up private medical insurance and therefore reduce pressure on NHS resources, and that this would result in a net saving for the Exchequer in the medium to long term.
The Government introduce new tax reliefs only when there is a compelling case that to do so would represent a good use of public money. Turning first to cost, we estimate that this relief would have a direct and immediate cost to the Exchequer of at least £135 million pounds a year—a significant amount, especially given the fiscal climate in which we are now operating. That would reflect the cost of restricting relief to the basic rate of tax.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am interested to find out where the Minister got his figure from, because the figure in 1997 was £135 million. Has it not changed since then?
Mr Hoban
That is the Treasury’s latest estimate, and it is a number that we are going to stand by.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said that he wanted to restrict the tax relief to the basic rate, but subsection (3) of new clause 1 would not have that effect. It suggests that the relief could be obtained at the highest marginal rate that a person paid. He has used the 1990 legislation, whereas in the 1994 legislation the relief was restricted to the basic rate.
Mr Leigh
As so often in Finance Bill debates, the devil is in the detail. The hon. Lady has made a perfectly reasonable point. However, I hope to establish in my speech that the present system is unfair and, specifically, militates against single-earner families. That applies especially to those who are struggling out of poverty, but it is not necessarily the very poorest about whom we should be concerned. We should also be concerned about families on fairly modest earnings who are desperately trying to look after their children, and who decide that someone, usually the mother, should stay at home and care for them. But, as I have said, the devil is in the detail, and I will try to deal with the hon. Lady’s point later. It is important, and we need to tease the answer out of Ministers. We want to know why action has not been taken.
Mr Leigh
That argument has been used against transferable tax allowances. It is true that it is impossible to create a transferable tax allowance that helps everyone, but I do not consider the fact that in certain circumstances, through no fault of their own, people will not be allowed to enjoy the benefits of such allowances to be a good argument against trying to help others—and that is all we are trying to do.
Let us examine the extent of support for marriage in Britain. It is no surprise that marriage rates are at an all-time low and family breakdown is a massive problem, affecting many different areas and, it is estimated, costing us directly between £24 billion and £41 billion per annum. The “Breakdown Britain” report motivated the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, to come up with this policy—our policy—and launched the debate. It was promoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; although he is not present today, I pay tribute to him for his fantastic work.
Mr Kevan Jones
New clause 5 would allow married couples to transfer their personal income tax allowances between each other, along the lines of what was said by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions during the election campaign about recognising marriage in the tax system. The new clause is not exactly what the Conservatives were proposing at the general election, and I shall deal with the differences in a while. The important point, which has not been clearly articulated by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), is that this policy arose from a 2005 report by a Conservative think-tank, the Centre for Social Justice, on the breakdown of the family. Its main argument was that marriage is the important point in keeping families together, tackling poverty and dealing with all the other arguments that he has covered. It also supported the introduction of an incentive in the tax system to encourage people to marry, and I shall return to that in a moment. I am not sure that most people who get married are thinking about the tax system before they decide to do so.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point and one that we were discussing on the Back Benches earlier. I am married and all three of my children attended my and Allison’s wedding in 2003. We did not need a tax allowance in order to get married—that is the important factor here that is being missed.
Mr Leigh
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not suggesting for a moment that people get married in order to get tax allowances—I have never said that. All I am saying is that the current system is unfair, because it militates against a family on modest earnings where one person wants to stay at home to look after children. Of course nobody gets married in order to get a little tax allowance, but why should we have an unfair tax system?
Mr Jones
I actually do not understand why all this is unfair, because the new clause would give an advantage to people who are married but do not have children. I do not know how the new clause does what the hon. Gentleman is proposing in terms of keeping family units together and alleviating child poverty.
The important point relates to what was in the Conservative manifesto. What came out of that Conservative think-tank was the idea that marriage was an important point in keeping the family unit together and ensuring that children and wider society were not disadvantaged by a breakdown in the family unit. The manifesto made a commitment to “recognise marriage” in the tax system. It proposed that couples and civil partners who were basic rate taxpayers should be entitled to transfer just part of their allowance—this was worth, in effect, up to £150 a year. That is very different from what is contained in the new clause, because it makes no mention of civil partnerships. Given the names of the people who are supporting this proposals, I suspect that this has come from the wing that has not quite gone all the way in being the new cuddly Conservative party in terms of even envisaging the idea that civil partnerships, with or without children, could constitute a family unit.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned briefly, the policy came unstuck in the coalition agreement because this proposal is clearly not supported by the Liberal Democrats. I believe that during a general election television interview, the Deputy Prime Minister called it “Edwardian”.
Andrew Gwynne
The Deputy Prime Minister did not just say that this proposal was Edwardian. I believe that he went on to say that it was also patronising drivel.
Mr Jones
That is a bit rich coming from the Liberal Democrats, because most of the things that they come out with are patronising drivel. However, they were clearly not happy about this policy, so in the scramble to get the red boxes and cars they had to reach some type of compromise. Thus, the coalition agreement simply states that there will be a provision whereby the Liberal Democrats can abstain at some point in the future when this policy is introduced.
Mr Jones
Possibly. The 22 June Budget made no announcement on where this policy stood and on what was happening to it. I can understand the annoyance felt by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and others, who clearly think that this is a vital piece of legislation that was promised to the electorate. It was obviously a key point: I am sure that a lot of people went to the ballot box thinking that if they would get an extra £150, they would vote Conservative. That pales into insignificance when set against what has been taken away from them since this Government came into power.
Mr Jones
I am not trivialising the subject, but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that the real difference in North Durham was made by provisions opposed by him and his party, such as tax credits, which raised hundreds of families out of poverty, and the Sure Start initiatives, which were important in poor communities such as Stanley in my constituency and gave real life chances to youngsters from poor backgrounds. I will not take any lectures from a Conservative on alleviating child poverty. I hasten to add that since this coalition Government came to power, many families, including many individuals whom I met the other day at a school in my constituency, will lose the education maintenance allowance. That was not a luxury but a vital part of supporting those children in education and giving them the access to higher education that generations before them had never had.
Mr Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I remember the debates on the minimum wage as a trade union official, as he will too, and we were told that it would wreck the economy, but in the north-east alone 110,000 people got a pay rise thanks to that change. It is interesting that we are now hearing proposals from Conservative Back-Benchers to change the system and that people who are disabled and others should perhaps be offered a lower rate of minimum wage.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
While the hon. Gentleman is patting himself on the back about the great successes of the previous Government, can he tell us which he thinks would have the best effect for working families with low incomes: scrapping the 10p rate or raising the income tax threshold, as this Government are doing?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman must be honest with my electorate in North Durham about the fact that although the Government have increased personal allowances they have taken away money in others ways, such as the increase in VAT and the £140 million of cuts that Durham county council will have to impose over the next three years. Those cuts will have a direct effect on many of those poor families. The Liberal Democrats can claim that they have had great success, but if that is their only claim they should be honest with people and tell them what they have lost, as well, through such vicious policies. The hon. Gentleman should remember that this Conservative Government would be doing nothing without the support of him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Helen Goodman
Another problem with raising the tax thresholds—a provision constantly promoted by the Liberal Democrats—is that, as I am sure my hon. Friend has not forgotten, the biggest beneficiaries are those who are highest up the income scale. The biggest value of the change is not to the people at the margins—those who are just caught or just not caught by the tax boundaries—but to the people higher up the income scale.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but she knows as well as I do that many people in County Durham are facing unemployment as a direct result of the spending cuts. Many of those people will be taken out of paying income tax altogether because they will not have a job. For Members to try to trumpet that policy, not realising the damage they are doing to regions such as the north-east of England, is disingenuous.
I understand the argument made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, which is that marriage is key in ensuring that we have the units that will lead to less crime, less social breakdown and so on, but—I am sorry—I do not accept that. The root cause of many of those issues is poverty. If we consider the examples given by the hon. Gentleman, as well as those given by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he toured his Glasgow housing estate, we can see that £150 will not make a great difference to lifting anyone living on such a council estate out of poverty or giving life chances to the young children who live there. We should address poverty, and, in my opinion, provisions to do with the tax system and marriage are not the way to do that.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Would he care to comment on the UNICEF study, produced in 2007, which showed a league table ranking the well-being of children in 21 developed countries, including their material, educational and subjective well-being, their health and safety, their behaviour and the strength of their family and peer relationships? Under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, Britain came bottom of the league.
Mr Jones
I think that report has been discredited, but I can look at the north-east of England and my constituency and consider the changes in employment that happened under the previous Labour Government as well as the life chances we gave to individuals, the new hospitals we provided and the investment we made in things such as Sure Start centres. Although I accept that such changes will not have benefits straight away, they will have real benefits over the lifetimes of those individuals. The Government that the hon. Gentleman supports is taking away such provision and says that the state is not important in one respect while, in this case, they want the state to engineer people’s private lives socially. I find that a completely contradictory stance, but, again, the hon. Gentleman is a Conservative and is therefore allowed to be contradictory.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way and he is making the point that the state can be family friendly through its policies without having to give away a tax break to people based on their marital status. The previous Labour Government made great changes by giving life chances to young families, in particular, without having to manufacture the tax system in such a way.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. A little later, I shall discuss what our Government did to recognise the fact that if we are to address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough about child poverty, the tax system and marriage are not necessarily the way to do it. The way to do it is to ensure that the money goes to the families and children who are affected. That is why the child tax credits and other such provisions were vital in raising people out of poverty. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned the minimum wage, which lifted a lot of very poor individuals out of poverty who were getting a pittance. I remember seeing as a trade union official an advertisement in the jobcentre in Newcastle that read, “Night guard, bring your own dog, £1.35 an hour.” That is a thing of the past. I hope that it will remain so, but I do not know, as we hear from Conservative Back Benchers that they might want to change the minimum wage in some way.
Helen Goodman
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) mentioned the UNICEF report, because Denmark came at the top and Britain came very low down. I want to remind hon. Members that Denmark has the highest rate of lone parenthood and the Danish can combine that with good child well-being because they have a strong welfare state. Does not my hon. Friend think that that is far more important in addressing child poverty and well-being?
Mr Jones
It is. To be fair to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, he did say that being a lone parent does not make someone a bad or unfit parent. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) had three children before he got married, but that does not make him a bad parent. [Interruption.] He says, “I don’t know,” but I do not think it makes him a bad parent: it is something that he and his partner chose to do. As he said earlier, the offer of a tax break of £150 a year would not make any difference to whether people decide to have children before or after they marry. Indeed, I have many friends who have children and who have never married and have no intention of doing so.
Barry Gardiner
Has my hon. Friend considered the situation of people like my mother whose husband, my father, died when I was a child? Under the proposed system, she would have found that the support was taken away at the very time when financially she needed it most. That would be the effect of the measure, which pays no real attention to the needs of the family or the needs of the child.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The proposal is not subtle at all and his personal example is a good one. Why should someone who loses a spouse in an accident or through natural causes be penalised because, through no fault of their own, they have lost their spouse? That is the problem with trying to use tax in relation to marriage. As I have said, the measure is very different from what was put forward in the Conservative manifesto because it does not include civil partnerships. It clearly is not what Conservative Back Benchers have read in their own manifesto.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman knows that there are always winners and losers in any tax system. I am very surprised at him because I know that he has very libertarian views on a whole host of subjects, which we have heard on many occasions in the Chamber. Is he really suggesting that we should use the tax system socially to engineer society by saying that people should marry rather than cohabiting or, as has been mentioned, becoming single through separation or bereavement? I am surprised at him because I thought he was very much against the state doing anything, but the measure has the state wanting to determine or influence exactly what an ideal society should be. I am sorry, but the statistics just do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman proposes. If such tax measures worked as a way of bolstering marriage and keeping families together, we would have expected marriages to rise with the married man’s tax allowance through the 1960s and 1970s, but they did exactly the opposite—we had record levels of divorce and separation. Hon. Members should look at the facts. Tax measures have not succeeded in doing that in the past, and I doubt whether they will in future. They certainly will not encourage anyone to get married for a small financial benefit.
It is important to dispel one myth, which has been put forward again by the Conservative party—the fact that a wicked Labour Government somehow did away with the married couple’s tax allowance and that Labour is responsible for the degeneration of society that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions describes in his report. It is important to recognise what the previous Conservative Government did on this. It was Chancellor Norman Lamont in the 1993 Budget who proposed that the married couple’s tax allowance should be restricted to 20% from April 1994. That was the first time that happened for the basic MCA, which for a couple under 65 was then £1,720, so it was worth something like £608 for those who were on marginal rates of 40%, but only £344 for those on marginal rates of 20%. We then had the argument that it was unfair to have different amounts for people on higher tax rates than for those on lower tax rates. The then Chancellor said:
“There is no good reason why an allowance intended to recognise the responsibilities of marriage should give least to those on low incomes and most to those right at the top of the income scale.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 182.]
In the November 1993 Budget, the current Justice Secretary confirmed that change and went on to announce that the MCA would be further restricted to 15% from April 1995, so there was a slow change in the system. The provision restricting the MCA was made in section 77 of the Finance Act 1994. When this was debated in Committee, there was general support for the idea that the MCA should be the same across the board.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend’s description of what happened in the 1990s reminds me of an issue that I do not think the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) addressed. One of the big debates on this subject was about the fact that transferable allowances reduce any scope for financial privacy within a marriage. A number of people felt very uncomfortable about that. Does my hon. Friend have any comments on that?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a key point and I understand why she makes it. This goes right back to when income tax was introduced in the 1790s, when a spouse’s income was the property of the husband. That was the basis on which income tax was brought in and it continued for centuries. There was no recognition that even within marriages people might have separate tax affairs or sources of income that needed to be recognised.
It is interesting to look back at the debate that took place about the MCA. Baroness Maddock, who was then a Member of this House, argued that the MCA was
“a relic of the days when a husband was taxed on his wife’s income as well as on his own. It contravenes the principle that marriage should be tax neutral.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 344.]
Mr Jones
I am very pleased to hear that but I am not sure that that is very good news for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) to whom I understand the Baroness is now married. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Interestingly, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Michael Portillo, concurred with Mrs Maddock’s view. The then Chancellor, who is now the Justice Secretary, recognised that and announced in his Budget speech that there would be a two-stage restriction of the MCA, stating:
“Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently—one of the best taxation reforms in recent years—the married couple's allowance is a bit of an anomaly.”—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 935.]
The important thing that this demonstrates is that change was taking place under a Conservative Government, and that it was not the wicked previous Labour Government who came up with this idea. However, the change did set off the forces who were arguing that the changes were wrecking marriages. In 1995, a major paper called “Farewell to the Family” appeared. It made much of the fact that the measure would change families and discourage people from marrying.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a pretty poor show if a couple united in love and affection for each other decide to get married simply for the sake of some miserable, mean, pusillanimous fiscal mechanism? Would it not be a more healthy world if we could get the accountant out of the couple’s marriage bed, and concentrate on the important thing: two people who love each other, not two people who are trying to save a few bob from the Treasury?
Mr Jones
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. He raises the idea of the accountant in the bed. I do not know of many couples who, when they are ready to get married, sit down with their accountant to work out the financial benefit to them. I am sure that for many, something other than money comes into the decision to marry or start a family—a point that I demonstrated earlier.
Mr Stewart Jackson
As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman aspires to be the County Durham filibustering champion; no doubt he will be on his feet for many more minutes. Is he seriously denying the findings of the British household panel survey, which found that the average length of cohabitation is just over three years, and led it to conclude in its paper that, compared to marriage, cohabitation was a significantly more fragile and temporary form of family? Just one in 11 married couples split up before their child’s fifth birthday, compared to one in three unmarried couples. Those are the facts; is he disagreeing with them?
Mr Jones
As for filibustering, this is nothing; I think that my record is two and a half hours. If the hon. Gentleman would like to keep intervening, I am sure that I can try to beat that. I do not deny what he says, and it is all right to cite the facts, but should one necessarily go on to say that those facts are a bad thing for society? Is he genuinely saying that the relationships of people who cohabit are any poorer than those of people who are married? Likewise, is he suggesting that if people decide, after marriage or cohabiting, to split up, that makes them bad individuals in some way—or, if they have children, bad parents? I know many cohabiting and divorced couples and single parents who are perfectly good parents and role models and work very hard to ensure that their families contribute to society financially and to local community life. The statistics that he cites are fine, but what is not fine is the next bit—the suggestion that the situation will somehow lead to the breakdown of society, or the idea that the family as a unit is the only answer to people’s lives these days. It is not.
That goes back to a Victorian notion. Before the Victorian period, it was not uncommon for people not to get married for many years. Marriage was a Victorian fashion, but in Georgian times many people did not get married at all, and raised perfectly good families. I am not sure that society came to a grinding halt because people were not married, or because there was not a tax system that encouraged people to marry.
Mr Jackson
Perhaps I might invite the hon. Gentleman to make a causal link, because he is not challenging the substantive point that I made with the figures that I gave. He will know that the Centre for Social Justice report of May 2011 found that children who do not grow up in a two-parent family are 75% more likely to fail at school, 70% more likely to be a drug addict, 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem, and 35% more likely to experience unemployment. That is not about traducing single-parent families, or besmirching their commitment to their children, but there is a causal link to family breakdown, which the hon. Gentleman denies.
Mr Jones
That is complete nonsense. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition, we saw him walking around the Easterhouse estate, saying how dreadful things were. That is not down to whether people are married; it is down to poverty. That is the key driver of the pressures that people face. It is all very fine talking about drug use, but I have worked with an organisation for parents of drug addicts in Durham, and most of those parents are middle class. They have stable homes, but they have drug-addict sons and daughters. They are not bad parents, and it is not down to whether they are married. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and the Centre for Social Justice report make the mistake of saying that the family units that he describes are the reason for poverty. They are not. Addressing poverty, which we were doing through measures such as tax credits, is the way forward, rather than social engineering, and £150 a year will not go very far in encouraging people to stay married—or, for that matter, alleviate child poverty at all.
Stephen Pound
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not a person in this marvellous, glorious, gorgeous building who fails to accept that couples together often nurture and raise children in a happier and better way, although they are not the only ones? However, we are not arguing about the sanctity of marriage; we are arguing about a backhander from the state—a few bob. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who was a bank manager and may well have interposed himself in a few intimate relationships in his time, is speaking very much from the perspective of the Conservative who sees everything in terms of money and fiscal benefit. Is there not a better way?
Mr Jones
There is, but the new clause that we are debating—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Peterborough would agree with this—refers only to married couples; it does not refer to civil partnerships, for example. I know that the new Conservative party is supposed to be modern and reflective, but what about people in a civil partnership who have children, whether from previous marriages or afterwards? Are we saying that that is a worse family unit than marriage? This debate is not about the tax system for those who are married and those who are not; it is about what is in the best interests of the child. Single parents—they may be separated, or their partner or spouse may have died, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said—work very hard. This is about the child. The problem with the proposal is that it would reward people with no children.
Barry Gardiner
Does my hon. Friend accept that he has perhaps calumniated Georgian England—inadvertently, I am sure? Does he accept the wisdom of Jane Austen, who of course said:
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune”
of £5,000 a year
“must be in want of a wife”?
My hon. Friend’s suggestion that marriage was not as common in Georgian England as in Victorian England is somewhat belied by Austen and other authors of the age.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I fear that we are straying a little far from the point. Any chance of getting back to the 21st century?
Mr Jones
I think this is an important point, Mr Deputy Speaker. The main thrust of the argument that has been made is that marriage, and taxation in marriage, has been consistent throughout history, but it has not. Like a lot of things in this country, it has been looked at through a Victorian prism that seems to bend the reality of what took place way back then. However, I will move on to my next point.
Helen Goodman
I should like to back up what my hon. Friend says. In the major study of marriage in England from 1550 to 1750, Lawrence Stone demonstrated that in a commercial society with a commercial attitude—
Mr Jones
It is important to note that income tax was introduced in the 1790s. We need not go back to the 15th century, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) makes a good point, which was made earlier—the tax system treated women and their income as the property of their husbands. The supporters of the new clause argue that it would strengthen society, but there is no evidence for that. The new clause will help many people who have no children. It would apply to married couples and even retired people.
Mr Stewart Jackson
To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the fact that many more people in County Durham, Northumberland and the north-east of England generally are keen on getting married than in, say, the south of England and London? Are his constituents wrong in supporting the institution of marriage?
Mr Jones
No, not at all. Many things in the north-east are obviously better than anywhere else in the country, but the statistics show that the number of people getting married is going down. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seems to think that a tax break of £150 a year will encourage people to get married, but that is not the case at all. He misses the main point.
The MCA was abolished in the Budget speech by the then Chancellor in 1999, and withdrawn in April 2000. Only married couples who reached the age of 65 by that date would be able to continue to claim the MCA. The additional personal allowance was also withdrawn at that time. The allowance equalised the MCA so it was given to lone parents, whether single, divorced or widowed, caring for one or more children under the age of 16.
Importantly, the then Labour Government introduced the child tax credit, which was vital to ensure that support went to the children. The Centre for Social Justice report suggested that marriage was important for keeping families together, but that is not the case. The important thing is how we support children. By introducing the tax credit system, we lifted thousands of children out of poverty by helping the families, whether they were married or not.
The credit took the form of an allowance which was then set at £5,200, on which relief was given at 10%. Families eligible to claim the child tax credit were able to cut their annual income tax not by £150, as is proposed, but by £520 a year. In April 2002 the credit was increased in line with inflation, making it worth £10 a week more. That was the fairest way of supporting families. I do not question the Secretary of State’s intention to help families, but the child tax credit was a far better way of doing it than through the married tax allowance.
The debate tonight has glossed over the cost of the proposal. We are told by the Government that we face hard times and that we must make every penny count. One reason given to explain why the proposal was not brought forward was the coalition Government; another was cost. The IFS estimated the cost of various options for introducing a transferable allowance based on different criteria. On the assumption that the allowance applied only at the basic rate of tax, which was due to be 20% in April 2008, the figures are eye-watering.
If the allowance applied to all married couples, the IFS estimates the cost at £3.2 billion. I am not sure where the Government would get such a sum from. If the allowance applied to all married couples but only half the personal allowance was transferred, that would cost £1.6 billion, so we are not talking about small amounts of money. If the object is to get that money to children, is this the best way? There is no realistic hope of the present Government doing this. I understand the annoyance of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who thinks that he stood on a manifesto which will now not be implemented.
Stephen Pound
No one in this place would begrudge that sum if there was the slightest empirical evidence that it would be of any long-term benefit to society. There is no such evidence. Does my hon. Friend agree that that money could be far better spent on a raft of supportive mechanisms for families, particularly families with young children? That would ensure the longevity of the family unit.
Mr Jones
I agree. The money should be directed into Sure Start centres and the child tax credit, for example, but the Government are penalising single parents in some of their benefit proposals.
Another option that the IFS considered was targeting the allowance at married couples with dependant children or those receiving carer's allowance. The estimated cost of that was £1.5 billion. The final and cheapest option was that it would be given only to married couples with children under the age of six, which would cost £900 million. The various options illustrate the complexity of the policy and the questions that arise from it—whether it should apply to everyone or only to the groups that I outlined.
As the hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out, whatever system is chosen, there are winners and losers. If we believe, as the hon. Member for Peterborough clearly does, that keeping people married is so important that everyone should get the allowance, the price tag is totally unaffordable, but doing anything less would undermine the main argument put forward.
It is worth recognising what that would translate into in cash terms. If it applied to the full personal allowance, the amount provided as an incentive to remain married would be quite meagre, at about £20 a week, which I am not sure is a great incentive. The rationale is that it needs to be fair and large enough to make a difference, but I do not think that a couple whose marriage is breaking down would stay together for an additional £20 a week. Whatever figure we come up with, I doubt whether it would actually make a real difference in determining not only whether a couple gets married in the first place, but whether they will separate after a period of marriage. When it comes to enabling families to stay together as a unit, clearly the important point is poverty. That pledge was made before the general election by the previous Prime Minister. I think that everyone, even those influenced by the darker forces on the traditional wing of the Conservative party, agrees that the modern family takes many forms.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend is young and has not been around for a enormously long time. When Mrs P and I were married in June 1976, virtually everyone got married just after the beginning of the financial year, which was a nonsensical system, with churches doubling the cost of altar servers. I assure him that one of the disadvantages of the married couple’s allowance was the great logjam of spring weddings. Despite that, Mrs P and I are still together.
Stephen Pound
I appreciate that we are treading on you patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I should note that it was probably a fear of Father Padraig that kept Mrs P and I together for the first three decades, rather than any small financial advantage.
Mr Jones
I understand why my hon. Friend and Mrs P have stayed together. Although the allowance might be an incentive to get married, the important point is that it does nothing to ensure that people will stay together for longer than the tax year. As has been mentioned, what is proposed would be very unfair. What happens if someone loses a spouse though no fault of their own, for example as a result of a tragic accident? Why should someone who finds themselves suddenly bereaved through no fault of their own after an accidental death, possibly with young children, be penalised by the tax system? It would be very difficult to introduce flexibility into this system to take account of that, and if we compare that with the tax credit system we will see that the important point is to support families and their children.
I will turn to some of the statistics on marriage that the Conservative party is putting forward. The hon. Members for Gainsborough and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) are not known as great state interventionists, but by arguing that the tax system should be used to encourage people to marry, they are suggesting that the state should determine a certain model of behaviour. I find that very strange coming from Conservatives who deplore the nanny state and argue that the state should not interfere in people’s lives. There is an inconsistency there that needs to be answered.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The charming Maggie Pound deserves a long-service medal at the very least for putting up with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).
On the merits and logic of the argument that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is making, is he suggesting that there is no place for fiscal incentives in directing personal and public policy? If so, does he think that we should not fine motorists for breaking the speed limit, for instance, because that is the logical corollary of his last remark?
Mr Jones
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman, his party and, certainly, the more blue-blooded elements of it very strongly argue that the state should not intervene in people’s lives, including, in some cases, motorists’ lives, but what we have in new clause 5 is the right of the Tory party arguing for direct state intervention in something very personal: somebody’s personal relationship.
Earlier, it was said that a tax system would encourage people to get married, but there is no evidence of that at all. In the late 1960s and ’70s, when the old married man’s tax allowance was in place, there was a record rise in divorces, but that was less to do with the tax system and more to do with the change in society and the law that clearly made it easier to get divorced or to choose not to marry at all. Again, the idea that £20 a week will encourage somebody not to divorce is quite ludicrous. All the studies find that we would need to offer a considerable amount of money to prevent people from divorcing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised the issue of international comparisons, somebody else mentioned Denmark and other countries and the hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned the fact that we are one of the few countries not to recognise marriage in the tax system, but there is no evidence to suggest that taxation as an encouragement to get married does anything to hold the family unit together.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have listened to my hon. Friend’s speech with a great deal of interest. On fiscal incentives for people to stay together, does he agree that the cost of running two separate households is a major financial consideration for people living apart? It far outweighs any fiscal benefit that the taxation system could deliver.
Mr Jones
I agree. The changes being made to housing benefit will not do anything to help families stay together. My hon. Friend is a London Member, so he will know that families will be forced to move out of central London because of the Government’s changes to housing benefit rules. That is one of the inconsistencies of this Government. On the one hand they say that a tax break of £150, or £20 a week, will help to keep the social unit together, and on the other they—the same Minister, I hasten to add—pursue policies on housing benefit and other benefit changes that will not help at all to keep families together but will lead to the root cause of most of these issues: the poverty that affects such individuals.
I turn to some of the problems with the Bill as framed, and to what we have before us. New clause 5 is not the measure in the Conservative party’s most recent election manifesto. This proposed change includes married couples but excludes civil partners, who would not be covered by the new clause. When there was an outcry and complaints about what had been proposed at the election, the Prime Minister included civil partners at the last minute.
People would have to opt in to this system and elect to transfer their part of an allowance. That would be very unfair to many people who do not understand tax codes. I have just got my annual tax return and I keep putting it to one side, as most people do, until the deadline arrives. Introducing a system whereby people have to elect to transfer a certain allowance may well help the more articulate middle-class people who can do that when they fill in the form, but I am not sure that some of the people on poor council housing estates in Glasgow whom the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is trying to address will have the wherewithal or knowledge to do it even if they knew that the option was available.
The Government have told us that they wish to simplify the tax system, but the new clause would make it a lot more complicated. In trying to bolster marriage, it would help certain groups of people but not others. Whenever we do anything with the taxation system, we should try to make it as user-friendly as possible. If someone opted to move their allowance around, that would be quite complicated because people’s incomes change throughout the year, so they might have a certain allowance available in one year but not another. The system would incur not only the £3 billion-plus cost of having it open to everyone but the cost of trying to work out how the tax office would administer it. In that respect, the new clause is not well thought out.
The Government have got themselves into a bit of a logjam on this. The Prime Minister is clearly committed to this policy. His Back Benchers are now worried that it cannot be implemented because of the coalition agreement. Huge amounts of public money would be used, but would it have any effect on child poverty? No, it would not, and neither would it affect most families. Moreover, it would help people without any children, including pensioners.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Leaving aside couples where there are no children in the household, does my hon. Friend agree that married couples typically tend to come from the better-off social classes and that, while I am sure that this is not what the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) intends, a tax break for marriage would therefore benefit the better-off?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend has great experience in this area, and she makes a clear point. People on lower incomes and possibly of lower educational standing than others will not look at the tax system and say, “I’m going to stay married because somehow I will be financially better off.” That is why it is important to simplify the tax system.
If we are looking to help children, this proposal would not do that. Indeed, some aspects would be detrimental to families, especially put alongside the Conservatives’ existing proposals on changes to the tax and benefits system. We need an honest debate on the family, child poverty and how we can build communities. By investing in Sure Start and child tax credit, the last Labour Government raised a whole group of individuals out of poverty. That was the way to do it. If money is tight, it needs to be targeted very carefully.
The approach that has been put forward, which recognises marriage, is not targeted and will not have the effect that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wants. That is unfortunate, because I think that he is well intentioned and has just come to the wrong conclusions. It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the new clause. I do not think that they will, because it is not what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined in the manifesto or in the lead-up to the general election. It will be interesting to see how much pressure the Liberal Democrats can bring to bear to ensure that this proposal never sees the light of day. The coalition agreement says that they can sit on their hands if it is brought forward.
In conclusion, the individuals who are trying to address this issue, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough who is well intentioned and thoughtful in trying to do the best for families, have got it wrong in thinking that the answer is marriage. The root cause of social breakdown is not that people are not married, but poverty. We need to ensure that not only the tax system, but the benefits system and everything else, supports families, whether the parents are married, single, in a civil partnership or whatever. As has been said, and as the modern part of the Conservative party recognises, the modern family comes in all shapes and sizes. One size does not fit all and one solution does not fit all. Giving a pathetic sum of money to support marriage will not relieve child poverty; nor will it ensure that people stay together longer if the taxman will raid their savings or income if they do not. I do not think that this is the answer, and if it goes to a vote I will oppose it.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Only a few days ago, on father’s day, the Prime Minister stated:
“I want us to recognise marriage in the tax system so as a country we show we value commitment”.
I believe that the Government’s commitment to introduce such a provision is genuine. It was in the Conservative manifesto, it is in the coalition agreement, and I trust that the Government will introduce it in this Parliament, just as they are addressing the couple penalty. I warmly congratulate the Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the work being done to address this subject.
Fiona Bruce
Is it fair that when incomes are equivalised, one-earner married couples with children—
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I heard the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) say “not moved”. I think that I saw one of the Tory Whips at her beforehand, so I do not know whether they tried to persuade her not to have this debate, but I think we need to clarify this point before we move on.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The position has been made absolutely clear. Now can we please continue with the speech that is being made?
Fiona Bruce
I have already indicated that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough kindly moved the new clause in my stead. I am very pleased that he did so.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points. First, I have been struck this evening by the interventions by Government Members about the opportunity for couples to make a choice—particularly that which many of them would like to see, which is for one parent in the couple, often the mother, to take some time out of the workplace to stay at home and care for children. They seem willing to spend money on offering that choice to mothers in couple relationships and to spend more on offering it to mothers in married couple relationships, but not to offer it to single mothers. The economic pressure on single mothers to go out to work to support their children is being ratcheted up by this Government. If it is right for children to have a parent at home for a time, not necessarily just when the children are very young, it must be right irrespective of the marital status of the parents. Government Members must think about the child-focused approach to deploying resources. If we think it right that parents should have the choice to be at home with their children, all parents must have that choice, not just those in married relationships.
In response to the interesting and important point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about what goes on in other European countries, let me say that one of the distinguishing factors is that the experience of poverty among lone parent families in this country and the much lower experience of such poverty in other European countries shows that one can design a fiscal system so that lone parenthood need not be a determinant of poverty. It need not lead families and children into poverty. This is about the redistributive choices that we make in our fiscal system. When we have such pressure on the public finances, making a choice to spend money on favouring a group of families, many of whom are already economically advantaged, rather than focusing spending on those who are most economically disadvantaged is a strange priority, particularly given that we have no evidence of the efficacy of spending money on keeping people married as a route to keeping them out of economic disadvantage.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend talks about international comparisons, but does she agree that there is also no evidence in European countries or anywhere else that having a tax system that encourages marriage leads to more stable marriages or more coherent family units?
Kate Green
It is very clear that putting the weight of expectation for supporting marriage on the fiscal system is a very unrealistic and unlikely way of providing adequate support for strong couple relationships. Of course everybody wants strong couple relationships to be sustained and of course it is right to use every instrument of public policy that we can—cost-effectively and in terms of outcome—to do so, but the evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is not that we should give tax breaks to the already better-off, and particularly not to the already better-off who do not have children, if we are concerned about child well-being. The evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is about a much broader landscape of social and emotional support. It is about early relationship and social education in schools and ensuring we have strong services to support families in the community, including the universally welcome Sure Start services and the very good-quality child care and play facilities that can be available to support parents in raising their children.
To isolate money and spend it in the fiscal system rather than direct our attention to what genuinely supports strong family relationships and children in whatever family structure they are growing up is in my view a misapplication of public funds, particularly at a time when those public funds are constrained. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is particularly strange to spend money on couples who have no children if we are concerned about child well-being, rather than to spend money in a way that specifically focuses on the well-being of kids. I am very concerned that the new clause would take money from those with higher levels of need and give it to many couples in lesser need. I accept that, as hon. Members on the Democratic Unionist Benches have said, some married couples are in low-income groups and in straitened circumstances, but in general we would be diverting resources to better-off families from lower-income families, and particularly from lower-income families with children.
Finally, let me address the issue of the couple penalty, about which we have heard a great deal and about which I am deeply sceptical. Let us start by remembering that there are economies of scale of living with another adult in one’s household. It does not cost twice as much for two adults to live in a household as it costs one. The couple penalty that has been much talked about by Conservative Members fails to identify that the material circumstances of children in lone-parent families are measurably worse than those of children in couple families. Whatever the intellectual and fiscal modelling might suggest about a financial couple penalty, the reality—the outcome—is that there is no such couple penalty. Indeed, the penalty works in quite the opposite way. To seek to extend the material advantage that couples enjoy at the expense of single parents seems to me a strange choice for a Government who are particularly concerned about social mobility and improving the prospects of the most disadvantaged children.
I hope that hon. Members will consider the new clause very carefully and the fact that it simply fails to achieve the laudable goals of Members on the Government Benches to improve the prospects of some of our most disadvantaged children. I hope that they will look instead at how best we can direct resources to support parents who are bringing up children on their own, usually through no choice or fault of their own. I hope that they will relieve what is often a burden from the parents who are often proud to take on that burden and who deserve to be rewarded for taking it on, as they are the parents who stay and make the commitment. Surely they are the parents to whom we should be giving extra financial support if there is extra financial support to be made available. I really do plead with Members on the Conservative Benches, and with DUP Members who I think are giving them some support this evening, to think again about the likely effect of such a new clause and about the children who would lose out. I am sure that their intentions are honourable, but I am afraid that the results will be anything but.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Reference was made earlier to the Centre for Social Justice report of May 2011. The hon. Member for North Durham, who is ambling along the Back Benches towards his place, did not refute the causal link and the difference between marriage and cohabitation and some of their negative socio-economic impacts.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening; I said nothing of the sort. I said that a possible reason for marriage break-up was poverty, but the link that he is making by suggesting that marriage break-down somehow leads to poverty is not the point that I was making at all.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House. We will have a look at Hansard tomorrow to see what he said. He did not refute the details and facts that I put before the House in my interventions on him and others.
Mr Jones
I know the hon. Gentleman is not a good listener. He is drawing the conclusion that poverty, and things such as drug abuse among children of single parents and others, is a result of the fact that their parents are not married. What I said, and what is clear from the work of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is that the root cause is poverty, not whether people are married or not married.
Mr Jackson
My capacity to listen is in inverse proportion to the length of the hon. Gentleman’s peroration. Given that he spoke for an hour, at the end, like many others, I lost the will to live. I expect better of the hon. Gentleman because he has given some very informative speeches over the years. Sadly, that was not the case tonight. I am sure he is distressed at my observations.
The hon. Gentleman failed to take on board any of the comments that were made or the facts that were presented. A study by the Bristol Community Family Trust in December 2010 demonstrated that cohabiting couples accounted for 80% of family break-ups, whereas divorce accounted for only 20% of break-ups. He did not specifically seek to break the causal link that I was making. One in 11 married couples break up before their child is five, compared with one in three unmarried couples. None of us wants to see the dire social consequences of family breakdown. There is a consensus across this country about it, from the Prime Minister down.
Mr Chope
In making a brief contribution to this very important debate, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on getting it going. It came as a bit of surprise when my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) did not speak to the new clause, but I am delighted that she subsequently joined the debate to speak in support of it.
I come at this subject on the basis that the Prime Minister supports exactly what I support: recognising marriage in the tax system. He promised that the Government would recognise marriage in the tax system after the general election, and this debate rightly puts the focus on how that commitment will be implemented. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will say exactly when that is going to happen. Over a year ago, on 2 June 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]
Those were excellent words from my right hon. Friend. Then, some three or four months later—
Mr Chope
No, I am not going to allow anybody to interfere with the words of the Prime Minister.
On 5 October 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“I have always supported the idea of supporting marriage through the tax system, specifically supporting the idea of a transferable tax allowance. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the coalition agreement.”
That is where my hon. Friend’s new clause comes in, because it calls for just that. One is entitled to ask why, having had two Budgets since the general election, we still do not have proposals to implement that very important pledge.
Labour Members are misrepresenting this proposal as an attempt to build new privileges for those who are in a marital relationship, but, as has been brought out time and again during the debate, the question is what we are going to do to prevent those who are married from suffering disadvantage under the tax system. That is what we are trying to put right with the new clause.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking a route towards a destination. The Prime Minister set out the clear destination, but so far we do not seem to have made any progress towards achieving it. What was set out in detail on the Conservative website at the time of the election was a very modest proposal, which talked about a small proportion of the tax allowance being transferable, with quite a tight maximum income threshold in order for people to be eligible. Even that modest proposal has not yet been put forward by the Government in the Finance Bill so that we can support it and implement it.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the Prime Minister’s support for this proposal. Does he recognise that the Prime Minister included civil partnerships in what he said? If we agreed to this proposal tonight, civil partnerships would be excluded, which is clearly at odds with what the Prime Minister wants.
Mr Chope
If there is a defect in the wording of the new clause and it fails to recognise everything that the Prime Minister said—he certainly referred specifically to civil partnerships—the hon. Gentleman may have a point about that, but he does not have a point about much else, in my submission.
Chris Leslie
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman’s point is. Maybe in the cool light of day that intervention will have more light shed on it. In his contribution earlier, he asserted that there was a causal link between marriage and the socio-economic well-being of society, child well-being and so forth. He may well have a set of statistics in which he sees a correlation, but I am sure he understands the difference between causal and correlative effect. It may well be that car ownership has a similar correlation with child well-being, but that does not mean that setting up the tax system to the advantage of a particular institution will necessarily have the outcome that he seeks.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and others have overwhelmingly proved that we need a tax and benefits system focused on need and on poverty alleviation, particularly poverty among children. That must be the driving force behind a sane and rational tax system. We do not want a system with the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies that Conservative Members advocate.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that one causal link might be with poverty? The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) says that couples in Dorset stay together longer, but might that not have a lot to do with the affluent nature of that part of the world compared with, say, inner-city Glasgow?
Chris Leslie
Absolutely. Of course that is the case. It is so obvious that it is surprising that Conservative Members cannot see it. What is worse is that the new clause that they have moved—or rather, that one of them has moved—would cost more than £4 billion. It would cost £4.1 billion to create a personal allowance transferable between all couples, married and unmarried. That would be the price tag of new clause 5. That is the equivalent of a penny on income tax, a penny on employee national insurance rates, a 1% increase in VAT or putting VAT on fuel and power, as we know the Government sometimes like to do. If Conservative Members advocate spending that amount of money, surely it would be better to target it on the basis of need and where it would have the best and most direct benefit to society.
There is a long history of the transferability of personal allowances, and I will not go through it.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I want to support new clause 10. It is very important that the assessment of VAT considers the effects of the rise on both individuals and businesses. We need to consider both categories to understand fully the impact that the rise could have on economic growth. I know from sitting through the last debate that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have no understanding and no idea of the pressures that are being placed on family budgets. This debate seems to be showing that they do not have any understanding of the stresses and strains being put on businesses in constituencies such as mine. In fact, as my hon. Friends have said, the Government seem to have very little understanding of what is happening to businesses across the north of this country.
I know from my constituency postbag and I hear from my local citizens advice bureau that more and more people are looking for advice not only because they are concerned that they might lose their jobs, which is affecting a large number of people in my constituency and the neighbouring areas, but because those who are in work are experiencing increasing rises in food, energy and petrol prices while facing a cut in wages in order to keep themselves in employment. If we add those factors together, we can see that consumers are concerned about the future, which is affecting what they purchase on the high street. That has a huge impact on all our constituencies and we have heard tonight of many examples of businesses in the retail sector that are falling daily.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that a vivid example of that can be seen when one walks through the centre of the fine city of Durham? An increasing number of shops are closed with no trade taking place at all.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and I shall come to the city of Durham in just a moment or two.
The situation that I am describing, with reducing consumer confidence and increasing stresses on business, would definitely be helped by a reduction in VAT, even if it were temporary.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and reduced demand, not just from sectors but from individuals, appears to be very damaging for communities such as mine.
I want to talk about tourism in my constituency. Tourism was mentioned earlier; we know that VAT rises have really had an impact on the tourism industry, and cities such as mine are suffering because of that. People do not have as much disposable income as they did, so they are not spending as much on leisure, and that has an impact on tourism.
Mr Kevan Jones
It took the Minister with responsibility for tourism a year to visit the north-east; he finally turned up in the north-east last week. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am not just about the effect of VAT on tourism in Durham, but about the fact that the Minister had no answers whatever when it came to the issue of replacing One North East’s marketing campaign to promote tourism? He basically said to local businesses that they had to get on with it themselves.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am not sure that I am surprised that that was the answer from the Minister with responsibility for tourism. I shall come on to the regional development agency in a moment or two.
Toby Perkins
If I had had any idea that my hon. Friend so desperately wanted to intervene I would have given way earlier, but I am pleased to have been able to make her dream come true. The strong point that she makes, and on which Members should reflect, is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) suggests that we assess the impact of the VAT increase.
I am not trying to get into a class war thing, but one reason why the Chancellor has got things so wrong and why so many of his policies seem so out of kilter is that he has no concept of what people can actually buy with a half-decent salary. That is one reason why, at the drop of a hat, he introduced the changes to child benefit. As someone who was loaded the day he was born, he has no idea of the difference between a salary of £50,000 a year, £20,000 a year or £12,000 a year; he just knows that they are a lot less than he has, and that people on £50,000 seem to earn more than the average so they are probably okay.
Mr Kevan Jones
Has my hon. Friend noticed that the same applies to the majority of the Cabinet? I understand that among both its Conservative and Liberal Democrat members there are some 20 millionaires, so they say that we are all in it together, but they are clearly not.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. No one is suggesting that because someone is wealthy they do not have a right to go into politics, just as we would never keep someone out of politics because they were poor—[Interruption.] Well, we would never do so! The central point, however, is that when the policies that the Government pursue seem so directly to hit the most deprived people, to attack pensioners and, particularly, to attack women as they have on so many different occasions, people will understandably look at the background of the people making those decisions. When people hear them in opposition say that they recognise that VAT is a regressive tax, but see them go into government and try to claim something different, they will understandably question their credibility.
VAT hits the poor, the workless and pensioners. Are those really the people the Chancellor wants in his sights?
Regulatory and Banking Reform
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes two important points. In the process of selling Northern Rock and returning it to the private sector, we are seeking to get the best possible deal for the taxpayer, given the investment we have put in so far. He is absolutely right that one of the challenges is to restore trust and confidence in the banking system, which has taken a blow in recent years for a range of reasons, including the mis-selling of payment protection insurance and the financial crisis itself. There is a big challenge for banks. The best way that they can establish trust and confidence is by demonstrating to the people of this country that they are doing what they should be doing, which is helping families and businesses realise their full potential by ensuring that credit is flowing to our businesses and that our constituents have opportunities to buy their own homes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister, who knows the north-east very well, will be aware that when Northern Rock was a building society it was a highly respected institution, not only because of its prudent lending, but because it was the first choice for many small savers. Although he reaffirmed in his statement the Government’s commitment to mutualisation, will he not be straight with the people of the north-east and say quite clearly that mutualisation is not an option and that Northern Rock will be privatised, as was spun out in the newspapers this morning?
Mr Hoban
As I said earlier, re-mutualisation is an option. The advice we have received is to proceed with the sale process, which could be to a proprietary business or another mutual. Once that process is under way, we will be able to compare that outcome with the other two possible outcomes, which are an initial public offering or a stand-alone re-mutualisation. I am keen that United Kingdom Financial Investments engages with this, as it has done already, to see whether that is a viable option.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend also contrast that with the £7 billion that banks and financial institutions are paying out this year in bonuses?
Chris Leslie
Indeed; the machine rolls on. We will have to look at the detailed papers on Project Merlin when they emerge. The Chancellor supposedly persuaded the banking sector to change its ways. Of course, things have fallen apart at the seams since then. As I will say in a moment, some of the bonuses are still, frankly, obscene.
If we accept the Government’s ludicrous argument that they were worried about the cliff-edge marginal rate of the levy at £20 billion of chargeable liabilities, why did they not keep that trigger but have a smaller allowance, perhaps of £10 billion or smaller? But no; they caved in straight away with the £20 billion allowance and lost a phenomenal opportunity to redress the balance of the tax burden in this country. The Americans, who have not yet triggered their bank levy, have named their version a financial crisis responsibility fee. That says more accurately on the tin what it does. They have done so because it is incumbent on the institutions that caused the crisis and the consequential fiscal deficit to do their duty and pay back what they owe the taxpayer.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) is being a little unfair? Bankers are taking their share of pain. I understand that Eric Daniels, the outgoing chief executive of Lloyds bank, is getting only £1.4 million in bonus rather than £2.3 million.
Chris Leslie
I wonder whether Hansard is able to record the irony in my hon. Friend’s comments. Sometimes I wonder whether we need a new annotation in our proceedings, because I do not honestly think that he is showing sympathy. I think he is suggesting that even when there is an apparent reduction in bonuses, the sums of money involved are the sort for which our constituents would buy a lottery ticket in the hope of winning. If they won that amount it would change their lives tremendously, yet those life-changing sums of money are not even salaries but bonuses on top of salaries.
I wish to talk about the rate at which the Government have chosen to set the bank levy, because it is a low rate by international standards. It is less than a third of the level that has been set in France, for example. Ministers will know that the rate varies in a number of jurisdictions, but I think that it is 0.25% in France. The levels involved are still quite small, but in Hungary it is 0.53%, in the USA it is 0.15%—although, as I said, it has not been enacted at this point—in Portugal it is 0.1%, and so on. It is to be only 0.078% here in the UK for short-term liabilities, and 0.039% for long-term liabilities, which is very small by international standards.
Chris Leslie
Thank you, Ms Primarolo. Notwithstanding your strictures, that was an incredibly important intervention from my hon. Friend, who is correct, particularly in his assessment of the attractions of York as a destination for tourism, which was of course helped by the investment that the previous Administration put into some of those key elements within his constituency. I do not want to be diverted, however, as time is short and we need to focus on the amendment.
The amendment relates to the level of the bank levy in the context of bank taxation and the bonus culture. As I said, the Government could not even bring themselves to have transparency on what the bonuses were, let alone take action against them. However, we know some things about the realities of bank bonuses today, and the figures are truly astonishing. From the limited disclosure that we have seen, we know that in 2010, John Varley, the former chief executive of Barclays, received a £2.2 million bonus; Stuart Gulliver, the chief executive of HSBC, received only £5.2 million in bonuses; Stephen Hester, the chief executive of RBS—wholly owned by the taxpayer, by the way—got £2 million in bonuses; and Eric Daniels, the chief executive of Lloyds, largely owned by the taxpayer, got £1.45 million in bonuses. Let us not forget Bob Diamond, the chief executive of Barclays since January this year, who received £6.5 million in bonuses in 2010. He was head of Barclays investment banking before that and perhaps his bonus relates to that. Poor old Bob Diamond, however, loses out in the bonus bonanza when compared with the top two managers at Barclays: Tom Kalaris received a cool £10.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2010 and its other top manager received a tidy £10.6 million.
Ms Primarolo, can you guess the name of that other top manager at Barclays? His name is Rich Ricci—and I kid you not! It would be the stuff of a Dickensian novel if it did not sound so far fetched, but it is indeed true. Between them, the top five earners at Barclays—including Mr Rich Ricci, but excluding executive directors—received more than £38 million in salary and bonuses in 2010 alone.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend how mind-boggling the amounts are that these individuals receive. It makes one wonder what they do with the money. Was he shocked, as I was, to learn that more than 50% of donations to the Conservative party last year came from the City, including large donations from individuals such as Jeremy Isaacs, the former head of Lehman Brothers Europe, who donated £190,000?
Chris Leslie
“But surely that is a complete coincidence”, he said ironically! I do not know whether my hon. Friend was making the point that this is payback time, but the level of these bonuses is incredible.
Let me finish my point about Barclays. I was saying that £38 million in bonuses and salaries went to just the top five earners. That is enough money to pay the wages of more than 1,000 qualified nurses in our NHS. That gives some meaning to the scale—enough money to pay for 1,000 qualified nurses.
Chris Leslie
Again, I think that we need to engage in a proper debate about corporate governance of the state-owned banks. It is important for us to understand the potential powers that Ministers have, and the consequences of their choosing not to exercise those powers. If they choose to approve a certain level of remuneration, that constitutes intervention just as much as disapproval does.
Chris Leslie
May I make a little progress? Time is short.
As a result of European Union reforms championed by Labour Members of the European Parliament who tried their best to restrain some of the excess, some bank bonuses must now be deferred and given in the form of shares. Bankers cannot take them in cash immediately. However, the Minister needs to explain why he is counteracting those bonus deferral arrangements by introducing a loophole in new section 554H, in schedule 2, allowing a concession to bankers whose bonuses are paid largely in the form of shares rather than cash. Rather than having to pay the tax at the point at which the bonus is awarded, they will need only to pay it on a date down the line when the shares are sold, possibly avoiding the current 50p rate of tax. The Sunday Times wrote about that last weekend. There is speculation that the Chancellor will cut the 50p rate at some point, and that, as a result of the Minister’s reforms, bankers will be allowed to wait and to avoid it. Can the Minister explain why he has made that valuable concession?
Mr Redwood
Yes, I think we could, which is why I made that recommendation well before the credit crunch occurred. In ’06 and ’07, it was obvious to me and to some other commentators that things were getting out of control—indeed, it was quite common for Opposition parties in this House to say they thought there was too much credit about. I went a bit further and said that could be remedied by changing the way we regulated the banks. It was quite wrong to allow a bank to extend more credit when it only had a 4% tier 1 capital ratio. I remember that when I was a financial regulator, we lived in an era when banks needed twice or three times that amount of capital to be acceptable to the regulator. There was a clear diminution in standards at a crucial time, which fuelled the credit binge.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes speaks at odds with his party, and he talked earlier about historical references. Was it not his party’s Government under Margaret Thatcher who deregulated the mortgage market, and is it not the case that up until the recent banking crisis hit, his party’s Front Benchers were talking about lighter regulation of the banking sector, not more regulation?
Mr Redwood
The Front-Bench team and I were at one on this issue: we were saying that what was needed were better regulation and less regulation. The Government were regulating too many things badly. As I have just explained, they were regulating mortgage banks in a way that allowed all, or at least several, of them to be crippled and caused a great many problems. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about Baroness Thatcher: much stricter controls over cash and capital were imposed throughout her period in office, and, of course, no major bank went down during that period. The same cannot be said of 2007-10, when the requirements were much laxer, as I highlighted in the report, and when we ended up with banks going down.
We are not here to debate past regulation, however; we are here to debate taxation. My purpose in sketching the history of this tragic situation is to express solidarity with all those who agree with the public mood, which is that we want to get a bigger return out of the banks, whatever we may think are the reasons why they are in their present position, but it is also to remind the House of a very important and salient fact, which is that two of the biggest banks are wholly or partially in state ownership or control. We are therefore talking about taxing ourselves in no small measure.
The issue before Ministers is a little more complicated than the Labour spokesman has suggested, because there are two ways in which we can get cash out of the banks: one is to tax them now on their stream of revenue, or their assets and liabilities in the case of the bank levy tax; the other is to move more quickly to sell off those assets back into private sector ownership and, I hope, proper private sector risk taking. If we are to get the maximum receipt, we do not want to be taking too much money out of the banks in the short term by way of taxation, because for every £1 of tax we take out of them, we lose £5, £10 or £15, depending on the multiple we sell them on when we come to sell them.
Ian Lavery
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is a great way of introducing IPSA into the debate on the Finance Bill. I think we would have agreement on that point across the House.
Let me get back to the discussion. Barclays bosses were compared to Somali pirates by one of their own shareholders, amid anger over their obscene bonuses. Shareholders lined up to vent their fury at the annual meeting, complaining that their dividends had plummeted while senior executives continued to enjoy huge pay packets. Another shareholder accused the executives of rank historical folly, saying:
“In these times of austerity the seemingly excessive payments to senior bank staff seems to show the lack of wisdom reminiscent of Marie Antoinette saying let them eat cake.”
HSBC has tried to seize the high ground by announcing a reduction in maximum bonuses for top bosses, but chief executives could still receive a package of more than £12.5 million this year. This mammoth pay deal comprises a salary of £1.25 million plus up to £7.5 million in long-term bonus shares and a possible £3.75 million annual bonus. Some reduction. That is why the bankers must pay their share, and why the Labour party are seeking this amendment to ensure that that happens.
This recession was not made in Britain; it is a global recession. Let me set the scene for a minute or so. In the decade before the financial crisis, Labour cut Britain’s national debt and Britain’s deficit. Both were lower than the amounts we inherited from the Tories. Before the financial crash we had a lower national debt than America, France, Germany or Japan. The crisis was caused by the financial institutions—by these banks. Governments and central banks were also, of course, at fault, including in Britain, where we did not see it coming and should have been tougher in regulating the banks.
The cry from those on the Conservative Benches, and from the City, for lighter regulation of the banks should have been totally ignored—and, yes, Labour should have been tougher on the banks. When the City and the Tories called for lighter regulation, we should have ignored them and been tougher still. Our priority, however, was to prevent recession turning into depression and to keep people in jobs. We always said that once the economy was growing strongly, tough decisions would be needed to get the deficit down again. The plan, as we all know, was to halve the deficit in four years, including through a continuation of Labour’s bank bonus tax.
The crisis was not the result of our spending on essential front-line services such as the NHS, schools, police, local authorities or any other public service.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the sparse attendance on the Liberal Democrat Benches? Before the election, the Liberal Democrats lectured us on bank bonuses and what we were doing about the banks—and now, in places such as Northumberland, they are devastating public services through the cuts that they say are needed because of the financial mess that the banks got us in to.
Ian Lavery
That is a very good point about Northumberland. In my constituency in particular, 60% of women and more than 40%—nearly 50%— of men are employed in the public services. Many are being subjected to enforced redundancies by the Liberal Democrat-led Northumberland county council. We hope that will change in 2013, but let us wait and see what happens on Thursday, as that will give us a good idea of what will happen in the coming months and years.
We must realise that the recession was caused by the financial institutions and, yes, by the banks. We are certainly not alone in Britain as a nation in deficit. The financial crisis affected every major economy, resulting in national deficits worldwide. It is the different way in which those nations agreed to tackle their deficits that is the issue. We are saying that we need financing from the banks and the continuation of Labour’s bank tax to ensure that we have the money to allow the programmes we had planned to go forward.
The Government are cutting too far and too fast and they are hitting the most vulnerable, as well as jobs and families. It is necessary to prioritise an economic plan that focuses on increased growth and increased employment opportunities, which would place Britain in a better position to emerge much more rapidly from the current economic situation, which has been flatlining, at best. Part of such a plan would involve repeating Labour’s bank bonus and investing in growth and jobs.
The economy remains extremely fragile. The Office for Budget Responsibility has revised down its growth forecast for the UK economy in 2011 from 2.6% a year ago to just 1.7%. Last week’s growth figures were hardly a triumph for the economy. Growth flatlined over the last quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011—it was down 0.5% in the former before going back up 0.5% in the latter—an effect that the Office for National Statistics has largely attributed to poor weather in December.
Ian Lavery
That is strange, but it is probably what we should expect. It does not surprise me one jot that the tax on banks will reduce in the years to come rather than increasing in line with profit or productivity.
Most Members will be lucky enough to have a credit card, and many of them will have maxed it out and might still have a maxed-out card. That is a new term I have learned since coming to Parliament—“maxed-out credit card”. Incidentally, returning to IPSA, my IPSA card has definitely been maxed out: it has been stopped, as there is only £1 left on it, but that is another issue. On a serious note, many hon. Members will have maxed out their credit card and will not be looking to pay it off in the next year or so. Instead, they will be planning how and when it best suits their pockets to pay it off, when they are able to do so. Paying it off immediately would mean having to go without even the most basic of necessities. That is life: it is about having effective financial means.
The world economy revolves around borrowing and debt. People the length and breadth of the nation live off debt, and the issue is how that debt is managed and repaid. That kind of debt is like a mortgage: people have to pay it off, but it becomes like a family deficit that is paid off over 25 years. If people were told they had to pay their mortgage off in two years they could not do it, because they could not survive. That is exactly the approach that the Government are taking with the deficit. This is about having a fair process; it is about financial management. We are definitely not all in this together, but the Labour party’s bonus tax would have helped to implement a number of social programmes that would have benefited many of those who feel they are being disproportionately affected by the cuts.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw the Newcastle Journal on Saturday, but he knows that the housing market is struggling in my area. The Journal has reported that only 13 houses in the north-east were bought for more than £1 million last year. Is it not ironic that one of the bank bonuses that has been paid could have bought all of those houses?
Ian Lavery
I think that is ironic, and I assure my hon. Friend that not many houses in my constituency are valued in the region of £1 million. That is not only ironic; it is pretty sad and desperate when I think of the number of people in my constituency and elsewhere in the north-east who are looking for social housing and who cannot even get on to the housing ladder as a result of the austerity measures that are being put in place. That is why Labour says that although it is hurting, the signs are that it is not working.
The amendment calls on the Government to review the overall taxation burden on the banks. They have declined to renew Labour’s bank bonus tax, which raised £3.5 billion last year, and have instead proceeded with a bank levy that will raise about £2.5 billion. Labour is calling on the Government not to give a tax cut to the banks, but to use the money that would be raised from repeating the levy to invest in jobs and growth. The Bill’s provisions for the bank levy equate simply to a tax cut for the banks, because it is estimated that it will bring in £2.5 billion a year, which is less than the £3.5 billion that Labour’s bonus tax brought in last year according to the OBR.
Furthermore, the Government are giving banks a corporation tax cut of more than £100 million in 2011-12 and the value of that tax cut will rise considerably by the end of the Parliament. It is essential to repeat the bank bonus tax, to increase the bank levy and to invest in jobs, growth and housing. Labour believes that in addition to continuing with the bank levy the Government should repeat the bank bonus tax and raise at least £2 billion more, so that the banks do not get a tax cut this year. Frankly, I am opposed to the banks getting a tax cut in any year.
Ian Lavery
That is the first time I have been accused of being sympathetic to the bankers, but I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I would much rather give the bankers a nice little tick or an A* for the way in which they perform—or perhaps in this particular case a C, D, E, F or a fail. At the moment, an F would still equate to many tens of thousands of pounds for most bankers.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend think that his constituents or mine believe that most of the bankers who got us into the mess we are in deserve a bonus at all, or even an F?
Ian Lavery
The reality is that people in my constituency cannot even get a loan from the banks. In the past they could get loans for all sorts of things, and that was a run-of-the-mill thing to do in my community and many others. If someone wanted a holiday, a carpet or a car and they could not afford it outright, they would have gone to the bank or building society and got a loan.
Now they not only cannot get loans, they cannot even get credit cards. The bankers are making billions, but the people at the sharp end, who are suffering the most as a result of the Government’s cuts, cannot even get a loan from the banks or building societies.
Nic Dakin
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She draws attention to the fact that people see banks closing and services becoming less available and more remote at the same time as large bonuses are being given out, with no apparent transparency and no clear criteria.
The Bill delivers a tax benefit for banks—a bonus for banks, rather than for UK plc—in the form of the £2.5 billion bank levy, which should be compared with the £3.5 billion bank bonus last year, and with £100 million being given back through cuts in corporation tax. At a time when the banks should be putting more in to atone for the situation we are in and to help the engine of the economy, the Government are allowing them to take more out. That does not seem fair to me, and it does not seem fair to the people I represent.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace not only that those involved directly in the big five banks are earning such bonuses, but that those who have earned a lot of money from the misery that has been caused over the past few years are also doing so, including those companies that offer advice, such as Goldman Sachs, whose average bonus is about £270,000 per individual?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend draws attention to another interesting area where we would wish the Government to apply their imagination and attention to try to get more money back for the taxpayer so that it can be invested in the economy, in public services and in growth, the engines that would drive us forward. This is a no-mandate Government. A year ago there was clearly no mandate for what they are doing. They are taking their approach to bankers’ bonuses even though there is a clear mandate from the population—one of the few that exists—for cracking on, getting on top of bankers’ bonuses and ensuring that they play their part in reinvigorating the British economy. Where there is a mandate, the Government fail to act and give a dividend to bankers instead of a tax. There is no mandate for the things the Government are doing, such as the NHS reorganisation.
Barry Gardiner
I am very happy to do so, Mr Gray. We are talking about a bank levy, and amendment 9 refers to
“the Government’s analysis behind the rate and threshold chosen for the bank levy”.
It seems to me that if one is to perform an analysis of the rate and threshold chosen, one has to understand how these things came about and the historical context. More importantly, one has to understand the regulatory context and what went wrong in the regulatory system. Much of the debate has been about that regulatory structure. I am seeking to address subsection (2)(a) proposed in the amendment. That is exactly the import of my remarks.
As the hedge funds brought their pressure to bear, they identified the problem of the companies’ overvaluation in the market. They saw that the structure of the bundled streams of security was not providing the security to the companies that the market believed it was providing. The hedge funds then short sold on those companies. That was an important regulatory failure. There was no uptake rule and no clear limit on the arbitrage window that was allowed for trading on such shares, so the short selling allowed the hedge funds to beat down the value of those financial institutions in such a way that there was a precipitation of the collapse of the credit that could flow through the financial institutions, which infected all the other companies in the stock exchange. That is how the situation became a global crisis.
In addressing the analysis that the amendment asks the Government to engage in, I urge them to take seriously the regulatory failings at that time. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says from a sedentary position that those were the mistakes of the previous Government. What I am pointing out to him is that they were not simply mistakes made by the previous Government, but mistakes that were made on a global scale. The financial crisis started in the sub-prime market in the US, and that infected the global markets. The reason that it took hold in the UK, to the detriment of this country, was that we had placed an over-reliance on the financial markets and the financial sector as opposed to manufacturing and industry.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had listened to those on the Conservative Front Bench, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not want to intervene in Northern Rock and wanted to let banks go bust, the banking crisis in this country would have—[Interruption.] The Economic Secretary chunters from a sedentary position, but what I am saying was said by the—[Interruption.] She can keep chuntering, but the truth hurts. The fact of the matter is that if we had listened to the Chancellor—
The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)
Order. Interventions must be short. The tenor of the debate is moving widely away from the amendment that we are supposed to be discussing. The amendment is about the bank levy, the way in which it is raised and the way in which it affects the wider banking sector. I accept that there is a point about that, but we must return to our consideration of the amendment, rather than having such a wide discussion.
Barry Gardiner
Indeed. The support that the country has given the banks is perfectly right, in my view. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham on the matter. He said that he would not have bailed out the banks at all. His position was very clear—he takes a very hard monetarist line and says that if the banks fail, they fail. Labour Members believe that the consequences of that failure cannot simply be ignored.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is that not exactly the line that the Chancellor took when he was shadow Chancellor? He argued that intervention was not important in the case of Northern Rock, for example. If we had followed what he suggested and had less regulation of the banking system, we would have been in a worse situation than we are now.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To give the right hon. Member for Wokingham his due, he did distinguish his own position on the issue from that of his party’s Front Benchers. Both would have failed to support Northern Rock, the consequences of which would have been disastrous for savers, but the right hon. Gentleman would have gone further. He would have stopped any support for the wider banking system, including for Halifax, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds. There we see the consequences of policies that had their origin in “There’s no such thing as society.” Only if someone does not pay regard to society can they adopt such a hard-line position, because it ignores the consequences of failure and the effect on ordinary human beings—not just savers but, as he said, investors. The structural consequences of the failure would have been economically disastrous for this country.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the levy was designed to change the behaviour of bankers, it has failed? Barclays, for example, paid more than £110 million to five of its top bankers.
John McDonnell
I agree with my hon. Friend, but I will come to that point later. The way in which the banks have continued their profligate distribution of bonuses looks like them cocking a snook at the Government and the level at which the levy has been set.
When the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury Committee, he advanced two arguments on how the levy was constructed. First, he argued that the levy was based on the price of the insurance that the Government and the taxpayer now implicitly offer for the wholesale funding of the banks; the levy is therefore a tax on the wholesale funding of banks’ operations. However, a calculation of the appropriate insurance for that scale of banking insurance, which could surely be done, would show that that sum is significantly more than the current bank levy proposal would raise.
The Chancellor’s second argument was that the levy was in the interests of equity: the banking sector, as well as the rest of us, should make a contribution to resolving the economic crisis. However, the amount that the bankers are being asked to provide to help to tackle the crisis that they created is piffling in comparison with the damage caused to our wider society, and minute in comparison with the burden that is being carried by others in terms of job losses and services cuts. Whole communities now face significant suffering and deprivation.
The Chancellor himself admitted that the targeted revenue sum was “relatively small” because, he argued, it balanced fairness with competitiveness, yet no study has been published and no evidence has been produced on the impact on banking competitiveness of varying the levy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I want to know what independent assessments have been made of the balance between fairness and competitiveness and how the calculation was arrived at. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who said that the measure throws the Government’s commitment to tax simplicity out the window. The taxation system on this issue is now more complex than any other point of taxation in the tax book, so I endorse the questions about how HMRC, with its current staffing cuts, can cope with the implementation of the levy. I would also welcome the Government publishing the consultation on the assessment of the amount of tax take from the proposed levy, because it looks like consultation was either non-existent or fairly minimal.
The amendment would require the report to consider
“the adequacy of the bank levy in the context of other reforms”.
Our understanding is that the levy was set to assist the implementation of the Merlin agreement and to ensure that the banks had a lending strategy to help get the economy moving and out of recession. As others have said, the levy must be set so as to ensure a continued influence on banks’ behaviour in relation to remuneration and bonuses. While promoting the bank levy, the Prime Minister and Chancellor exhorted bankers to show restraint. Is the levy set at the right level to ensure that the other reforms linked to it are completed and adhered to?
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who summed up the anger that is still out there among many of our constituents, who do not understand why neither of the parties that now form this push-me, pull-you coalition is following through on their rhetoric in the general election.
I support the amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). The amendment addresses clause 72 and schedule 19, which deal with the bank levy. The explanatory notes say:
“Clause 72 and Schedule 19 impose a new tax”—
the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington emphasised—
“the bank levy, which applies in relation to periods of account ending on or after 1 January 2011. The Schedule identifies who will be liable to pay the tax and how the tax is to be administered.”
The complexities have been referred to, some of which I will cover later.
I have already referred to the rhetoric that we heard in the lead-up to the general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has referred to the hobby of bashing bankers, which was certainly the sport of the day for the future Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. In every TV studio that we saw them in, they talked about who would be tougher on the bankers, arguing that if they were elected, they would be as tough as possible on the bankers—who, as everyone recognised, got us into the mess whose economic consequences this country and our constituents are now facing.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
This is not just about banker bashing, as my hon. Friend will know; this is about an opportunity cost, particularly in regions such as ours in the north-east. My constituency did not succeed in securing any grants from the regional growth fund. It is that lack of opportunity, too, that makes people so angry.
Mr Jones
It does, and my hon. Friend makes a good point. The rhetoric from Conservative central office, now joined by the Liberal Democrats, is that we are in this economic mess because of the recklessness of the Labour Government, somehow forgetting both the international economic climate and the effects of the irresponsible lending by banks, on which the levy will now be imposed. My hon. Friend is quite right: I know that her constituency is facing a tough time at the moment, and not just in the public sector. A number of private sector companies are closing in Darlington as a direct result of the fiscal straitjacket that this coalition Government have put on the north-east region. Before the election the Prime Minister said that there would be a “day of reckoning” for bankers, but if this is a “day of reckoning”—[Interruption.]
Stephen Pound
Does my hon. Friend agree that we seem to have had an example today of the Sage of Twickenham being seduced by the subtle, perfumed blandishments of the banking industry? Might this not be time for us to say, “We’ve had enough of ‘Double Your Money’ and ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’ Let’s go for ‘Call My Bluff’”?
Mr Jones
That is exactly what the electorate will be doing: calling the bluff of this Government and asking whether they will live up to the promises that they made. Indeed, it is interesting that when I mentioned the Prime Minister’s “day of reckoning”, someone on the Government Benches said that it would be a bank holiday. If I was a banker, that is exactly what I would think this weak banking levy and these weak banking regulations were delivering.
The Deputy Prime Minister even joined in on the act, saying on Radio Sheffield that he wanted to
“wring the neck of these wretched people”.
I am not sure whether he was referring to the Conservatives or the bankers—or, after Thursday, some of his Cabinet colleagues, when the AV referendum delivers a no vote, which is how I recommend everyone should vote on Thursday. Despite all the overblown rhetoric, we have seen no action to follow it through. As was said earlier, many of our constituents cannot understand why, if we were going to tax the bankers through this levy—and thereby control their reckless behaviour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said—they seem to have completely ignored it.
We need to consider that when thinking about the appearance of the head of Barclays before the Treasury Committee, when he said,
“there was a period of remorse and apology for banks.”
I am sure that many of our constituents are very grateful for that. However, he continued:
“I think that period needs to be over”.
It might be over for him, but it is not over for many of our constituents, including those running small businesses who are struggling to get loans from banks. He went on:
“we need our banks willing to take risks…so…we can create jobs”.
Well, lending money to those businesses would be a start. Another starting point for doing that might also be Barclay’s five top bankers. They have just received bonuses of £110 million, which does not—
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he understand the dismay of those from small and medium-sized companies in Denton and Reddish who come to see me? They would not mind their banks being a bit more generous in their lending now and then. They cannot even get a decent proposal through their local banks for funding to expand their businesses. These are not risks; they are sound business proposals that would generate jobs in my constituency. No doubt the same happens in my hon. Friend’s constituency, too.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those examples can be seen up and down the country.
Given the amounts of money that some of the directors of Barclays are being paid, they could lend money to those small businesses themselves. The two highest-paid managers, Jerry del Missier and Rich Ricci—great name!— were handed more than £40 million each after share deals awarded over the previous five years. Bob Diamond, the chief executive, took the helm in January this year and, in that period of remorse, has received £27 million, including £6.5 million in bonuses for 2010 and £2.525 million awarded in shares, which could be paid out in the future. The share deal for the past five years paid out £40 million, and the one for 2007 paid out £5 million.
We know about those amounts because of the Government’s great deal under Project Merlin to force banks to expose what their directors are being paid. If that was supposed to act as a threat to them, they seem to be ignoring us and doing it all anyway. They seem to have very tough hides, because rather than being remorseful for the mess that they got us into, they are still taking the money.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking of remorse. He was one of the more eminent members of the previous Government; is he remorseful about the pay-off given to Sir Fred Goodwin, who broke the Royal Bank of Scotland and who was given a knighthood by the previous Government and was a member of the council of “wise men” who advised the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister?
Mr Jones
I had only a small walk-on part in the previous Government. However, when asked whether we can justify some of the bonuses that were paid, I would say no, we cannot. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
When our constituents vote this Thursday, they should be aware of the lack of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members present for this debate today. I note, however, that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on finance, has referred to the Barclays bankers’ pay deal as “obscene”. As part of the coalition, the Liberal Democrats need to speak out loudly to ensure that something is done about the bonuses.
The levy is supposed to curb behaviour, but I agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) that the greatest scandal is the bankers’ bonuses being paid by banks controlled mainly by the Government. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland is 87% owned by ourselves as taxpayers, yet more than 100 of its bankers were paid a bonus of more than £1 million last year, totalling more than £1 billion. We are talking about the bank levy raising more than £2 billion a year, but the banks are paying out £1 billion in bonuses. That raises the question of whether the levy is high enough. If it is not going to change the behaviour of the banks it clearly is not high enough, and we should look in greater detail at the idea of raising the levy.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric on the regulation of the banks, but we have seen very little action. The bankers’ bonus tax raised £3.5 billion for the taxpayer, but the levy that we are now discussing will raise only just over £2 billion a year. The new levy will add about £800 million to that. The banks have got off pretty lightly. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said earlier, they will gain about £100 million from the reduction in corporation tax from 28% to 24%.
The danger that was threatened by the banking sector to Labour when we were in power, and is still threatened today, is that if we do not allow these large bonuses to be paid, or if we charge the banks too high a levy, they will move offshore or elsewhere. The example of Sweden has been mentioned as the only example of that, however. I have looked into whether the lack of such bankers’ bonuses elsewhere affects where people live. An interesting survey has been carried out by eFinancialCareers, which looked at 2,511 bankers, 654 of whom were in the UK. It showed that bonuses rose by about 5% in this country, whereas in the United States they decreased by the same amount.
Andrew Gwynne
Why does my hon. Friend think that those on the Government Front Bench are so apprehensive about having a review of their own banking levy? Does he suspect, as I do, that the findings could show that it was not working?
Mr Jones
Indeed.
We need time to see whether the system is working, and whether it is a way of increasing the money that we get from the banks. At the end of the day, the taxpayer has put huge amounts of public money—rightly, in my opinion—into supporting the banking system. I do not agree with the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that we should have let the banks fail three years ago. If that had happened we would certainly have had a real problem, not only with Northern Rock but with a large number of other banks. That would have ruined the UK banking system, and there would have been international implications as well.
Mr Anderson
It is not only my hon. Friend who disagrees with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood); the OECD disagreed with him as well, saying that the actions of the previous Government prevented the recession from turning into a depression.
Mr Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Tory spin doctors forget that if we had followed the first reaction to the Northern Rock crisis from the then shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), we would have let Northern Rock go, which would have had a knock-on effect on other banking systems and the recession would have turned into a depression. It is perhaps not fashionable to say it, but we should thank the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of the time for the decisions they took to ensure that that depression did not materialise.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) in the Chair. I understand that this is the first time a Northern Ireland MP has chaired a Committee of the whole House, which is particularly fitting on the 90th birthday of Northern Ireland’s formation as a state.
Does the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) agree that one thing that annoys people about the banks and their bonuses is that after the Government and taxpayer bailed them out, they went on to make excessive profits? Does he agree that some of those profits should be returned to the taxpayer and the Government to pay off the money spent bailing them out in the first place?
Mr Jones
I agree. I am sorry that I forgot to welcome Reverend McCrea to the Chair; it is a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It was taxpayers’ money that rightly bailed out the banks; if they are making excessive profits now, which clearly they are, the banking levy would allow some payback.
If the Government are feeling timid and do not want to upset the banking sector, the amendment provides them with an obvious get-out by making it clear that there is a review at the end of the year that would enable us to see whether the levy was having a detrimental effect. Evidence to date suggests that the £3.5 billion that the bonus tax took out of the banking sector has not damaged the banking system in any way, shape or form. The public expenditure effects, however—they will affect my region and also the area that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) represents—are going to be absolutely devastating.
Ian Mearns
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would reflect on the view of many of my constituents, who feel that the Government’s reticence in tackling the bonus culture or in tackling the banks in any tangible way has much to do with the number of Members sitting on the Government Benches who have an employment history within the banking sector?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend brings me on to a new relevant area, because he shows how the banking and financial sector are able to influence the debate. The previous Labour Government as well as this Government might have been somewhat in awe of the threats made by the banking sector—for example, to move offshore, with a consequent effect on jobs, if too much regulation is imposed. It might just be coincidental, but since the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) became Leader of the Opposition, donations to the Conservative party have increased, and about 50% of them come from the City and the financial sector, including some donations of £500,000 from four or five key individuals, including from Finsbury and Pelham PR, whose job it is to persuade politicians and other decision makers of the importance of, and the need for, the banking sector. As I say, it could be completely coincidental that the Tory party gets large amounts of money from this sector, but one could draw the conclusion that this is one of the reasons this Government have taken such a light-touch approach to regulation of the banking and finance sector.
Hugh Bayley
I wanted to follow up the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). It was not only the OECD that praised the London summit, which got the leaders of the western world to work together through fiscal stimulus to avoid recession. I remember going to the IMF in spring 2009 and what it described as “the Brown plan” was, it said, the only thing that stood between a global financial meltdown and getting the world economy back on a level footing. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and dismay at the Prime Minister saying that he would not support the former Prime Minister if he decided to run for the job of managing director of the IMF? Surely the best way to test the Prime Minister’s thesis about whether the former Prime Minister’s leadership was good or not is to allow him to run and see whether other countries support his candidature.
Mr Jones
I would not want to stray too far down that avenue, but it does say something about the pettiness and smallness of our present Prime Minister, whereas the previous incumbent is not only respected in financial circles but has proven ability to do the job. Pettiness is one aspect of this Government but another part of their mantra is that they must sound tough. They won an election by sounding tough, but they have not followed it through when it comes to banking regulation.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke about banking regulation. He is no longer in his place, but he used a wonderful phrase about his being in favour not of less regulation, but of “better and less regulation”. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) touched on whether the previous Government should have regulated the banking sector more. In hindsight, I think yes, they should. I think we all accept that; it is not an admission of failure to concede that. We also need to remember who else at the time was arguing, along with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, for less regulation and less red tape in all areas, including banking. The answer is, the Conservative Front-Bench team—those same Conservative Front Benchers who were arguing for the same spending levels that we had right up to 2007, although that seems to have been forgotten about in the revisionist history that has developed since they gained power with the Liberal Democrats last May.
The Government’s bank levy is estimated to bring in £2.5 billion a year—less than Labour’s bank bonus measures, which according to the Office for Budget Responsibility brought in £3.5 billion. We should not forget that the cut in corporation tax in 2011-12 will give the banks £100 million in tax relief, but that at the same time local government is being asked to make cuts. My own county council, for example, is going to lose 40% of its budget—£125 million—over the next four years as a result of the unnecessary austerity measure proposed by this coalition Government.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
On a day when a leading economist has said that affordable income is falling by 2% and that the average family will be worse off by £780, it falls on the Government to support this amendment and show some care for the people who are working so hard out there and suffering while the banks are simply laughing all the way to the bank!
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of this Government’s favourite soundbites is that “We are all in it together”, but it is quite clear that we are not all in it together. When bankers are claiming bonuses such as the ones we know certain individuals have got, it is just mind boggling to think about what could be done with the money.
Mr Ward
It is useful to have on record your opposition to the reduction in corporation tax, which will enable the companies concerned to employ many of the people about whom you have been talking. However, what really interests me is why, when the Government are monitoring every single day the repayment of loans to the banks, the effect of the tax levy and its adequacy, banks’ lending to businesses—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who is sitting next to you—and the strengthening of the banks’ balance sheets, you are prepared to wait—
Mr Ward
If you are interested—if the hon. Gentleman is interested—in any of this, he need only table some written parliamentary questions. He could obtain answers to all of them without amending the Bill. This is absolute nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is prepared to wait eight months for answers that he could obtain in response to a written question.
Mr Jones
If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is possible to obtain all the answers that he requires by means of parliamentary questions, that demonstrates his naivety. Having been in the House for nearly 10 years and having, as a Minister, spent many hours trying to avoid answering parliamentary questions, I can only say “Good luck” to him.
Let me quote from the amendment—
Mr Jones
Then let me remind the hon. Gentleman what it says. It refers to
“the Government’s analysis behind the rate and threshold chosen for the bank levy”—
we have not yet been given that analysis, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East—and to
“the adequacy of the bank levy in the context of other reforms to the wider banking system”.
We have heard a good many statements on bank regulation and on how the bankers can be made to lend more responsibly, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can obtain the information that he requires by means of parliamentary questions, he is a better man than I am.
Stephen Pound
According to the current edition of Private Eye, when the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) enters a room, it lights up. No doubt my hon. Friend agrees with me that when the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) enters a room, a tenebrous gloom seems to hang around his shoulders. May I adjure my hon. Friend to resist the temptation presented by the hon. Member for Bradford East, and say quite simply that if the hon. Gentleman thinks that December 2011 is too late, we will happily consider an amendment from him that would introduce the damned thing next week?
Mr Jones
I agree, but I not am sure that it would help much. Given that subsection (c) of the amendment refers to
“the total tax revenues expected from banks across all categories of taxation in each year from 2011-12 to 2016-17”,
I think that that would be very difficult to do. However, I look forward to seeing all the written questions tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward). I am sure that his coalition partners in the Treasury are longing to get hold of them. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman table his questions on a Wednesday on a named-day basis? That usually messes up Ministers’ weekend boxes.
Mr Jones
I am, but that is part of the scrutiny process, and so is this. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in the banking levy and the effects of the Bill on his constituents, why does he not speak? At one point he was alone on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Government Benches have been fairly deserted this evening: the poop deck of the Mary Celeste may have had more life in it. Members who support the proposal in the Bill should at least turn up to argue in favour of it. No doubt we will be receiving “Focus” leaflets from the Liberal Democrats—although after Thursday they may be called something different—describing how tough they have been in regulating the banking system, but it is clear that they have not.
The hon. Gentleman has until late tonight, and tomorrow, in which to contribute to the debate so that he can reproduce his contribution in his “Focus” leaflets ad nauseam, which I know the Liberal Democrats love doing. People will be able to learn about how he stood up for them against the bankers rather than just listening to the hollow words and rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the run-up to the general election. The beauty of being in government is that politicians can actually do things. I know it has come as a big shock to many Liberal Democrats that they are in a position of responsibility whereby they can actually affect the lives of ordinary people. [Interruption.] Yes, responsibility without influence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) says from a sedentary position. As the Liberal Democrats are in government, they can follow through and make sure that the Bill deals with the people who were responsible for getting us into this mess three years ago. They also have an opportunity to tackle the excessive profits. I do not know what the average salary is in Bradford, but I am sure that £1 million is a lot of money to the people there. I know that in 1914, prior to the first world war, Bradford won the competition for being the place where the most Silver Ghosts were sold, because it was a rich mill town back then; I learned that from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Bradford East when I was working for him in a by-election many years ago. I doubt whether many Rolls-Royces are sold in Bradford nowadays, however, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents can only dream of some of the bonuses he is supporting this afternoon.
Andrew Gwynne
Will not such a review serve to make it clear that many of the commitments made by the Liberal Democrats in opposition have not been implemented—and, indeed, have not even made it off the drawing board to become Government policy?
Mr Jones
Yes. I do not particularly like giving opportunities to Liberal Democrats, but it would give them an opportunity to show that they have the teeth that the Liberal Democrat Cabinet Ministers claim they have got in this coalition, because they would be able to say to the Conservative part of the coalition that they want change—that they want, for example, to increase the levy or to make sure that the huge bonuses being paid are taxed in a different way, or to bring in regulation. Let us be honest about this, however: most Liberal Democrat Ministers have not got sharp teeth—unless they have been to the dentist in the last few weeks. In the next few days we will see the beginning of the demise of the Liberal Democrats, and, as it were, the extraction of their teeth. It will certainly be interesting to see how sharp their teeth are after Thursday.
The current Government’s bank levy should take the same amount as the Labour Government’s bank bonus measure raised, which was £3.5 billion.
Mr Ward
As repeating the same point time and again is not a problem in this Chamber, I will do what everybody else here does and repeat myself: £3.5 billion is a lot less than £10 billion, which will be the amount generated—£2.5 billion times four years—so to talk about it as a reduction is just silly.
Mr Jones
This is becoming a bit like bashing Bambi to death. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman is either being very obtuse or something else that I will not say. We are talking about £3.5 billion for each year, which would add up to more than what is being proposed. We are talking about four times £3.5 billion.
Mr Jones
That is because I have said that we should do it again. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not get that. He might say that it is a one-off deal, but perhaps it is a bit like one of those once and only, one-off sales that we see on television that furniture companies have every other week. I am proposing that we repeat the levy and raise that £3.5 billion again. Does he get it now?
Mr Jones
That was too subtle for me.
The important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East when he talked about what we would do with this money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, if the levy is seen as a tax, it is a pretty meagre tax on the banks, as it raises a small amount of money. However, the question is still about what we then do with the money. We could put it into rebuilding the economy by investing in housing and the regional economy, as has been said. The Government have allocated £1.4 billion over the next three years to projects, which is two thirds less than the £1.4 billion that the previous Labour Government invested in regional development agencies per year. In regions such as mine, the north-east, companies and individuals have to bid for that money. A banking levy could come in very useful for the investment that is being put forward.
The problem with the Conservatives—the Liberal Democrats have gone along with this—is that they have this notion of “Public sector bad, private sector good.” What they have failed to realise in regions such as the north-east is that large-scale public expenditure cuts have a huge knock-on effect on the private sector. The unemployment level is already 10.2% in the north-east, whereas it was as low as 4% under the previous Labour Government. Durham university has done a study suggesting that if 45,000 to 50,000 public sector jobs in the north-east are cut, 20,000 jobs will actually go from the private sector. Regions such as mine had no responsibility for the mess, but those responsible for it could pay for some of that reinvestment and that could be done through the banking levy.
Ian Mearns
The point that my hon. Friend is making about the north-east economy is appropriate. Clearly the job cuts in the public sector have not yet hit the employment market, yet the statistics for last month showed that although there had been a national decrease in unemployment of 17,000, it had increased by 11,000 in the north-east, which has a population of only 2.5 million. That is happening even before the job cuts hit the market, so the situation up there is very serious indeed.
Mr Jones
It is very serious. What my hon. Friend describes will have an effect on the private sector and on what has already been seen in the banks. The Government have set great store by making sure that banks lend to small businesses. That was one of the things talked about at the general election by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, but we have seen little evidence of it actually happening. As I said, it will be painful for many small businesses, particularly those in the north-east, when they see the amount of bonuses being paid to bankers and find that when they ask those same banks for investment they are told that either it is not available or that the terms on which it is available involve such horrendous rates of return. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has said, the same may also be true of personal finance, whereby certain individuals who would in the past have got access to credit will no longer be able to do so.
Hugh Bayley
It is not just that banks are still not providing finance for small and medium-sized businesses. Under the Labour Government, we had support through the regional development agencies—Yorkshire Forward in Yorkshire—to help businesses with the Government loan guarantee schemes, and in my constituency that secured a very important investment for a packaging factory. The RDAs are now being done away with and so there is not that support from the Government to get the banks lending.
Mr Jones
That is right. My hon. Friend might have examples from his constituency—I certainly did—of the RDA underwriting small business loans for small companies when the banks, particularly Barclays and others, suddenly withdrew the finance. One company came to me that wanted a £1 million overdraft for six months to get some investment and the RDA helpfully underwrote that to allow the investment to go forward and create in the region of 25 new jobs. That is the important point about the relationship between the banking system and the regions.
Mr Robinson
Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, I would hate for the Government not to realise the impact that their refusal to have this levy or even a review of it is having not only in the north-east and the north but in the west midlands—the area from where the Government are apparently looking for the big revival in the private sector and manufacturing to come. Advantage West Midlands, the RDA, has had its funds cut by no less than 70% and schemes that were going to have the go-ahead, triggered either by a guarantee or seedcorn funding, will simply be stopped. The resurgence in manufacturing and of the economy as a whole will certainly not come from the west midlands, where the level of activity is below the national average and where the level of unemployment is above it.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. That small seedcorn funding made all the difference for small companies as they established themselves and grew. The problem we have in the north-east—I am not sure whether things are the same in my hon. Friend’s region—is the lack of confidence in the regional economy for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. The uncertainty about what will happen in the next few months as the public sector job cuts work their way through the economy means that there is no appetite to invest in small businesses. A few weeks ago, I was talking to someone from a small building company who relied for part of his turnover on school building contracts with the local council, which had suddenly been stopped, so the money is not available and people will have to be laid off. We have not yet seen the effects of such decisions.
If we add to that the fact that banks are not lending and are going to carry on in their own way, those involved with small businesses end up wondering why decent hard-working people like them who, in many cases, have built up businesses over many years are suddenly through no fault of their own having either to lay people off or to fold the businesses completely. These are family businesses which have been going for many years, and people see individuals getting bonuses that involve amounts of money of which they can only dream and which are equivalent to the turnover for their companies over two or three years, never mind one year.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend has teased out a very important element of the amendment. In Northern Ireland, the public sector accounts for approximately 74% of all economic activity and for perfectly sound and understandable reasons the private sector has not been able to generate economic activity. I implore my hon. Friend, following on from his points, to take on board the reality of the situation: a reduction in expenditure could have a disastrous effect, especially in Northern Ireland.
Mr Jones
I agree. I spoke in the last Budget debate about the effects of the public expenditure cuts on the north-east and our dependence on public sector jobs is very similar to, if not as high as, Northern Ireland’s. This is another example of the nonsense that is being put about that suggests that if those jobs and that money are taken out of the economy we can somehow replace them overnight with private sector jobs. Those jobs are not just there; they are linked directly to public expenditure. If we also have a situation in which banks are not lending and companies are fearful of borrowing because they fear what the economy will bring in future, one can understand how we can get into a downward spiral. As I have said before, I fear that we could have a recovery that bobs along the bottom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has described. We could end up with a two-speed Britain with a boom in the south-east economy—possibly again drunk on the excesses of the financial markets—while regions in the north-east, Northern Ireland and elsewhere struggle and do not get a look in when it comes to the growth that is expected on the back of the huge numbers of jobs that the Government say will be created.
The bank levy is a missed opportunity and I do not think the amendment is at all radical. It is quite modest to ask for a review of the situation; the Government will have to review the levy sooner or later anyway. Political expediency will lead them to do so when it starts to dawn on people that, despite the rhetoric of the election, the Government are not being tough on bankers at all but are letting them off—and many people will ask why. I believe that in the past five years, since the Prime Minister became its leader, the Conservative party has accepted about 50% of its donations from the financial sector; that prompts questions about why it is not taking a tougher and more robust stance against the financial sector.
Let me conclude with a few questions that I think the Minister needs to answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East raised the issue of the tax-free allowance of £20 billion. The explanatory notes on clause 72 and schedule 19 state:
“Paragraph 6 sets out the steps to be followed in order to ascertain the amount of the bank levy. The steps show how the allowance of £20 billion is to be applied and how the bank levy charge is calculated for long and short chargeable periods. Part 6 of the Schedule provides details of how to identify the entity responsible for payment of the bank levy.”
I have asked why the figure is £20 billion and not £5 billion, £10 billion or £50 billion? [Interruption.] Hon. Members say “Higher!” but we have not heard any explanation why £20 billion was the figure arrived at. If we are not only to maximise the amount of money we get from the banking levy but be able to justify to our constituents how fair the measures are, we must be able to explain how that figure was arrived at.
Mr Robinson
Does my hon. Friend know why the Government set £2.5 billion as the absolute limit for the amount they wanted to raise from banks and made everything fit with that? Does it not all come down to the fact that the Government have struck an awful deal with the banks? They have limited so much and got Merlin in return—and perhaps some other things to which my hon. Friend has referred but which I shall not go into now. They have tied themselves in knots, complications and contortions to deliver this deal and the banks have simply walked away from Merlin saying, “Thank you, very much.” Is not that the problem?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a clear point. I do not know which wag in the Treasury came up with the nickname Merlin for this project. Having dealt with the Treasury and Treasury Ministers I have never thought of them as having a sense of humour, but whoever came up with that name clearly had one. Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no explanation for the figure of £20 billion other than the yield that it is intended to produce. The Minister needs to provide the evidential basis for the £2.6 billion yield. If we levy, for example, £2.7 billion, £2.8 billion or £2.93 billion, at what point do the Barclays bankers pack their bags and move to Zurich? Would the entire system of bankers' bonuses fall apart if the figure were more than £2.6 billion?
I have raised the issue already, and I accept that international finance is a global business and can move, but in terms of bonuses, bankers are clearly not bothered about the £2.6 billion figure. May we see the evidential basis on which the figure was arrived at? What would be the effect if it were a little higher or lower than £2.6 billion? It is important that we know that.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The Government would be helpful to us if they clarified the figure that they think would be the tipping point. Would it be £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion? We want the banks to be profitable and to lend money to our constituents, but at what point would they move overseas? The Government have so far failed to tell us.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is the acid test. The Government must explain why they set that figure. I am happy to listen to the evidence—even the evidence that the hon. Member for Bradford East could come up with. I do not think we are anywhere near the tipping point at which the entire banking system crashes, especially as Barclays and others are paying large bonuses. If we had a review and analysis, we could see how the figure was arrived at. Unfortunately, we are in the dark about that.
A further point is the progress that the Chancellor has made on tax activities. If we are to remain competitive internationally, is there an international tipping point across Europe in respect of bank levies and caps on bonuses?
The hon. Member for Bradford East seems to be dreaming if he thinks he will ever find himself in the Front-Bench team of the Liberal party or the coalition, but it is nice to see him sitting on the Government Front Bench.
Is work being done internationally to look at what other countries are doing? We need to study that in detail to see whether £3.5 billion would be too much. We need to achieve agreement across Europe.
The subject of Project Merlin has been raised. What leverage does the Treasury have over lending to SMEs? To what extent will the cost of the levy be passed on to customers of the commercial or private sector—in other words, to all of us who use banks? Will it become more difficult for SMEs to borrow money if bank charges are passed on? To explain Project Merlin, much more needs to be put forward. A review would enable us to look in detail not just at the bank levy, because we must remember that the amendment also relates to other areas of banking tax. That would also lead to the public having a lot more confidence in politicians actually following through on their rhetoric about being tough on bankers.
Mr Hoban
Let me make progress. The hon. Gentleman spoke for over an hour and I am responding to the speeches made in five hours of debate. I therefore think the hon. Gentleman should hear me out, after which I may consider taking interventions.
Let me turn to the second element of the amendment, on the adequacy of the levy in the context of other reforms to the wider banking sector.
Chris Leslie
Thank you, Mr Hoyle. The Chief Whip really needs to take a breath and perhaps calm down for a moment. [Interruption.] I did not quite put it in the way that the Prime Minister might.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury usually does act honourably by trying to respond to the debate, and probably he secretly would have done so today. Our debate was wide ranging and we covered a number of specific points on the detailed design of the bank levy, with which he entirely refused to engage. He refused to give way in this Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which shows the Government’s thinly veiled contempt for the parliamentary process. No debate, no scrutiny and no contributions came from those on the Government Benches, other than the speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). They have accepted absolutely no challenge and no scrutiny. They have put their heads down and ploughed on—the Lansley strategy of policy making in action.
The Financial Secretary gave no explanation of why the Government set the banking levy at this puny £2.6 billion or why they have given a very generous tax-free allowance of £20 billion to the banks. Their original design, as set out in June, could have netted £3.9 billion, but when the banks complained the figure went back down to £2.6 billion. He says that we should not criticise the levy for being set at such a low rate because the French levy will raise less, but of course it will because the French banking sector is smaller. The fact is that our banking levy is being set at a third of the rate that the French are pursuing. He did not answer any questions on the netting of derivatives, the double taxation treaties or what would happen in terms of accounting practice. He certainly did not address the outrage in the country, never mind in the House, about the continuing appalling abuse of bonuses in the banking system. That is an obscene ongoing process and although bonuses might reduce slightly in one year, that is offset by the increase in the salaries that those bankers are enjoying. He did not even address the new loophole he is introducing in the Bill so that those enjoying deferred bonuses will now be able to pay the tax rates in future years, thus perhaps avoiding the 50% income tax rate when eventually the Government scale back from that.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that we had a wide-ranging debate, including on bankers’ bonuses, and that the Financial Secretary did not even address that issue in his wind-up?
Chris Leslie
Astonishingly, the Financial Secretary, having had his coat tugged by the Government Chief Whip, did not even address many of these points at all. As I say, the right hon. Member for Wokingham made his points about the role of the state-owned banks, how they ought to behave and how perhaps they would change their behaviour in a different market position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made an important point about the comparison between those who enjoy exceptionally high bonuses and ordinary working people who, I think he said, might take 125,000 years on average to earn the bonuses that some bankers earn in one year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said that the Government have no mandate for their approach, and that is absolutely true.
My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also made important points about the feeble nature of the design of this element of bank taxation.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), in his rapid canter across the landscape of banking taxation, made a point about the obscenity of bonuses, which the Government have singularly failed to address through their failures on Project Merlin. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) talked about the impact on his constituency of the public services that will be cut because the Government will not pursue the sources of revenue that could be necessary to help ameliorate some of those reductions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) made, I think, the most important point of all: our amendment is no threat to the Government. We are simply asking for a review and a report on the levels of bank taxation and the banking levy. The Government are introducing a tax cut for the banks and the bank levy proposal is weak and fails to ensure that banks pay their fair share. This is a simple amendment that is surely unobjectionable and I think we should seek the Committee’s view.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. You have many attributes, but you do not have eyes in the back of your head. Would it be possible for you to ask those Members behind the Chair to leave the Chamber in order to reduce the noise level, so that others can follow the debate?
The Chairman
I must admit that, if there was noise interference, I did not know where it was coming from and could not hear it in front of the Chair. I am sure that Members will be quieter in future.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for that, because it certainly seemed quite noisy from where I was standing.
As I was saying, as real incomes fall, spending on basic items such as food, energy and fuel makes up an increasing proportion of the average family’s weekly spend, as the Office for National Statistics acknowledged in March when it changed the make-up of its retail prices index basket. That means that families are increasingly vulnerable when prices rise quickly.
The Opposition accept that no Government can control the price of oil, which the global markets set, and that the situation in the middle east is affecting people in countries throughout the world, to which the UK is of course no exception, but the Government have control over fuel taxation, and that has a significant effect on pump prices. When so many people are out of work and real wages are falling, the Chancellor has a responsibility to do all he can to help business and to promote economic growth and jobs; and when ordinary working people are struggling to make ends meet, he has a responsibility to do everything possible to help them get on.
That is why we tabled amendment 7. It is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s policies on fuel taxation and their total effect on fuel prices at the pump, because the Chancellor’s cut in fuel duty, as set out in clause 19, is not all that it seems. In January the Government decided to increase VAT on fuel from 17.5% to 20%, even though the Prime Minister told voters just before the election that he had “no plans” to increase VAT. Without that VAT rise, petrol would be almost 3p cheaper now, swamping the 1p cut that the Bill brings in.
The Federation of Small Businesses said that the UK’s small and medium-sized enterprises would be “severely affected” by that hike in fuel tax. A survey of its members in January pointed to the increase as the single biggest threat to their business—something that will resonate with Government Members, who I am sure have been lobbied by the FSB on that point. Some 89% of businesses that responded thought that the Government’s measures would add £2,000 to their costs over six months. A spokesperson for the FSB said in response to the January rise in fuel tax:
“The Government have said it is putting its faith in the private sector to put the economy on a firm footing, yet 36% said they will have to reduce investment in new products and services and 78% said their profitability will be reduced—hardly conducive to growth.”
Many small business people in my constituency are struggling to stay afloat, particularly in the face of cash-flow difficulties. The VAT increase at the beginning of this year was expected to put severe strain on their cash flow, so the Chancellor’s 1p reduction in fuel duty has to be seen in that context.
Some people will be able to cut down on their use of fuel or even stop using petrol all together. Some people are switching to cycling or to public transport, and for those who are able to do so that is a good thing. As an MP for Bristol, which saw investment from the previous Labour Government so that it could become the UK’s first cycling city, I welcome people taking up cycling.
Mr Kevan Jones
The argument that my hon. Friend puts forward is very interesting, but does she agree that the situation is difficult for rural constituencies such as mine, where bus subsides are being cut because of the Government’s cuts to Durham county council and some communities will not have any access to any public transport whatever?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point, which I was just about to turn to. Some people will say that the rise in fuel prices is an incentive for people to use public transport such as buses, but they can only do so if they are in an area that is well served by public transport. Bus subsides are being cut, and increasingly some areas—particularly remote rural areas—are being completely left without a bus service, meaning that people simply have no choice but to use their car. They include not just people who are poorly served by public transport, but those who run businesses and have to visit customers and suppliers and transport goods throughout the country. They include those who have to run around in the morning dropping children off at different schools or at nursery and then get to work on time, and many other people besides. At a time when fuel prices are rising, adding to them with extra tax is hammering people at the worst possible time. These are often families who are already running a very tight budget, and even a few extra pounds a week on their bills makes a real difference to their ability to get by.
Alison McGovern
The VAT increase that the Government have introduced is clearly highly regrettable. I might just take the opportunity of the Minister’s intervention to correct a common way of phrasing what happened under the previous Government when my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, temporarily lowered VAT. Government Members often say that Labour increased VAT, as though the decrease was not intended to be a temporary measure to help the economy. There is a difference: the Labour Government helped people through with a cut in prices, but this Conservative-led Government think that the future of taxation in this country should be higher prices in the shops.
Mr Kevan Jones
A more relevant question to ask Conservative Members is why during the election they made a promise not to put up VAT, given that the first thing they did when they came into power was increase VAT.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him for that intervention.
We voted against the measure to put up VAT because it was not right to increase pressure on prices in the shops that everybody pays no matter what their income.
Ian Mearns
I know that we are in Committee, but let me take this opportunity to send my best wishes to parliamentary colleagues from the north-east region who are unwell at the moment—the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who are both incapacitated. I am sure that the House joins me in sending our best wishes to them both.
The amendment calls for the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices within three months of the Bill being passed. I will concentrate on the differential impact of fuel duty policy in the English regions. I say “regions” with some trepidation, because I know that the very concept, or even uttering the word, causes phobic shudders in some quarters on the Government Benches, but an analysis of road freight statistics by the North East chamber of commerce has demonstrated the extra burden that fuel taxation places on businesses in regions such as the north-east. Each tonne of freight brought in or out of the north-east of England delivers approximately £4.16 in fuel taxes to the Exchequer; although that figure probably changes daily, it is 18% higher than the average for English regions, which is only £3.52, and 74% higher than the figure for London. That analysis shows that more careful consideration should be given to fuel duty rates’ economic impact in regions and to differential rates.
Road freight statistics show the extra distance travelled by goods transported into or out of the north-east compared with other parts of England. Every tonne of freight transported by road into or out of the north-east travels an average of 119 miles, compared with an average of 111 miles for businesses across the whole of England. Only businesses in the south-west of England transport freight further by road, with each tonne of goods going into or out of the south-west travelling an average of 192 km, which is ever so slightly more than the average of 119 miles for the north-east. Duty on diesel is currently at about 58p a litre.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of fuel duty is exactly the kind of issue that could be raised in the proposed report?
Ian Mearns
I am trying to point out to Ministers that fuel duty imposed nationally has a differential impact across the different regions and indeed nations of the United Kingdom in terms of contacting the main hub of economic growth, the south-east of England. There has been a debate in my region about the dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle upon Tyne, but the main driver of growth in the north-east economy is actually to the south and west of the region in terms of the contact with the main drivers of our economic future.
Mr Kevan Jones
Was not the Conservatives’ promise at the last election to dual the A1 another promise that they have reneged on?
Ian Mearns
What happened over a number of years—I am afraid that our Government were not immune from this—was that, rather than planning roads to encourage economic growth and development, we planned them to accommodate congestion. That was not always the best thing to do from an economic perspective. Down that road lies ruin, if you will pardon the pun.
The Federation of Small Businesses has asked for a fuel stabiliser. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the federation, but stability in fuel prices is important. The Chief Secretary said of a fuel stabiliser:
“It’s a complicated idea and it’s difficult to see… how we achieve it, but it’s something that we are looking at very carefully to see if we can reduce the burden of fuel duty”.
I wonder whether the concept could be more straightforward. When oil prices increased, the stabiliser—or a stabilising impact effect—would allow the Government to reduce duty to a lower limit; when oil prices fell, the Government would be able to raise duty to a higher limit.
Critics cite the difficulty of knowing whether the fluctuations in the price of oil are temporary or likely to persist beyond the near term, saying that it would be difficult for a fuel duty stabiliser to set fuel duties effectively. To counter the volatility in the price of oil, a fuel duty stabiliser or a stabilising measure would need to be based on an official forecast of the future price of oil, and then adjusted regularly according to the actual oil prices. It will be difficult, given the volatility in how the international oil markets are working at the moment, but we need to try to find some measure to help our small and medium-sized enterprises through this difficult process at this difficult time; otherwise, we are in real danger of seeing fuel become a major blockage to economic growth, not only in particular regions, but across the whole nation.
Would this be bad for the public finances? The Chief Secretary said that we cannot “sacrifice income willy-nilly”. Critics argue that a stabiliser or a stabilising effect would be too expensive to implement during a time of austerity, but that criticism fails to take into account the wider implications of high fuel prices on the UK economy. If set correctly, the measure could be fiscally neutral for the public finances and help to provide much-needed economic stability for the UK economy. My main point in asking for some sort of analysis in a review is that the measure is needed so much more in the regions of England, particularly regions such as the north-east, but the south-west as well.
Mike Gapes
The amendment states that the Chancellor should
“publish, within 3 months… an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.”
I will address my remarks to the scope of such an assessment. It is important not to focus solely on the narrow issues surrounding VAT, although they are important, or on the global increase in fuel prices, which is one of the factors causing the revolutions in north Africa and elsewhere in the world as people suffer from rising food prices as a result of rising fuel prices.
There is something very specific about how we in this country choose to tax fuel. Compared with other European Union countries, we choose to have very high taxes on fuel. One consequence is the problems from which our road hauliers have suffered in comparison with some of their competitors in European countries that have road pricing.
It is interesting to note that in the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats proposed to move towards
“a rural fuel discount scheme which would allow a reduced rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas, as is allowed under EU law”,
as well as to prepare for a system of road pricing to be introduced “in a second parliament”. That was the Liberal Democrat position. The Conservatives, of course, had a completely different view, promising a “fair fuel stabiliser”, presumably designed to help people in the rural communities.
I represent an urban area. My constituents suffer high fuel prices in London and, unlike some people in rural areas, they do not have the advantage of having to pay only 11.14p duty on a litre of so-called red diesel, instead of 57.95p duty on a litre of low-sulphur diesel. We know that there is abuse of the red diesel system by certain people who, when driving on main roads, use diesel that should be used only for off-road activities. That opportunity is not open to my constituents. People living in Ilford and elsewhere in Greater London do not have access to red diesel that they can abuse in order to avoid paying tax. However, people who are represented by the Liberal Democrats, who are in favour of giving priority to remote rural areas but not to those of us who live in urban areas, or by Conservative Members who are happy not to enforce adequately the provisions against abuse of the red diesel system, are not concerned about that. I want the review to examine the abuse of the red diesel system. I believe that a lot of money that should be going to the Exchequer is not doing so and that there is discrimination against people who live in urban areas and have no access to red diesel for their motoring purposes.
Mr Kevan Jones
I take my hon. Friend’s point about the abuse of red diesel, but may I disabuse him of the fact that it is not available in urban areas? When I was chair of trading standards in Newcastle, the abuse of red diesel in urban areas was just as prevalent as it was in some rural areas. The fact is that certain criminal elements in London can gain access to red diesel fairly easily.
Mike Gapes
Obviously I am not as accomplished as my hon. Friend at making contact with the criminal elements in London. However, he has raised a serious matter: there are criminal elements who exploit differentials in duty. We have seen that in Northern Ireland, when terrorist organisations financed their activities by smuggling fuel across the border from the south to the north and vice versa, and we have seen it in other contexts.
If we are to have a policy on fuel taxation, we need to ensure that if we introduce measures that discriminate in favour of certain people in remote rural communities, we do not also create loopholes that will be used in a discriminatory way to undermine the sense of justice and fairness that our people want us to exercise. If we have high levels of fuel taxation in this country, which we do, and if that causes problems for our road haulage industry and discrimination between rural and urban areas, when the review is conducted—I hope that the Government will support the amendment, because it is vital that we look at these issues in—
Mike Gapes
Red diesel is taxed at a lower level than other diesel. We are discussing the taxation of fuel and the need for a review of fuel taxation. Surely that is extremely pertinent to the terms of the amendment.
Mr Kevan Jones
The amendment states:
“The Chancellor shall publish, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.”
I am sure that that includes diesel.
Mike Gapes
I entirely agree.
I believe that one of the difficulties in our economy, which affects our haulage industry, arises from our tax levels compared with levels in other European Union countries. We all know that if we drive across to France and fill a tank with diesel, or “gas oil” as they call it, it is possible to pay—depending on where we are—40%, 50% or 60% of the amount that we would pay in the United Kingdom. The haulage industry based on the other side of the channel therefore has a competitive advantage. The great lorries with Polish and other countries’ number plates that we see bringing goods into this country have a competitive advantage over those of our own haulage industry.
We need to look at these matters. I have to say that I think the Liberal Democrats were right. [Interruption.] Yes, occasionally they are right, and I think they were right when they said we need to look at road pricing. Unfortunately, the only person who has done anything serious about road pricing is, of course, the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who introduced the congestion charge, which the Conservatives have now accepted even though they opposed it when it was first introduced.
Hugh Bayley
The premise that my hon. Friend puts forward is absolutely right. The fact that more and more people are using low-emission vehicles will obviously have an impact. However, the purpose of the review proposed in the amendment is to consider what effects the fiscal changes will have. If the price of fuel is raised, some people will consume the same amount of fuel anyway because they are in business and they do not want to contract their business, but generally speaking it has a marginal effect. Private motorists will reduce the number of discretionary journeys they make by trying to take their cars to the shops less frequently and perhaps abandoning some leisure trips, and businesses will look for ways of economising as prices rise. I have heard the Minister’s comments and I am grateful to her for drawing my attention to the estimate that the Government have made, but it is a fairly bald statement and it does not answer my question about whether the measure is driven by the Government’s environmental concerns or their revenue-raising concerns, and we need a clear answer on that.
Hugh Bayley
I am going to sit down shortly to let my hon. Friend himself make a speech, but I shall certainly give way.
Hugh Bayley
That could very well be the case, and we will listen with great interest to what the Minister says in reply to the debate. All we are asking for is transparency. We want to know whether the Government are doing this for environmental or revenue-raising reasons, what the implications of the rise will be in environmental and revenue terms and what the impact will be on family budgets. I believe—indeed, I know—that all that information is not known, so I think that the Opposition’s amendment is a sound one.
Hugh Bayley
Yes, I have had third sector organisations coming to me and saying how much more difficult life is getting because sources of funding are drying up.
It is clear from the interventions of my hon. Friends that the point I have raised has wider implications that ought to be studied by the Treasury and other Departments. I know what the process is for tabling amendments that ask for reviews and reports regarding legislation, and they are tabled not just to frustrate or irritate those on the Treasury Bench but to pose serious questions and seek serious answers. The Minister is waving her piece of paper again, and I promise I will read it properly, but what she read out to me did not answer my questions. It is an input—an estimate of one figure—but as we have heard, further study of the environmental and social impacts, the impact on family budget impacts and the overall economic impact is needed. I hope that as a result of that analysis the Government will produce better, more coherent cross-government proposals for the taxation of fuel in future.
Mr Kevan Jones
I support the amendment, which asks for a review. In the previous debate, we asked for a review of the implications of the bank levy. Similarly, the amendment calls for an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices. It would be disingenuous to suggest that all Governments have perfect relationships when it comes to dealing with fuel duty. Clearly, the previous Government had problems with the cost of fuel and difficulties over taxation, but my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) exploded one of the myths about the tax-take from fuel duty. Under the Conservative Government from 1990 to 1997 the tax-take on unleaded petrol rose by 16%, and under the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 the tax-take fell from 75% to 65%.
The Government delayed the planned fuel duty rise, as Labour Governments did previously, as oil prices rose. Was that the right decision? Yes. At a time when many hard-working families are affected not only by higher inflation and increased taxation, but by wages being driven down and in some cases by family members facing unemployment, the Chancellor’s VAT increase puts about £1.30 on the cost of filling up a 50 litre tank of petrol.
Justine Greening
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he voted against the VAT increase? I suspect he did not.
Mr Jones
I am becoming concerned. The hon. Lady’s blood pressure does not seem stable tonight. She seems to be turning red and getting rather excited in tonight’s debate, which I am not sure is good for her health. Why did she argue for and push through an increase in VAT when she and her Prime Minister stood on a manifesto saying that they would not put VAT up? That is not being honest with the British people. What she has to explain to hard-working families in my constituency, North Durham, and in Putney is why she reneged on that promise.
There has been much talk in recent weeks about trust in politicians, and a lot of nonsense talked by the yes to AV campaign about whether MPs are hard working and trustworthy. When the Prime Minister and the hon. Lady say clearly that they will not increase VAT, and then that is the first thing she does, I understand why my constituents and hers are rather cynical about certain promises.
In the Budget the Chancellor used the gimmick of cutting the price of petrol by 1p. We will shortly debate how he will pay for it. It has had disastrous consequences for the economies of parts of Scotland and north-east England. He also increased VAT by 3p. He took it off with one hand and put in on with the other. Paying for that will have consequences for oil exploration in the North sea not only in the next year or so, but for a generation.
Andrew Gwynne
Does my hon. Friend recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, soon after the Budget, took a very dim view of those retailers who did not pass on the 1p decrease in fuel duty, and does he agree that the purpose of having such a review is to see whether the Government’s policy was ultimately a success or a failure?
Mr Jones
That is a very good suggestion. That is one of the issues that could be included in the review. Do the Government honestly think that they can con my constituents and others and that a 1p reduction in petrol duty will really be a vote clincher for them? Late last Friday I was in the excellent Sainsbury’s in Pity Me in Durham, and I noted that customers who spent £70 on their groceries could get 5p a litre off their fuel. It is a deal offered by other supermarkets—I do not want to favour Sainsbury’s. Are those on the Treasury Bench really convinced that constituents will be conned by the 1p reduction, when the cost is being increased by 3p, and if they can get 5p a litre off when they spend more on extra groceries?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) made a good point, which I accept, about the differences in fuel prices in different parts of the country. I think that there is a case for part of the review looking at why fuel is priced differently across the country. I hasten to add that at the weekend, when I was in Worksop in Bassetlaw visiting my father, I went to a Sainsbury’s—it happened to be the supermarket there—and noticed that diesel was £1.38, although down here in London and in parts of Durham it is £1.42. Clearly the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) are getting a good deal from the Sainsbury’s in Worksop. These are the issues that could be looked at in a review.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking movingly about his desire to see regional variations in taxation. He was a highly distinguished Minister in the previous Government, so will he tell us how many representations he made to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer when his voice stood a real chance of making a difference?
Mr Jones
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I was not arguing for regional variations in fuel taxation. I was saying that if we are to have variations in fuel prices, which we already have, and if the Government are to introduce a derogation and cheap fuel for certain island constituencies, clearly buying off the Liberal Democrats, the effects on the economy need to be assessed. I would also argue that if that is to happen for some of those rural communities, it must also happen for parts of County Durham where having access to a car is not a luxury, but a necessity for getting into work along the A1 corridor to Newcastle and other places. The fact that the Government are also reducing the public subsidy that local government can give to bus companies means that in the next few months parts of my constituency will have no bus services whatsoever on some days of the week.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman mentions the price of fuel. In Northern Ireland this week the price of diesel was £1.44.9 per litre, which is probably one of the highest in the United Kingdom. If there is to be regional help for the islands of Scotland, there must also be help in Northern Ireland for rural communities. Although he might have some concerns about that, would he not agree that it is only fair that that should happen?
Mr Jones
It is, but the islands derogation has been brought in as a sop to the Liberal Democrats. They have to get something out of this coalition, after all, and a few pence off fuel may well help them at the ballot box, but I doubt it in the long term. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that, if we are to assess the effect of the increase, regional variations will need to be considered.
Malcolm Bruce
That is a very fair intervention. Perhaps I am using the term “North sea” in a slightly generic fashion. The term “UK continental shelf” is a bit long-winded, but that is what I really mean. Perhaps the House will take that as read for these purposes.
The hon. Gentleman is right: Centrica, the operator in Morecambe bay and other gas fields, has indeed indicated that it might not be able to resume production in the current regime and with the current prices. That makes the point, which I hope Ministers will acknowledge, that it is important for the industry and the Government to come together and negotiate, in order to ensure that we do not lose investment and production that might otherwise be lost altogether.
Mr Kevan Jones
One of the arguments put forward by the Treasury is that the 82% tax rate to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred applies only to mature fields. Does he agree, however, that those mature fields still need investment if they are to continue to produce oil?
Malcolm Bruce
That was precisely the point of my illustration about Apache and the Forties field. It wants to invest, and I believe it will continue to invest, but it is actively reviewing the extent to which it will invest in the light of these tax changes, which clearly make the investment less attractive.
Malcolm Bruce
The evidence suggests that sudden step changes to taxes have been made by successive Governments and they have had the same effect: a drop in investment. [Interruption.] No, it has happened under Labour too—the party was in power for 13 years. The figures produced by Oil & Gas UK show that the last time this happened, capital investment dropped by £3 billion per annum over the subsequent three years, and that is a huge sum. Although negotiating field by field is a long drawn out and time-consuming process, too complicated for some investors, who will go elsewhere, that is preferable to simply standing one’s ground and waiting for the worst to happen.
I hope that the Government will acknowledge that some projects are bound to be delayed or cancelled because the rates of return after the tax changes make them simply unviable. If the companies can negotiate to demonstrate to the Government the level at which such projects would become viable, which requires both parties to show their hands, capital allowances or other mechanisms could be brought into play in ways that would benefit both the Government, because the investment, jobs and spin-off could be secured, and the companies, because they would be able to develop viable projects, which of course will subsequently pay taxes to the Government.
Malcolm Bruce
No, because I wish to make progress and reach the end of my remarks.
The final amendments in the group would delay implementation. The only purpose of that—this relates to the intervention from the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson)—would be to use the time to negotiate and decide whether or not we could come up with a slightly more sophisticated mechanism to meet the needs of the industry.
The amendments, taken together or in part, set the framework for the sort of concerns that the industry has and how it would like to engage with the Government. The one comment that everybody I have spoken to in the industry has made to me in the past week or two is, “Whatever else you do, can you just persuade the Government that we need to talk to each other? If we do that, we have a fair chance of getting a settlement that will not prejudice too much investment.” Ministers will notice that the rhetoric has calmed down on the oil and gas industry’s side, because people there actually want to talk.
I hope that the Government will acknowledge that this is a real concern for a substantial industry. I hope that they will also acknowledge that if it can be demonstrated that there has been negotiation, although it will not completely wipe out the shock of a sudden increase, it will, I think, show that the Government are serious in understanding that this is our biggest industry, that it has huge potential and that it still has a big future in this country.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I wonder what the current sales and marketing finance manager for Centrica thinks of the actions of the holder of that post from 2002 to 2005, and what experience the Economic Secretary had during her three years working for the company that has caused her to turn against it in such a fashion.
As I was saying, there is a real requirement, as the Treasury Committee has noted, for a stable tax regime in the sector. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has said that
“the last minute and precipitate change in Oil tax rates for an industry that is particularly dependent on long-term planning seems wrong”.
Does the Minister agree?
The threshold chosen by the Government may also be a problem for stability. The average oil price in 2008 was $100 a barrel, but in 2009 it was $60 a barrel and in 2010 it was $80 a barrel. If prices carry on fluctuating above and below the $75-a-barrel mark, as they have over the past three years, the uncertainty about the tax rate and whether companies will be caught by it could drive more investment away from the UK.
Had the Economic Secretary consulted the industry before the Budget, it might have reminded her that the supplementary charge applies to gas as well as oil. Gas prices are on the rise, but at less than 60p a therm they are still significantly below the Government’s $75 a barrel trigger price on an equivalent basis. In the UK, gas prices are less closely correlated with oil prices than in other jurisdictions, where there are often still contractual links between the two. Whereas oil prices are set by the global market, gas prices are more localised. Graham Parker of the Office for Budget Responsibility told the Treasury Committee quite recently that gas prices were “quite variable” so even if the Government think they have chosen the right level for oil, they might have set the balance wrongly for the gas sector. That could be disastrous given that gas accounts for 46% of the North sea industry’s production.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend find it remarkable that such a decision should have been taken in such haste that the Treasury did not realise that that issue relating to the difference between oil and gas prices would arise?
Kerry McCarthy
Certainly, when I met Oil & Gas UK, it was very surprised and seemed to be of the view that the Treasury had forgotten that gas would be affected by the measures. The policy is very much back-of-a-fag-packet stuff. It seems that, in a knee-jerk reaction to the rise in public concern about petrol prices, the Government felt they had to act on that front, and so had to came up in haste with some sort of mechanism to raise revenue to fund the 1p cut in fuel duty. The effect on gas is an important issue, and the cost could end up being passed on to ordinary people in their gas bills, either because the increase itself is passed on to consumers or because UK gas production drops, meaning that we have to import more gas from abroad.
Had the Minister consulted the industry prior to announcing the measure in March, it might also have reminded her that when the previous Government increased North sea taxation, they introduced measures to promote investment alongside that change. When we introduced the supplementary charge in 2002, we also introduced a 100% first-year allowance for capital expenditure in the North sea. That not only provided a buffer for companies to make the transition to the new regime but encouraged investment in UK oil and gas fields. When, in 2005, we increased North sea taxation again, we allowed further flexibility on the capital allowance. To maintain the stability of the tax system, we also gave a commitment not to increase the tax again in that Parliament. I wonder whether the Minister can echo that commitment today.
It was right to increase taxation on oil and gas at a time of windfall profits, and now is also such a time, but we were conscious of the need to create stability for the industry and to maintain investment for the future. If this Government had thought their changes through, they could have taken a similar approach, but instead the effects of their hasty and ill thought out decision are already being felt. We have heard the reports about disinvestment in the industry. Centrica, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned, has hinted that it might decide not to reopen its Morecambe Bay field, which produced 6% of the UK’s annual gas requirement. I wonder what the Minister’s former colleagues have to say about that. Statoil has suspended $10 billion-worth of investment in the Mariner and Bressay oilfields, which together hold reserves of 640 million barrels of oil. Research from Aberdeen university has gone further, suggesting that over the next three decades the Government’s tax change could slash oil and gas investment in the UK by £30 billion. Production could be reduced by up to a quarter, leaving the UK more reliant on imported oil and gas.
This debate is not just about the profits of oil and gas producers. The oil and gas industry directly and indirectly supports 440,000 jobs in the UK. There are reports that at least 40,000 of those jobs are at risk because of the Government’s action, at a time when 2.5 million are unemployed, including an increasing number of people who have been out of work for longer than a year. The Government have a responsibility to act with extreme caution before putting those jobs at risk.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in the north-east who were previously made redundant from shipbuilding yards, for example, travel regularly throughout the UK and internationally to work in the oil and gas industry? Surely the Government’s proposals will affect those people, who have come to rely on home-based employment and travelling overseas, in some cases long distances, to support their families?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The jobs being lost are in areas where there is little other employment. As he says, people in the area he represents have been affected by the decline in other traditional industries under the last Conservative Government. Now they are being hit by a double whammy with their jobs in the oil and gas sector being put at risk.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Economic Secretary said in her winding-up speech on the last group of amendments that the result of the Government’s policy on fuel duty has led across the board to a 0.8p reduction in the price of fuel at the pumps. Is that really a price worth paying for the effect it will have on the oil and gas industry?
Kerry McCarthy
The Economic Secretary said that it had led to a drop of 0.8p at the pumps between 23 March and 28 March, which seems very selective. It is clear now that petrol prices at the pumps have gone up and that the Government have gained very little from their approach.
In the run-up to the general election, both the current Chancellor and the current Prime Minister were clear that they would deliver on a fuel duty stabiliser. Voters were led to believe that the Government could and would act on that. However, in March, as we approached the Government’s second Budget, the Opposition pointed out that the fair fuel stabiliser was still nowhere to be seen. Even with fuel prices rising above £6 a gallon, due to the rising price of oil—the very situation that a stabiliser was meant to help with—the Government had still been unable or unwilling to act. That was because their original plans would never have worked.
The Conservative party had believed that rising oil prices led to higher tax revenues for the Government, which could then be shared with motorists. It turned out that, just like the proposals we see in the Bill, they had been poorly thought through. They were told that they were wrong not only by Labour Members, but by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which stated that
“the claim that the Treasury receives a windfall gain when oil prices rise that it can “share” with motorists is incorrect.”
They were told that they were wrong by the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, who said it
“would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable.”
They were even told that they were wrong by the current Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who said before the election that the fair fuel stabiliser would be
“unbelievably complicated and unpredictable.”
Stewart Hosie
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said in his opening remarks that the Government wanted the UK to be seen to be open for business. That is a very good objective, but the problem is that an 81% marginal rate of tax on anything, and the instability caused by a shock 60% increase, puts at risk their stated aim of promoting the UK in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point about investment, and investment levels are unchanged generally, but there is now less focus on frontier developments than on investment in the mature North sea, and that is a huge concern. The 60% rise in the supplementary charge that was created, it is told, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—whom I see leaving the Chamber barely at the start of the debate—was the most damaging thing that the Government did in the Budget.
The Government will take £2 billion a year extra in tax from the sector, on top of the £4 billion windfall that they got last year, to which the right hon. Member for Gordon referred, and on top of the windfall that they will get this year—2011-12—over the 2010 forecast. All that runs counter to the Chancellor’s stated objectives of tax stability, delivering a growth agenda and production here in lieu of imports.
Let us remember that when that bombshell was announced, leading industry members reportedly met in a state of disbelief about the Government’s plans. There were immediate reports about the threat to some 40,000 jobs. Statoil immediately announced the suspension of the Mariner and, possibly, Bressay investments, and it was argued that a slowdown in North sea activity would increase the UK’s reliance on imported oil and gas, with the consequence of an even higher balance of payments deficit and the corresponding impact of a suppression of GDP growth.
On tax receipts, Alan Booth, the chief executive of EnCore Oil, rightly said:
“Undeveloped and undiscovered oil and gas pays no taxes,”
and it got worse, of course, because Valiant immediately announced that it was not going to invest in its £100 million project, saying that it was
“no longer viable because of the surprise Budget move.”
Chevron warned that there would be “unintended consequences”, and let us remember that Oil & Gas UK was very clear when it said that the measure had
“shaken investor confidence to the core.”
The right hon. Member for Gordon said at one stage that Ministers had robustly defended their position. I do not believe that they have. When these fears and concerns were put to the Chancellor, a Treasury spokeswoman said:
“Mr Osborne did not expect investment to be damaged.”
That is not a robust defence of a position; it is intransigence and a failure to understand the consequences of the actions that the Government had undertaken.
There are other consequences. Jim Hannon from Hannon Westwood, the drilling analysts, said that 30,000 people could lose their jobs if exploration activity dropped by merely 15%. The detailed work by Professor Alex Kemp—I will not go through it in detail but it is well worth everybody in the House reading it—has warned that up to 2 billion barrels of oil and the equivalent amount of gas could be left in the North sea, untaxed and unused. Derek Leith from Ernst and Young has warned of projects being delayed and cancelled, saying that the Statoil decision was
“only the tip of the iceberg…There are a lot of companies that will not pursue projects but will not go public about it.”
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) about the national security implications of this? At a time when other mature oilfields around the world have investment going in to extract the last bits of oil, leaving large reserves of untapped oil in mature fields is not only financially incompetent but dangerous in terms of national security.
Stewart Hosie
In terms of energy security it is very foolish indeed.
This is about not only the increase in the supplementary charge but restricting access to decommissioning tax relief, and that could accelerate the decommissioning of essential infrastructure. Had these ludicrous plans been in place in the past, the Forties field might not have been passed on to provide a decade or more of additional oil. Had the infrastructure which will now be decommissioned more quickly been decommissioned at that speed in the past, the new entrants, the new technology, the sideways drilling and the ability not to take 30%, 40% or 50% of a well would not exist. Once the wells are capped and the infrastructure is gone, it is gone for good.
As well as energy security, there is the question of the future of carbon capture and storage. The last Government failed to make a decision quickly enough on the Peterhead CCS scheme, which was going to use the decommissioned Miller plumbing to pump the carbon dioxide into holes in the ground. If we restrict access to decommissioning relief, we risk being unable to use that plumbing and infrastructure not only for oil extraction but for other purposes.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to investments in the UK continental shelf falling by 24% overnight at the time of the decision. The scale of the impact was also explained in the recent research by Professor Alex Kemp in which he revealed that the tax increase could reduce UK oil and gas investment by up to £30 billion and production by up to a quarter over the next three decades. For last week’s Second Reading debate, we had additional information from Centrica that provided a detailed assessment of the problem in relation to gas. It said that the annual cost to the UK economy could be up to £8 billion per annum by 2013, that the decision could influence investor sentiment in other sectors, and that up to £100 billion of energy investments and associated jobs could be put at risk. That would be catastrophic if even a fraction of it came true. The UK needs sustained and sustainable above-trend growth, and we will not get it if we undermine the main investing industry in the UK. That would be incredibly stupid.
As I said on Second Reading, we should listen to Oil & Gas UK, Statoil, Valiant, EnCore, Chevron, Hannon Westwood, Professor Kemp, Ernst and Young, and Centrica. Those warnings did not start the day after the Budget and then stop; they kept on coming. It is inconceivable that all those major players and analysts in the sector are wrong, and that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary, uniquely, are right. That is almost impossible to believe. Of course the warnings have not stopped.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a shareholder in Shell, and of my wider interests in the oil and gas industry.
The oil and gas in the North sea belongs to the nation, but unless we have a regime that attracts experts with the finance and knowledge we need, we will not benefit from it. One of the amendments before us would restrict the tax raid to a year, to ensure that the Government and industry can engage in constructive dialogue that will encourage investment. It is important to restore confidence in the tax regime. Following previous supplemental changes, Governments had to work very hard to restore confidence and bring back investment, with field allowances and other incentives. They engaged with the industry and provided assurances that once the tax change had been made at the beginning of a Parliament, it would not be revisited until the next election. There is scope for restoring confidence, but some hard work will have to be done.
The Government need to address some of the arguments that are being made, particularly the one advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) about what individual investors are getting for their investment. It has been put to me that people made a decision to invest last June, but now the price of oil is $125 a barrel. If they decided to invest and then hedged for this year at $88, they are not getting $125, because the hedge fund is getting the profit. I do not see a tax being brought in on hedge funds; instead, it is being imposed on the people on the ground doing the hard work, on the skilled labour and on the knowledge and risk-taking.
When we talk about windfalls, we have to be slightly careful in the case of an industry with a fluctuating commodity price. When the price goes up it makes more profit and when the price goes down it makes less, but Governments tend not to say, “We’re a bit concerned that the price has fallen, so we’re going to cut the tax.” If there is a one-way ratchet, that causes uncertainty and concern in the minds of investors.
Amendment 13 suggests that if there is a desire to have a profit-related tax that varies with the price of oil, there should be some predictability to it. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said that it would cause complication, but that complication could be factored into new financial modelling. If there were a variable rate of profits tax, any company making an investment decision could factor that in and know where they stood in the fiscal regime.
It has been put to us that other countries, such as Norway, have different fiscal regimes for investment. However, Norway has had a stable long-term fiscal regime with very little change, and it has also had the attraction of less mature, bigger finds with more upside for investors. It is important to understand the confidence element.
The Energy and Climate Change Committee has seen evidence on the wider future of our electricity and gas network. This country wants to attract £200 billion of investment in its energy infrastructure, but if investors are being asked to build a massive offshore wind farm that will bring in more profits if the price of carbon goes the way they are betting, they will look across and see what has happened to the oil industry. They will not want the Treasury to come along and say, “Electricity bills are rising, so we’re going to put a windfall tax on the offshore wind farm,” which would undermine that investment decision. There is a read-across from gas and oil to wider investment in energy and big infrastructure projects in this country.
This is not just a constituency matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and myself, who have many constituents who work in the industry, have jobs related to it or are economically affected by it. As has been said, it also affects East Anglia, Morecambe bay and other areas. The supply chain permeates the whole of the UK economy.
Mr Kevan Jones
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on standing up for his constituents; he is doing the right thing. Does he not find it remarkable that there are no Conservative Members in the Chamber from Morecambe bay or other areas that rely on the oil and gas industry, to speak up for that industry tonight?
Sir Robert Smith
Those hon. Members may have chosen to speak in other ways; they can raise matters with Ministers directly or in correspondence. There are all sorts of ways of trying to influence Ministers. I am using probing amendments and this debate to try to do so. If I may say so, it is rather sad that the Committee has chosen to focus on such a major industry for the UK economy at 1.30 am, but—[Interruption.] Well, the House collectively chose that time.
I want to make two final points on the instability and uncertainty caused by such upheavals. Statoil is reviewing its investment. That does not mean that it will not go ahead at all or that some of the investment might be done differently, but in the reviewing time, Statoil’s supply chain will no longer have the ability to deliver. The supply chain does not have the cash flow to sit around waiting for Statoil’s review without affecting its employment, recruitment and subcontracting. The skills base that has built up has huge export potential and earns a lot of money for the country through exports to other oil and gas provinces, but the Government need to understand that that base needs a stable home environment to ensure that we anchor as much of those profits in the UK as possible.
Finally, I want to reinforce how crucial the mature fields are in unlocking future investment. Many of the investments being attracted today are much smaller than before, and they would not stand up if they did not tie back to one of the big platforms that still operate in the North sea. That is why I was somewhat concerned by some of the Treasury’s evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee. The Treasury said that petroleum revenue tax fields were now just cash-making fields, so they did not need any more investment—but the very age of those fields means that they do need investment. The Health and Safety Executive is very keen to keep a close eye on those fields: because of their age, the safety of their infrastructure is crucial. Moreover, investment could be vital in ensuring that that hub remains to unlock any smaller fields around the North sea.
Another uncertainty is introduced by clause 7 because of its relationship with the clause on decommissioning. In the Public Bill Committee the Government must address that new uncertainty, which builds on the uncertainty caused by clause 7.
I urge the Government to respond constructively and positively to the industry’s desire for an investment climate in which it can take all the risks on geology, weather, technology and the future of the commodity market, in the knowledge that a Government who see its long-term importance to the economy, and who therefore recognise the need to restore confidence in a stable fiscal regime, are behind it.
Helen Goodman
I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge of poultry-keeping. However, I agree that that is the problem that we face with the Government at the moment. Their approach simply is not serious; it is trivial.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend not think it incredible that the Treasury officials whom she worked alongside for many years did not work out that there was a difference between oil and gas prices? Does she also not think it remarkable that the Minister, who is a former employee of Centrica and British Gas, did not highlight that problem either?
Helen Goodman
That is absolutely right. It is extremely worrying for the gas industry that the tax is being linked to fluctuations in oil prices, yet gas prices might not only vary from oil prices, but possibly even be going in a different direction. This is an extraordinary approach to take to the taxation of one of our major industries. I hope to hear from Ministers about how they are forecasting oil prices over the period in the Red Book.
Returning to the issue of complexity and why the Government chose such a complex structure, we have to ask ourselves whether they completely misunderstood the debates in the previous Parliament on stabilisers. The Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats proposed stabilisers on petrol taxation, but that seems to have been translated into the wholesale market. The situation now is not that stability is being provided for the consumer, which was the original objective of a stabiliser, but that the Government are able to hedge their tax revenues, which is a completely different proposition altogether. I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will be able to explain what a sustainable oil price reduction means, because it is certainly not clear from what we have seen so far.
The other thing that was said at the time of the Budget was that the detail would be agreed with the industry and motoring organisations. I hope that we will get a report from the Minister on what discussions and agreements have been achieved. The initial press reports of her meetings with the industry were very alarming indeed. It sounded as though the industry was furious with what had happened and that Ministers did not have a proper answer to its serious concerns. It would be nice to know whether the negotiations have developed, although it seems from what we have read even today in the newspapers and on the web that they have so far not been fruitful. It would also seem that the Government, in their headlong rush, are not taking account of the fact that further evidence has yet to be given to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. Indeed, that evidence is to be given only tomorrow, yet the Government are ploughing ahead, mindless of what the industry is telling them.
It is particularly worrying that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has pointed out, Centrica is saying that it might not open up the Morecambe Bay field after the annual shutdown to perform the usual maintenance functions this year. The Morecambe Bay field has been in operation for, I suppose, some 40 years—I think it was the first gas field from which we got natural gas in this country. The Minister is too young to remember the huge investments made in the 1960s to move from town gas to natural gas. Huge investments were made in this country to secure those gas supplies, and yet at the stroke of a pen, this Government are putting them at risk.
When the Government say that they want to rebalance the economy, we have to ask whether they even know that means. I understood rebalancing the economy to mean having fewer resources in financial services and more resources in other sectors.
Mr Kevan Jones
The argument made strongly by the Government is that the north-east economy should rebalance itself away from the public sector and towards the private sector. Does my hon. Friend share the alarm felt by the 380 firms that directly rely on the oil and gas industry in the region about the effect that the Government’s proposals will have on employment in those companies?
Helen Goodman
Of course. I am extremely concerned, as my hon. Friend and neighbour is, about the impact that the proposals will have on the economy of the north-east, and it will not be just a short-term impact, but a long-term impact. When we get investment in the oil and gas industry, we are getting investment in an industry at the cutting edge of technology. There have been many other positive spin-offs from the investments that the oil and gas sector has made.
Helen Goodman
No, Centrica is a gas company. Oil companies, even if they do not have petrol companies within them in the UK, are selling their oil and gas to people who are delivering in the retail market. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that if something is being done with prices and taxes in one part of the market, it could have an impact on the prices charged in another part of the market. That was my point.
Let me deal now with the drafting of the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the $75 a barrel limit is not specifically mentioned in clause 7? As already mentioned, if we are to make any sense of what is going on here, we will need to look at clauses 61 through to 64 and at schedule 15 alongside clause 7. I would like to pay tribute to Rob Marris, the former Member for Wolverhampton, South West who always enjoined us to read the explanatory notes. The explanatory notes on clause 61, which deals with decommissioning, are particularly interesting. Has the Treasury or Revenue done any analysis of the impact on the environment of the changes to the rate of decommissioning relief?
The amendments in the group are also interesting. As I have said, the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members are clearly aimed at improving stability, predictability and transparency. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) are designed to review and understand the situation better. The most interesting amendment before us, however, is amendment 11, tabled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is designed to insert the following provision into clause 7:
“But if the basis of apportionment in subsection (4)(b) would work unjustly or unreasonably in the company’s case, the company may elect for its profits to be apportioned on another basis that is just and reasonable and specified in the election.”
This is the most extraordinary amendment that I have seen in six years as a Member of Parliament. It seems that every company can say to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, “The impact on another company might be ABC, but in our case it would be XYZ.” Every company will be allowed to negotiate not simply the interpretation of the tax code, but its own tax code.
Mr Kevan Jones
Obviously many other taxpayers would like to be able to negotiate their tax codes with the Inland Revenue, but I am sure that the opportunity will not be open to them. Where will this leave the amount of revenue that the Government will supposedly raise to pay for the reduction in petrol duty?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. This opens a huge hole in front of the Minister’s revenue forecast. There is total uncertainty. Every company will be able to turn up and renegotiate its own tax regime, which is ludicrous. How far will this be taken? Will it be a general principle established in the tax code for the purposes of all corporation tax, or personal tax? I hope that the Minister has a very good explanation for what is going on.
Let me return to the underlying worry that has been exposed in tonight’s debate—that the Government simply have not taken account of the importance of energy security. Everyone knows that the energy market is under a number of different pressures. On the one hand, we must have a market that is environmentally sensitive and reduces our carbon footprint; on the other hand, we must have prices that are affordable for people in this country and that tackle fuel poverty. We must also have security of supply in a world that is particularly uncertain at this time. Wars are taking place in north Africa and there is conflict in the middle east, and it is at this moment that the Government have chosen to impose taxes that are so insensitive that they put the North sea oil and gas regime at risk.
Mr Anderson
I want to speak in support of amendment 10, but first I want to say something about the speech of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I am pleased that he has returned to the Chamber, because I was very interested in what he had to say. Most of those who have spoken in the debate on these amendments have done so on the basis of a degree of experience, which was not the case in earlier debates.
I wonder whether the case made by the right hon. Gentleman was made to the Government before the Budget. It appears from what was said by him and by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) that the industry has been saying to the Government for some time, “If you are going to do this, please talk to us and please make sure that we get it right.” The industry does not want to end up with the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), in which anyone could do whatever they want whenever they want.
If that information was shared with the Chancellor before he made his statement on 23 March, it would seem from what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) about why he had ignored the voices of experienced people such as the right hon. Member for Gordon and those in the industry that the only thing that matches the Chancellor’s arrogance is his ignorance. Clearly he has decided to say, “I know better. I will impose this on the industry and on this country.”
This is not just about places such as Aberdeen and the north-west, because a huge amount of work is going on across the whole of Tyneside and the north-east of England. Some of the most advanced technical work anywhere in this country is being done there in very small factory units by very skilled men and women who are doing a great job. Shipyards have reinvented themselves after the closure programme of the 1980s and are building exploratory rigs and doing work that is vital to maintaining the skills base and developing the new work that we want to do. That will be development for not only the oil industry, but the offshore wind industry.
Mr Kevan Jones
A large number of individuals, many of whom live in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, worked in former shipyards and heavy engineering firms in the north-east and now travel to Scotland and other areas where the UK oil and gas industry is based. They have very good jobs and choose still to live in the north-east. Does he agree that they are an important part of the wages that go into the north-east economy?
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These people are rightly still among the most well-paid people in this country—why on earth should they not be, given the work they are involved in and the risks they take in their daily lives?
I worked underneath the North sea bed as a coal miner, so I have some experience of working in the energy industry. I am not the person to feel sorry for multinational oil companies, but if the Government take crass decisions that will have a massive impact on not only the industry, but the people who are dependent on it right across the board, we should surely question that. I have no problem with saying to the oil companies that we want them to play their part in trying to help us to get this country back on an even keel. Clearly, when companies such as Shell and BP are making huge profits, that discussion should take place, but it should happen before decisions as serious as this are imposed on people.
Some 450,000 people work in the industry. Our subsea industry is at the cutting edge and leading the world. People talk about what happened in the gulf of Mexico only a year ago, but the probability is that that will never happen in the North sea because of the experience we have gained over many decades of working up there. We lead the world and we should be proud of that, but this taxation surprise has made the industry question whether it should carry on being there, and clearly the oil industry can go to lots of other places in the world.
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is correct. That debate went on in the Labour party for a long time long before that election. It was quite clear to the industry and to the people of this country that if they voted Labour on 1 May 1997, we would impose a windfall tax. Discussions had been going on and the companies were able to absorb the idea and plan for that.
As ACCA says further:
“The sudden change in rate came as a shock to those involved in the North Sea oil industry”—
the change was not a shock in 1997, because companies had been able to prepare for it—
“and has been widely condemned as reducing the competitiveness of the UK as a target for investment”.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the windfall tax, which was a one-off tax and quite clearly understood, was different from what we are facing today with this tax increase, which is a potentially fluctuating tax that gives uncertainty to oil and gas producers about the level of profit they will make long term on their investment in the North sea or anywhere else?
Mr Anderson
In the learned advice that she gave, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spelt out more clearly than anyone else in this debate that nobody seems to know what people will be paying in tax. Nobody knows whether they will be paying anything or whether they will be able to say, “I want to get away with this while you get away with that.” That is absolutely ludicrous; even if we accept that the tax should be imposed, people at least need to know what the Government are going for.
Mr Anderson
I have read that report. Whatever hon. Members’ views, we respect the Chair of the Treasury Committee as someone who has done a good job for the people of this country and for the House, and when he says such things, hon. Members should listen. He is not someone who should be ignored: he speaks not from arrogance or ignorance but from a lot of knowledge. His Committee has undertaken a rapid investigation of an issue that is of massive importance to the country.
We have been here before with Tory Governments, who have a long history of making crass policy decisions on energy. In the 1930s, the Tories presided over a coal industry that was in internal decline and had massive problems, with more than 1,000 men a year being killed in the industry and with no investment whatever. Those men were using 19th-century technology—life was cheap and people were not allowed to live decent lives. The situation was pushed back after the war when the Labour Government came in and nationalised the coal industry.
Then there was another repeat in the 1980s. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has mentioned the POP forecast and the pricing of oil according to how much it costs to get oil from coal. In the 1980s, we led the world in getting oil from coal, but that industry was destroyed at the whim of the then Government, who did that for political reasons. I can see that you are getting annoyed, Mr Hoyle, which is not like you, so I shall move on rapidly.
The truth is that Tory Governments, and not just in the past, have taken policy decisions that were to the detriment of the energy system in this country. That is being confirmed today, because this is not just about the oil industry. As has been discussed in debates on the solar power industry, Ministers have changed the rules halfway through a process. I have received a letter from a company in my constituency saying that it is involved in a number of projects in which clients want to build solar arrays that do not fulfil energy requirements. Funders and clients are now cautious because of the uncertainty caused by the policy change halfway through discussions. The industry had been told that it would be able to set targets at a certain level, but that level was later changed and the same thing is happening now. If the Government spring surprises on companies that are investing in energy policy, those companies will not know where they are and will look at other markets. As I have said before, I am not one to stick up for the oil companies, but I am one to stick up for this country and the workers of this country, and this part of the Bill, along with many others, is detrimental to the workers and the people of the country.
Mr Kevan Jones
Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) on their amendment. They clearly care about the industry, know a lot about it and are arguing vociferously on behalf of their constituents. From the body language of the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary, it looks as though the right hon. Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine are two unwelcome relatives at a wedding who had been forgotten about but turned up and started to argue about how this was not part of the wedding deal of the coalition.
The amendments raise serious concerns about the effect of the Budget not just on the constituencies of the right hon. Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but on many others throughout the UK. I would have expected Members on the Government Benches who have oil and gas interests in their constituency—Morecambe bay has been mentioned, as well as the gas fields off the coast of East Anglia—to speak in the debate, yet we have not had a single contribution from the Conservative Benches. That should be noted by constituents who rely on the oil and gas industry for their livelihood. I am sure that if the former Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale were still a Member of the House, she would have been vociferous in making representations on behalf of her constituents. I hope she is watching the debate, even at this late hour.
The decision announced in the Budget to increase the supplementary charge on North sea oil was taken at the last minute, without any consultation with the industry. It led to the ludicrous situation mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, with the profits of some of the mature fields being taxed at 80%. We are constantly told by the Conservative part of the coalition how important private sector growth is to the future of the UK economy.
There is no better example than the oil and gas industry. It is an economic engine for the UK economy. In 2010 alone it invested some £6 billion into the UK economy. It creates and supports more than 440,000 jobs, not just directly in the industry, but way down the supply chain and across the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) noted. More importantly, it produced in 2010-11 some £8.8 billion in corporation tax for the Treasury, and it is estimated that for 2011-12, with the increase in the oil price, that revenue take will be about £13.4 billion. To treat such an important industry in the cavalier way that the Government have treated it is a disgrace.
I feel for the right hon. Member for Gordon. He said that the Government were listening, but I am not sure they are. I ask him to look at the report of the Treasury Committee’s meeting of 29 March, where the Treasury said:
“The 81% rate applies only to those mature fields where there is no further exploitation taking place that pay petroleum revenue tax. It is quite a high rate but, equally, there is not an issue with further investment needed there, and the oil is coming out of the ground. That is a pure”
profit.
Members asked whether that had been looked at in any detail. The Treasury went on to say that
“the Treasury does a lot of work on all the tax levers on an ongoing basis.”
It is clear from talking to the industry that investment in those mature fields is needed. For example, Total E&P UK says that production at mature fields will cease without further investment. The Alwyn area is a good example of why activity and investment need to continue. I accept that the industry requires a huge amount of start-up investment, but there is also an increasing need for investment over time. For example, Total has stated in its submission that investment is needed in the Alwyn field not only for ensuring that the field is secure and safe, but for living accommodation and other investments. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that such mature fields do not need continued investment, and to tax them at 81% or 82% is, frankly, ridiculous.
Ian Mearns
I must say that I am completely overcome by the power of my hon. Friend’s argument and wonder whether the right hon. Member for Gordon and his hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches really want to argue at this stage for a late codicil to the coalition agreement on the issue.
Mr Jones
I have known my hon. Friend for more than 25 years, and I think that this is the first time he has ever been overcome by something I have said—it might be the first time he has ever listened to anything I have said. The idea of leaving oil and gas in the ground and not extracting it is absolutely ludicrous. It makes no sense whatsoever with regard to the investment that has already been made, and it makes no economic sense with regard to security of supply in this country.
Helen Goodman
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that the Government have no strategy? Just as they panicked when they realised that they had a fiscal hole to fill in the few days before the Budget, so they have now panicked with this ridiculous amendment 11.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend has done the Committee a favour by drawing our attention to amendment 11, and that is something that we will all want to be argued for in the case of individual tax returns. The point of the matter is this: if the results are what has been suggested, how on earth will the Government be able to predict how much they will get from this tax?
Helen Goodman
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also not clear, when a company negotiates its own tax regime, whether it will be a secret tax regime, or one that everyone will know? If it is secret, does that not open up the possibility of even more unfairness?
Mr Jones
It does, and that leads us to the point about how we would arbitrate in disputes between different companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) mentioned the fact that decisions on investment in oil and gas are not taken in this country, but in Houston, Calgary and other parts of the globe, so the North sea and exploration in this country is competing for investment from around the world. If companies have to jump through hoops to negotiate their individual tax liabilities before trying to put an appraisal together, I am sure that decision makers will go for the easier options so that they know what the return on investment will be, rather than the uncertainty that this has left us with.
Dame Anne Begg
If it is necessary to bring in all sorts of complicated extra things to mitigate the effects of a tax and make it appear fairer, surely the original tax is fundamentally flawed and should never have been introduced in the first place.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and her point about investment will increasingly be thought of when making such decisions.
That brings us to the question of what the decision-making process was when coming up with this tax. We have already had the ludicrous situation whereby even a Minister who practically used to work for a gas company did not recognise the difference between gas and oil prices. In my experience as a Minister dealing with Treasury officials, I always thought that they knew what they were talking about, so I am surprised that the Treasury allowed this measure to get through, because everyone knows the difference between the prices of the two.
We have already seen the effects of that this week, with the possibility that Centrica might turn off investment in Morecambe bay, and I am sure that the Minister will be off the company’s Christmas card list next year unless she does something radical to change what has been proposed. That decision will not only mothball a gas field that would have provided this country with gas for years to come, but write it off.
What will we do instead? We will import gas, which does not make sense economically or for energy security, especially when we look at where the large concentrations of gas are in the world—the former Soviet Union, parts of the middle east and, lo and behold, north Africa. Any idiot can work out that even Morecambe bay, and possibly Blackpool on a rowdy Saturday night, is more peaceful than north Africa or parts of the former Soviet Union, so it is important that we take seriously the comments of companies such as Centrica, which have invested over many years and not just in oil and gas fields but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon said, in new technologies.
It is a dirty industry, but it is also a leader in new technologies, such as robotics and drilling, and, owing to the difficulty of extracting oil and gas from parts of the North sea, we have been able to develop new techniques that are now used throughout the world. That is why many UK companies are leaders not only in this country, but throughout the world.
It has also become increasingly clear that the tax rate will have a real effect on the economy of north-east England. I accept that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies feel passionately about the issue, but the measure will have a dramatic effect in the north-east, too. The Conservative part of the coalition tells us that we in the north-east should grow the private sector, but the oil and gas industry is a very vibrant part of the private sector. Indeed, my hon. Friend has already mentioned the sub-sea sector, which supports 10,000 jobs and 380 firms in the north-east.
Andrew Gwynne
Like my hon. Friend, I feel passionately about those jobs in those cutting-edge industries. Is not the issue to protect jobs today and invest in future jobs in the north-east and the north-west, including in things such as apprenticeships?
Mr Kevan Jones
It is, and the north-east has been able to take advantage of the change in, for example, the River Tyne, which was heavily dependent on shipbuilding. Now we have facilities such as the Walker technology park, and the city council was far-sighted when it developed an offshore park for the North sea oil industry.
Helen Goodman
Does my hon. Friend agree, as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said, that there is also—
Helen Goodman
There is also a problem with partnerships between the private sector and the universities.
Mr Jones
There is indeed. There are also new technologies. For example, the development of mine ploughs for mining the North sea bed for the laying of oil pipes was generated from a company that spun out of Newcastle university. Places such as the Walker technology park sustain offshore supply jobs for the North sea, and two companies based there—Duco and Wellstream—produce 90% of the world’s capacity of sub-sea umbilical housing and cords. Those are well-paid jobs. Such companies chose to invest in the north-east of England not only because of the skills base but because of the access to the North sea, and they are now able to export from there across the world.
George Rafferty, the chief executive of NOF Energy, says:
“For the last six to nine months we have been talking about a renaissance in oil and gas especially from the North Sea and the benefit to our members in the North-East as a result of investment being put in. With this announcement by the Government, which was made without consultation with the industry, there is a serious risk those investment decisions will be reversed.”
The industry body Oil & Gas UK said that the tax would not be passed on to consumers after the Chancellor warned that the sector faced a “direct squeeze” from it. That is exactly the uncertainty that exists today. It does not affect only the jobs in the north-east region itself. We have a large travelling population of individuals who travel to work via the North sea; they go across to Morecambe bay to work in the gas fields, and to East Anglia and other parts of the UK. That shows that this is an industry that affects numerous parts of the UK economy as well as the north-east. We have to ensure that any decisions that are taken on taxation do not have a huge detrimental effect.
It is necessary to know what is going to be done when making decisions about where future oil and gas investment will go. Unfortunately, some companies have already invested in oil or gas fields on the basis of what the tax regime was going to be pre-Budget, and they now face a completely different set of circumstances. For example, Total E&P UK has established Laggan-Tormore—the west of Shetland gas development—and that investment of $4 billion is now at risk. Questions will be asked by the individuals who made the decision to invest there. What will be the future of that type of investment?
This is clearly short-termism for reasons of political expediency to do with the Chancellor. In the previous debate, we even got an admission from the Minister that the downturn in the petrol price was 0.8%—and we all know what we can do with 0.8 of a penny in our household budgets! Is it really worth making that type of fix, which will jeopardise not only the investment that has gone in to date but will go in in future? This is a world-class industry of which we should be proud in the UK. It sustains many jobs. Over the years, it has been a leader not only in technology but in safety, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon mentioned.
I take no joy in what I am going to say now. I feel sorry for the right hon. Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, because I fear that they will feel the political consequences of this in the ballot box. I hope that with their expertise and continued lobbying, they can change the Government’s mind. A short-term decision based on the petrol price will have a huge economic impact on the UK, on the industry as a whole, and on the economy of the north-east. I urge the Government to think again. I do not know whether they will take silly decisions like this in the future, but please can they do a U-turn for the sake of the investment and jobs that they will put in jeopardy if they continue with this ludicrous policy?
Mr Kevan Jones
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), the Minister talked about negotiations she is having with individual oil companies. Is the revenue from fields going down? If so, from where is she providing compensation to fill the gap, or is she not giving any money away at all in these negotiations?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman is missing the point that because of the high oil price there is continued investment in the North sea. Interestingly, Professor Kemp’s optimistic scenario is $90 a barrel and 70p per therm, but as I just said, the OBR has projected independently that oil prices over the next five years could be more than $100. That is $10 higher than the most optimistic scenario in Professor Kemp’s analysis.
Amendment of the Law
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stuart Bell
I was much amused when statements were made about how the debt was reduced, how much we had to pay off and how much the Labour Government borrowed. In the month of February, the Government borrowed £11 billion when they should have borrowed £8 billion. It is perfectly correct that we have mixed up the structural deficit with the overall deficit, but public spending will continue to go up. There was a certain sleight of hand from the Chancellor when he made his Budget speech.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting public sector jobs has a direct effect on the private sector? I do not know whether he has seen the study modelling done by Durham university that shows that in the north-east, some 50,000 jobs will go because of public sector cuts, 20,000 of which will be in the private sector.
Sir Stuart Bell
I have seen that study. I have also seen the study by PricewaterhouseCoopers about the impact on the north-east of the various deficit reduction plans.
May I, without in the least way being sycophantic, congratulate the Leader of the Opposition? He made a short and precise speech but he hit every nail on the head that needed to be hit. Growth is down. Snow or no snow, we entered into zero growth in the last quarter. Where is growth going this year? It is at 1.7% for the year. How does that compare with Germany, where there is 3% growth?
Mr Kevan Jones
In 2009-10, the budget for the nine regional development agencies in the UK was £2.2 billion.
Sammy Wilson
That probably puts it all in perspective. The measure looks good in the Chancellor’s speech, but, when one looks at the resources that it releases, which in turn are supposed to increase the willingness of firms to invest and the productive potential of the economy, one sees just how miniscule it is, and we have to judge whether it will make a very great impact.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I should like to draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in case I stray into the subject of property or something similar.
The situation at the end of the previous Government’s time in office was unprecedented in international terms. The way that they handled things in their last 18 months was not too bad. They went down to 0.5% interest rates, allowed the automatic stabilisers to come in, and allowed the pound to devalue, as we could because we still control our own monetary policy. Everything possible was done to adjust to the dire situation in the banking system.
To be less complimentary, the regulatory regime that allowed the banks to do some of the things that they did was set by the former Prime Minister when he was Chancellor by taking powers away from the Bank of England. That was a retrograde step, and I am glad that the current Government are reviewing it. Before we hit trouble, the deficit was 3%, whereas the German economy had a surplus of 3%. The difference that we can see today is that the Germans have a deficit of 5% or 6%, while we have one of nearer to 10%. That means that the adjustments we will have to make over the next four or five years will be much more difficult, and it will take longer to get there.
Mr Kevan Jones
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about bank regulation, but he has a very short memory, because I remember being in this House when the current Chancellor and Prime Minister were calling for more light-touch regulation of the financial industry, not for more regulation, as they seem to be doing now.
Mr Syms
It was nothing to do with light-touch regulation; in fact, we needed more competent regulation. The Financial Services Authority was not up to the job, and the Bank of England would have done a better one.
The key thing is that we now have a great imbalance in our economy. Over the long term, Britain has always tended to have public spending of about 40% of GDP, taxation of about 40% of GDP, and a national debt of about 40% of GDP. We have always managed to grow and export, and to be a fairly successful economy. We now have to yank public spending and the deficit back to those sorts of levels. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, even after five or six years, we will only be back down to where we were towards the end of the Labour Government when we had to go into deficit to deal with the difficult economic situation.
I think that the Government’s response is sensible. It is planned over five or six years, and is gradual. For all the talk of expenditure cuts, the expenditure cuts will be gradual over that period. The plan, as the Chancellor set out today, is for the economy to grow. That should generate more tax revenue. The difficulty, of course, is that we will have to raise taxation, as can be seen in the plans, to help balance the budget. I hope that that is more of a short term, rather than a medium to long term thing, because we need to build incentives back into the British economy.
Dame Anne Begg
Indeed, if the oil price goes up, the amount that the Chancellor gets will go up. These must at best be guesstimates. Therein lies the problem for the offshore industry. The North sea is a mature province, but there is still a lot of oil left. In fact, there are probably as many known oil reserves in the North sea today as there were in the 1970s, but they are much harder to reach and more challenging to get out of the ground. The one thing that the offshore oil and gas industry needs is stability—stability in what the Chancellor is going to do. The last time the tax revenues for the offshore industry were changed, by the last Labour Government, there was a slowdown in the industry for a good two years before it recovered. The industry complained about the unexpected nature of that change and the fact that it was not able to plan for it. This change comes into effect from 12 o’clock tonight, so it will come as a huge shock to the offshore sector that it will be affected.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend recognise, given her expertise on the oil industry, that investment in exploration is long term? In some of the fields that she is talking about, planning and investment can take up to 10 years. A fluctuating oil price will make such decisions very difficult. That will have a direct impact on Tyneside and Teesside, which are strongly supported by the supply industry for North sea oil.
Dame Anne Begg
I could not agree more. In fact, I believe that 200 constituencies have 50 jobs or more that are directly related to the supply chain of the offshore industry. The change will come as a big shock out of the blue, and I do not think people are prepared for it.
As my hon. Friend suggests, in its long-term planning, the offshore sector tends to use an oil price of between $50 and $60 a barrel. In other words, it projects a stable oil price in its forward planning. That is clearly not the real situation, because sometimes the price dips below that level and sometimes, as at the moment, it goes up to $100 a barrel. The fluctuation of the oil price makes the sector’s long-term planning difficult, and the Chancellor has added another factor that will fluctuate, making the situation even less stable. To call it a fair fuel stabiliser is a complete misnomer.
Dame Anne Begg
I advocated a universal or citizens pension as a Government Member for many years, but one strong argument against such a pension is that many people are very attached to the contributory principle. That came out in the original discussions, when the Government of the day decided to reduce the state pension qualifying years down to 30 for both men and women.
Part of the problem in this country is that we have no means other than NI contributions by which to determine who should qualify for a state pension, because we do not keep residency records, which is how the judgment is made in, for instance, New Zealand. The problem in this country is more complex than it may seem.
The state pension age is about to go up to 66 for men and women by 2020. This was meant to be a Budget for growth, but the very first thing the Chancellor spoke of was the downgrading of the growth figures. I am worried about where all the jobs will come from given the increased number of people in the workplace. The numbers in the work force are expected to increase because of the new work obligations on jobseeker’s allowance claimants; because lone parents will be expected to look for work when their youngest child is five; because 30% of incapacity benefit claimants will be assessed as fully fit for work and expected to go into the workplace; and because another 30% of such claimants will end up in the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance. Huge numbers of people are expected to go into the workplace. It is difficult to get figures on how many more people will be looking for work because the Department for Work and Pensions could not give them to us, but on top of those, the raising of the state pension age means that even more people will be looking for work.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Chancellor trumpeted the extension of support for mortgage interest, but has my hon. Friend seen page 42 of the Red Book, which says that that will continue for 2012-13, but decrease in 2013-14 to £15 million and then to zero in 2014-15?
Dame Anne Begg
I was going to talk about housing, but I could speak for another three hours if I go down that route, so if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall resist.
Will older people who have not reached state pension age be in work or not? At the moment, only 30% of men are still in work aged 65—not only because of early retirement and other things, but because people lose their jobs towards the end of their working lives—but they will be expected to work another year. Only 47% of women aged 60 are still in work, but they will be expected to work for another six years. Those people will not necessarily get anything under the universal credit, because they will probably have saved a nice little nest egg—a nest egg of just over £16,000—to see them through retirement. They will not get jobseeker’s allowance—or rather, they might get it for six months, but that is all they will get through the contributory principle. If they have fallen out of work because of ill health, the most that they might get is a year of employment and support allowance before then getting nothing. Those are big figures, and that is where a lot of the welfare reform savings in the Red Book will come from.
Indeed, it is perhaps worth alerting the House to the fact that the big savings in welfare reform do not come from getting “shirkers” back into work; they come from taking money from those who would normally have got contributory incapacity benefit, but will now get only contributory employment and support allowance for a year. That means that around £80 a week will come out of those people’s incomes. They will get nothing else if they live in a household with someone in work or with any other source of income, or if they have a small pension or savings of more £16,000. Therefore, there will be a new group of people struggling, and they will not be old-age pensioners; they will be pre-old-age pensioners, as it were. They are people who have fallen out of work, but not been able to work to 66 and get their state pension. They have been left with little—in fact, in some cases nothing—from the safety net that we think the welfare state is there to provide.
There is a lot more that I could say; indeed, I am sorry that I have spoken for longer than I intended. Over the coming days I will go through Red Book in a lot more detail than I have managed to today. However, from what I have seen already, there is a great deal for people to be concerned about in what the Chancellor has announced today.
Stephen Williams
My hon. Friend is of course referring to the derogation from the European Commission that has been applied for in order to ensure that the coalition Government’s Budget promise is deliverable under Community law, unlike the undeliverable measure to reduce VAT proposed by Labour.
Fuel duty is, however, a blunt instrument for taxing the motorist. I welcome the measures put forward today to stabilise the prices in between the oil companies and the consumer, but in the medium term, we must look for a much better way of developing a market mechanism for taxing the use of our roads.
A further issue of fairness relates to tax avoidance. Whether practised by large companies or by rich individuals, tax avoidance is an affront to fairness, when ordinary people around the country are going out to work, paying their taxes on time and making their contribution. It is an affront to them that some companies are using the tax system unfairly to avoid tax. Some rich people in society—including sportsmen whom people admire—are also using those schemes. It is therefore right that the Government should take further measures today to close down some of those avoidance schemes and introduce an increased levy on non-domiciled individuals.
Right across the age scale, from pensioners who will benefit from the triple lock, guaranteeing that their pension will go up each year, to children from the poorest families, whose schools will receive the pupil premium, this Government are delivering for all sectors of society. These are fair measures that meet the concerns of ordinary Britons, the people who, according to the term that my party leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, has recently injected into the political debate, wake up to alarm clock Britain. [Laughter.] I knew people would like that, but those are the ordinary families around the country whom all hon. Members represent, and we should not laugh. They are the people who get up and go out to work. They work hard, they want their children to do well and they want their parents to be secure in old age.
Another major element of the Budget, along with fairness, is the plan for growth in the green book that has been launched today. It is important that the plan should be regionally balanced. One of the unfortunate legacies of the last Labour Government was the overheated economy in London and the south-east of England, and the credit bubble which, as we know, eventually burst. We cannot allow that to happen again. This Government are determined that growth should be shared fairly right across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. That is why I particularly welcome the announcement today of 21 enterprise zones and I look forward tomorrow to hearing confirmation from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of where they will be based. I hope that one of them will be in the Greater Bristol local enterprise partnership.
Mr Kevan Jones
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the Red Book. If he looks at the figures for the local enterprise zones, he will see that they add up to about £900,000 for each one. That needs to be compared with the funding for the regional development agencies in the last year of the Labour Government, which was more than £2 billion.
Stephen Williams
We will have to wait and see the detail on the local enterprise zones. What we know from the detail we have had today is that there will be a year’s tax holiday from business rates for people locating in those zones. They will also be equipped with superfast broadband and, I am sure, other measures of support and advice. This issue is bound up with other announcements already made this week about the technology innovation centres and the Manufacturing Advisory Service. There is a whole package of measures that I suggest the hon. Gentleman looks at.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
It is an honour and privilege to follow any maiden speech, but it is particularly so in this case. I know I speak for the whole House when I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on a magnificent performance. He spoke with command, it was a measured speech and in every sense—whether it was the humorous side or the remarks he made about his predecessors—it was an absolute example of how an hon. Member should make a maiden speech. When I made my maiden speech at the end of 1983, it was an ordeal not only for me but for the House that had to listen to me.
The hon. Gentleman performed splendidly. I also held his predecessor in high regard as a parliamentarian and I much regret the way he left this House. Colleagues listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech will have come to the conclusion that he brings unique experience to this place that will greatly enrich our deliberations in the future. I certainly would not willingly jump out of an aeroplane, you would have to push me and that would be the end of it. I speak for the whole House—I do not think we get much Conservative support in Barnsley Central—when I wish him a long and successful career.
Turning to the Budget, there is no doubt that this has been the most difficult and gloomy time I have known for people in business—until today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his well-crafted and clever Budget, which will cheer up the country. It has already cheered up Government Members and, as colleagues will have observed from the general atmosphere among Opposition Members three or four hours ago, it has absolutely cheesed off the Opposition. I am getting sick to death with Members on the Conservative and, dare I say, Liberal Benches being castigated for the absolute mess that the country is in. One party alone is responsible for that—Labour. It is because of the Labour party that we are facing debt interest of £120 million a day and because of the Labour party that we have the biggest structural debt in the G7.
I want to share with colleagues who were elected last year what the past 13 years have been like. As hon. Members will know, the last Prime Minister was previously the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had the experience of listening to 10 of his Budgets, which he greatly enjoyed delivering. He used to come to the Dispatch Box and two thirds of the way through his speech he would wind Conservative Members up. Then he would make what he thought would be the headline-grabbing news item that would cheer everyone up. But then we would all go away and people would read the Red Book and within a few weeks we would find out that what he had told us was not in any sense accurate. So I congratulate the Chancellor on the new Red Book, because unlike the previous one it is not big enough to use as a doorstop, which is all that one was fit for.
Labour Members seem to think that Government Members relish making cuts.
Mr Amess
We do not, and I find it hypocritical that although Labour Members used to speak about cuts before the general election—I can only talk about those who were here before the election—we no longer hear about the cuts they were going to make. It is as though the Conservatives and Liberals rejoice in making cuts. If anyone wants to know why the country is in a mess, I can tell them it is because the Labour party took away regulation from the Bank of England and gave it to an organisation that was not fit for purpose. Also, as one of my colleagues said during Prime Minister’s questions, Labour stupidly sold off our gold reserves.
I will go further: in all his Budgets the then Chancellor of the Exchequer would make announcements about spending in terms not of millions but billions, and we in opposition used to wonder how it could be funded. We now know that it could not be funded and that we were spending money we never had. I will never forgive Tony Blair—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might huff and puff, but I am entitled to say this because it was Tony Blair who got me to vote for the war in Iraq and I will never forgive him for having told us a pack of lies at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Amess
I hope that Tony Blair will correct what I have said when he again gives evidence, but I blame him for the way he completely misled the country on any number of issues. Not the least part of his lasting legacy is the fact that he destroyed the House of Commons, because this is certainly not the place that I entered in 1983. I further blame the last Prime Minister, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer. New Labour Members come into the Chamber and castigate Government Members for what is going on; what on earth were they standing for in the general election campaign in May?
Mr Kevan Jones
Having listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I wish he was in an aeroplane so that we could push him out. He feels that he has been duped on Iraq and on spending, but why, then, did he and the leader of his party say right up to 2008, including in a speech by the leader of his party in July 2008 to the CBI conference, that the Conservatives would match the Labour Government’s spending?
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I would love to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), but instead I will restrict myself to saying that I agree with him entirely that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made a very good maiden speech indeed. It is certainly a pleasure to follow him, if not the hon. Member for Southend West. [Interruption.] The Economic Secretary to the Treasury says from a sedentary position that that is harsh. It is only a little harsh.
The Budget was billed as a Budget for growth, and by goodness, we need it, so let us test that. In his statement and in the Red Book the Chancellor gave us a great deal of information. Our national debt for 2010-11 was expected last year to be £932 billion. It is now forecast to be £909 billion for that year. It was expected to be £1.6 trillion next year, but it is coming in at £1.46 trillion. The deficit was expected to be £149 billion for last year. That seems to be coming in at £146 billion. But the figure for 2011-12 was forecast to be £116 billion and that is now up to £122 billion, if the numbers are to be believed. That tells us that the Chancellor may have had a little room for manoeuvre, but growth is essential if the figures are to remain on target and if we are to have any chance at all of protecting jobs and services.
I welcome the direction of travel on corporation tax but, because the Budget was so thin and fiscally neutral—the entire Budget barely shifted £10 million in total—it effectively confirms that the cuts, which were forecast last year at £99 billion and revised down to £81 billion in the comprehensive spending review, are still there. It confirms that £29 billion of tax rises announced last year are effectively still there. It confirms the swingeing benefit cuts of £11 billion announced last year and confirmed in the CSR. It also confirms the changes in some of the pension component, particularly the RPI-CPI switch, which will yield the Exchequer £1.2 billion this year, rising to nearly £6 billion in 2014-15.
On pensions, the Chancellor spoke about a single-tier pension. That is similar to the citizens pension concept that many of us support, but to deliver that with savings predicated on changing not just the state pension, but all public sector pensions, which are contracted and paid into, in some cases, for many, many years, cannot be right. He also said in relation to pensions that he would accept all the Hutton recommendations. It may well be that all of us have to save a little more a little longer for the pension that we expect at the end, but let the Government be in no doubt that a 3% hike in pension contributions now will put some of our constituents—indeed, many of our constituents—in serious financial difficulties in the short term. I hope that the implementation of that is carefully considered.
On PFI—the Labour party’s worst legacy—the figures are truly frightening. The value of the capital projects is some £56 billion. The cost of the outstanding repayment liability is £214 billion. The average repayment each year until 2047-48 will be £6 billion, and that will peak at more than £9 billion in 2017-18. The Chancellor said nothing about that, or about how we would replace the PFI system. Throughout his speech he spoke of encouraging private investment, and some of that is to be welcomed, but he said nothing about how we would replace PFI by means of public capital investment. We know how vital that is, given that the economic impact multiplier for capital expenditure is 1:1. It is the most significant thing we can invest in and, more dangerously, the worse possible thing we can cut.
The Chancellor had a great deal to say about oil, which is not surprising given that the forecast for 2011-12 shows that the North sea will generate an additional £4 billion. He is right to take immediate action because households and businesses are struggling. The price of a gallon of petrol in rural Scotland is routinely £6.50, and we know that in the past four or five weeks the price increase in diesel has added £1,000 to the annual cost of running a truck. That is unsustainable and inflationary. I welcome the 1p cut and the fact that the proposed increase has been stopped, but the Government said that they had introduced a stabiliser, and I have re-read his speech any number of times. The stabiliser seems to me to suggest that when the barrel price increases it is merely the escalator that is cancelled, leaving the indexed rise in place. I always understood that the stabiliser would reduce the duty level when the price rose so that we could temper out some of spikes in rising prices. By only including the escalator, we do not have a stabiliser at all and will still see many of the spikes that we have been trying to smooth out to bring some stability back into the economy, particularly in the haulage sector.
The Chancellor said surprisingly little about the banks, so I will go back to what he said in February. He announced that the banks would lend more, especially to small businesses, pay more taxes, bring responsibility and restraint to the sector, pay less in bonuses, be more transparent and make a greater contribution to the regional economy. That is all fine, but in order to thrive and grow companies need access to affordable and flexible funding, and they need it now. That remains a huge hurdle for many of our businesses.
The lack of new lending in particular is continuing to have an adverse impact on individual companies as well as on the economy as a whole. Business investment, as the Minister knows, will remain some 20% below pre-recession levels. Indeed, there was a 0.5% fall in gross fixed capital formation in the last quarter of 2010, which is extremely worrying, given that this is supposed to be a business growth and export-driven recovery.
All the evidence I have seen highlights the importance of expanding sustainable lending. Although we welcome the lending commitments agreed between the Government and the banks, it is important to ensure that they move quickly on the issue. I would have thought that the Chancellor had much more to say today about how the banking community would increase even gross lending to businesses across the country. Instead, although he did increase enterprise investment scheme limits to encourage private investment, which I welcome, he said nothing about bank lending. It is the retail banks on the high street that most of our small businesses depend upon for both capital and cash flow.
The two key issues of oil and access to finance are not just about economic recovery, but about fairness, as is alcohol duty, and there were a few changes on that today. However, the Government brought forward no measure whatsoever to tax alcoholic drinks by alcohol content. Whisky is still penalised and we still have the ludicrous situation where 4% beer is taxed more heavily than 7.5% cider, which does nothing to promote public health or address the wider social and economic consequences of excessive drinking. Picking up the tab for those costs is estimated to equate to a tax of some £3.5 billion in Scotland alone. I am surprised that the Chancellor did not use the Budget to take measures to deal with that problem.
There are also huge dangers in the Budget, as it confirms the cut to the Scottish budget and threatens recovery there. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the recent reduction in unemployment. The figures for March show that unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 16,000 and employment has risen by 8,000, the eighth consecutive reported rise in employment. That is all good news, and we have to drive it forward, but cutting the Scottish budget, particularly £800 million from the capital budget, will have a huge impact on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to drive forward many of the initiatives that were making a difference as we came out of the recession.
Given the economic backdrop, particularly the fourth quarter figures for the whole UK and the need to continue to support growth, the Scottish Government and, indeed, the UK Government need a Budget that supports clear, targeted resources. Given also that the Chancellor had some flexibility, I am surprised that he did not offer up a targeted measure to increase capital expenditure, because it has the most significant impact of any public spending.
What the Chancellor did talk about was enterprise zones, of course, and we certainly welcome those as a concept. They could be used in Moray, for example, given the closure of RAF Kinloss, but the Budget offered little detail beyond suggesting some business rate reductions and streamlined planning measures, both of which the Chancellor rightly said are devolved. For enterprise zones to work properly, they should revert to the old form, which included the significant use of capital resources, but, given that there is only £80 million in four years’ time, or £4 million per site, much of which I suspect will be used to offset business rates for local authorities, it strikes me as inconceivable that the Government have planned and prepared for the significant use of capital allowances to deliver their potential.
Mr Kevan Jones
The amount is actually less than that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because, although page 42 of the Red Book cites £80 million in year four, over the period, if we spread the amount across the 21 proposed enterprise zones, we find that it works out at less than £1 million per zone.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
It is an honour to follow in the slipstream of the new Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has executed an elegant parachute jump into the Chamber. His forceful and powerful speech was a reminder of how important it is, at a time when the country is making ever greater demands on its armed forces, that we hear the voices of our servicemen and women from all parts of the Chamber.
Thus far we have touched several times on the critical role that the bond markets are playing in framing the budgetary policy of this coalition Government. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked when it was that bond markets acquired this pivotal role in our national economic policy making. If I may venture an answer, I think that the views of rating agencies became impossible to ignore when towards the middle of the previous decade—before the onset of the financial crisis—the British Government
“lost control of public spending”
in three key Government Departments: Health, Education and Defence. Those are not my words or views but those of Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the permanent secretary of Her Majesty’s Treasury, as expressed in a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee not so long ago; they are available in the Committee report if people wish to have a look.
It is also important for the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to realise that we live in a globalised financial market, and if one cannot fund one’s borrowing requirements from captive domestic sources, inevitably one is forced upon the mercies of the international capital markets, and that is exactly where we find ourselves today.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the Conservatives are peddling the line that we are in hock to foreign banks, but does the hon. Gentleman not realise that only about 35% of our gilts and debts are held abroad? Greece is always held up as the big pariah, and its figure is nearly 70%. The hon. Gentleman’s argument is frankly complete nonsense.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that elegantly expressed critique. It is a significant proportion of our borrowing. It is not the totality, and I never said that it was. However, if our marginal investor, whom we need to supply that additional pound of borrowing, is setting the price for our borrowing, that determines the rate at which we finance ourselves. It is as simple as that. That is straightforward marginal pricing through supply and demand.
Joseph Johnson
No, I will carry on for a little.
In my view, it is only thanks to the resolve and determination of this Government that we have sufficient credibility with the bond markets to have delivered a Budget for growth. The Budget includes an acceleration of the plans to cut corporation tax, which will give a much-needed boost to Britain’s international competitiveness. I am particularly pleased by that because at a time when countries need to compete ever more aggressively to attract highly skilled labour, the UK is increasingly being seen not just as a high-tax economy, but as one with a highly complex and unwieldy tax system. The World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness report for 2011 ranked the UK tax regime the 95th most competitive out of 135 countries—almost at the bottom of the world rankings. That sends out a terrible signal to global business.
The UK tax regime was once viewed as an asset and I am glad that the Government are proceeding with plans to make it an asset once again. I fully support the Chancellor’s plans to give Britain the most competitive business tax regime of any major western economy, and to reverse our slide down the global competitiveness rankings. Already, the coalition Government have reversed planned increases in payroll taxes and lowered small business rates. As we heard from the Chancellor this afternoon, they will accelerate reductions in corporation tax so that by 2014, the rate falls to 23%—the lowest ever rate in this country and the lowest in the G7. That is something that we should celebrate if we are serious about enterprise and entrepreneurialism in this country.
I also welcome the Chancellor’s decision to analyse closely whether the top rate of tax is yield positive or negative for the British economy. It is worth considering whether it is deterring investment, thereby losing us more revenue than it is bringing in. A more competitive, simpler and more stable tax regime is an essential precondition for growth and will ultimately be better for everybody in this country, rich and poor alike.
When countries that had public finances in a comparable state to ours last May are still fighting off the terrible spectre of sovereign debt default, it would be terrible folly to slow the pace of what is widely regarded as a necessary fiscal consolidation. Our policies are under intense scrutiny by the international bond markets, to which we are paying £120 million in interest daily. We cannot afford for our borrowing costs to rise, as they have elsewhere. We are paying 3.6% in the gilt markets on our staggering public debt. Other countries are paying rates closer to 8% or 9%, and Greece is paying a staggering 12.6%. We simply cannot afford to be complacent, as the Governor of the Bank of England made clear in a recent hearing of the Treasury Committee, at which he stated firmly that UK gilt rates would rise by three percentage points if we backtracked from the course of fiscal consolidation that we have outlined.
Mr Jones
I wish the hon. Gentleman would do some homework before he makes accusations, and not just swallow the central office lines on such things. He does not tell the House that less than 20% of our debt needs to be repaid in the next three years, whereas Greece and other countries need to repay 36% or 37% of their debt in the next three years. The idea that we have an instant crisis is wrong. Can he tell me when a UK Government have ever defaulted on a gilt payment?
Joseph Johnson
There are problems when a country has a stock of debt as massive as ours. Even with the Government’s plans for fiscal consolidation, it will not start declining for some years to come. Under the Labour Government our stock of debt would have peaked at about 80% of gross domestic product, but under the current Government’s plans it will peak somewhere below 70%—69%, I think I recall. [Hon. Members: “71%.”] Either 69% or 71%. Such a massive stock of debt means that every year, we have to refinance several hundred billion pounds of Government debt. Even if it is not all the debt, that is still a very substantial amount of money.
Joseph Johnson
That is an excellent point.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said earlier, Portugal’s position is particularly precarious at the moment because opposition parties there, much like here, have refused to back the austerity measures needed to help the country avoid a bail-out. That could force Portugal further down the international bail-out route that was first trodden by Greece last spring and then by Ireland at the end of last year. Portugal’s 10-year Government bond yields rose comfortably above 8% yesterday, for the first time since the start of the crisis, reflecting plunging market confidence in the resolve of that country’s political class. That cannot be said of the occupants of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman uses Greece, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes a very good point: we must look at countries individually. Our economy is larger than Portugal’s or Greece’s and completely different in other ways. In addition, countries such as those have a tradition of being unable to implement fiscal reductions, unlike ours. The basic, simple point is this: £5,000 is a lot to owe for someone earning £10,000, but it is a completely different thing for the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) or other such people to owe that much.
Richard Harrington
The hon. Lady and I were at university at broadly the same time, so we were very privileged. We could debate tuition fees for hours, but no matter what one’s arguments on that, the new regime has not changed the current situation and we are, thus, dealing with Labour’s policy on tuition fees at the moment. I would be happy to debate tuition fees with her on another occasion, but the real issue is that we have young people and older people who are unemployed, and we have vacancies in jobs that people will not go into. The Government’s efforts on work experience for young people—today’s announcement on that was tremendous—and on expanding the apprenticeships scheme are very important, as are the technical universities. I commend those efforts because we must have a work force who have the right skills. That is not solely about graduates; it is also about people who are leaving school and are doing apprenticeships and further education courses. What the Government are doing to help will change the availability of staff.
Richard Harrington
No, I must make progress.
I normally agree with everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is not in his place, and one might think that, as a Conservative Member, I would have an overwhelming interest in bureaucracy, labour laws, red tape and obstacles to business and that dealing with those things would be my top priority. However, important though they are, I think that they are secondary to the macro-economic factors—they are secondary to stability and the feeling of confidence. Germany is a classic example of that, because despite its labour laws and the fact that it has lots of regulation, manufacturing industry works well there. So I am very pleased that we are concentrating on the other issues.
I am keeping in mind your earlier comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I just wish to remind hon. Members that Watford is an average kind of constituency and so has 3,000 businesses, with eight being roughly the average number of people employed in them—these are predominantly small businesses. I believe that this Budget will help the long-term confidence for them, despite short-term growth forecasts, and so it is a Budget very much for the small business. It is also a Budget for the larger business, given the corporation tax measures. However, more importantly, it is a Budget for ordinary people and for their prospects. I believe that it is the best Budget that we could have, given the mess that the Government were left.
Rachel Reeves
We would like to vote, for example, on the bank bonus levy and other components of the Budget. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) set out today that we will consider areas of growth in “The Plan for Growth” green book. There are areas where we want to work with the Government but also areas where we disagree with what they are doing.
Given the warnings I have mentioned, it is hardly surprising that the independent OBR has today downgraded its growth forecast for 2011 to 1.7% and has revised growth for next year to 2.5%. Let us put that in context. Before the Chancellor’s first Budget last year, the OBR predicted growth in 2011 of 2.6%. That forecast has now been downgraded three times—to 2.3%, 2.1% and today to 1.7%. Every time the Chancellor gets to the Dispatch Box, the OBR has to downgrade its growth forecasts.
The Government will say that the only way to get growth back on track is to reduce the deficit, but we have also seen today that the OBR’s borrowing forecast is expected to be £44.5 billion higher over this Parliament as a result of lower growth and higher unemployment. Despite today’s opportunity to think again, however, the Chancellor will still not accept that plan A is not going to plan.
Although the Chancellor has no plan for growth, his implicit plan B, I think, was looser monetary policy, yet today’s Monetary Policy Committee minutes show a further split over whether to increase rates and yesterday’s inflation data show more pressure for a rate rise. Plan B is looking as forlorn as plan A, with householders likely to see a mortgage rate rise by the summer.
We have heard many times today that the Government cannot change course, but that is a fallacy. Jonathan Portes, the new director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, recently said that that intransigence
“relies on an odd view of market psychology, one that says markets have more confidence in governments that never adjust policy, even when it is sensible…history suggests the opposite: that the real hit to credibility comes from sticking to unsustainable policies”.
He is right. Now is the time—more than ever—for the Government to rethink their plan, which is sapping jobs and growth out of the economy.
We need to begin to build the Britain of the future, because confidence in UK plc requires a belief that we have a competitive economy that productively employs its resources, draws on our strengths across the sectors and regions and invests in science, skills, technology and infrastructure. Today’s Budget, however, does nothing to foster investment or hope. Although I welcome “The Plan for Growth”, which has been published today, and the announcements to relieve us of a further increase in fuel prices and to provide help for first-time buyers, the Chancellor could and should have done more.
Most of all, although the Chancellor has said repeatedly that he will be tough on the banks, page 103 of the Red Book shows that the bank bonus tax brought in £3.5 billion in 2010 whereas the bank levy will bring in just £1.9 billion this year. There is no guarantee that the banks will lend any more to small businesses because the Government agreed gross lending targets and no net lending targets. No wonder the Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, Lord Oakeshott, resigned, saying that if this was tough action, his name was Bob Diamond. The Government have washed their hands of any responsibility to help small businesses, which are being hit hard by the banks’ actions.
There are other areas where the Chancellor could have acted today. We need a plan for green jobs and there is still the potential for Britain to be a world leader, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out earlier, in the green technologies of the future, but the market requires certainty and we are losing the initiative to countries that are willing to provide it. We need action, not just words, on the green investment bank, yet today we found out that it will not be fully operational until 2015.
We need regional economic strategies. The regional growth fund is estimated to be 10 times over-subscribed, and with a two-thirds cut to regional economic investment, cities and towns across Britain are missing out on opportunities to grow and diversify their economies. We risk another overheating in London and the south-east while the potential powerhouses of the north of England are being left behind. Although I welcome the enterprise zones, the evidence from the 1980s shows that such approaches move, rather than create, jobs. Of course, the funding for enterprise zones is a fraction of what the regional development agencies had to spend.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that because the enterprise zones are being imposed on regions, unlike in London where the Mayor will decide where they are, entire areas of the north-east such as Northumberland and Durham will be completely excluded from them and the little help they will bring?
Rachel Reeves
I do agree. Of course, only half the plans were announced today, which was disappointing.
We need an approach to business taxation that fosters growth. Although the Government have trumpeted the cut in corporation tax, it has so far been funded at the expense of investment and manufacturing allowances, so while big businesses have benefited from a tax cut, start-up and investment-intensive firms have seen their taxes rise. If we are to create the jobs of the future, we need today’s entrepreneurs to innovate and that is where the limited funds should be targeted.
We also need greater investment in skills and education. Last year, 8 million people graduated from universities in China and India. No other country is cutting investment in universities, reducing the teaching grant by 80% and cancelling partnerships between business and universities, but that is what the Government are doing.
Last week, we heard that the youth unemployment figure is approaching 1 million and it beggars belief that the future jobs fund is closing its doors in the same month that youth unemployment has risen yet again. One in five young people—more in my constituency—now claims unemployment benefit. Today’s unemployment figures are likely to rise further and today’s Budget is bad news for young people up and down the country.
The public recognise the need for austerity, but they also want to know that the Government have learnt lessons from the crisis and are determined to build a fairer and more sustainable economic future. Britain could be a world leader in the jobs, technologies and industries of the future but only if the Government support growth. Today was the Chancellor’s opportunity to show that he understands the needs of businesses and families, but the OBR’s verdict was to downgrade growth for the third time in 2011 and for next year as well. The Government have ignored the wake-up calls. This Budget is a missed opportunity and I urge the Chancellor and his colleagues to think again about what is really needed to ensure that we emerge from this recession with a stronger, fairer economy for everyone in the country.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I was going to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but we have heard a succession of speeches from Government Members that were not only economically illiterate, but stuck to the rhetoric pumped out during the general election. They seem unable to get away from that rhetoric even when the reality of what this country is facing hits them. We heard a rant from the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and, frankly, a very strange speech from the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who clearly had read something about the gilt market but did not quite understand how it works.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on an excellent maiden speech. I think he will be a great asset to the House. He is a man of great courage in both his private and personal life and in the service of this country. I look forward to many more contributions of the standard he gave today.
I would like to focus on two issues: the lack of a policy for growth in the Budget and how that will not affect positively the economy of the north-east of England. Growth figures for the last quarter of 2010 show that the economy contracted by 0.6%, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). The Government blamed snow for that, but she eloquently pointed out some great examples of economies that grew despite having weather that was far worse than it was in this country.
On top of that, last week we saw a 17-year high in unemployment, set against a continuing fall in house prices and an increase in inflation to 4.4%. It would not take an astrologer, as was mentioned earlier, or a genius to work out that the OBR was going to have to downgrade its growth forecast today. Initially, it said that growth would be 2.6%; then, that it would be 2.1%; and today, that it will be 1.7%. The lack of growth is the main risk to our economy, and let us be honest, the Budget was spun so much that we could have read or predicted most of it before the Chancellor even stood up at the Dispatch Box today to announce it.
The Government also say that the key thing they have to do is to reduce borrowing, but borrowing is now going up, so even by their standards the economic pill is clearly not working. What is happening now is both risky and dangerous to the UK economy, and, although history cannot be repeated precisely, we need to look back, because one of the key lessons we have learned from the 1920s and ’30s is that recovery from large financial crises is delicate, slow and stuttering. Now, as a precise result of this Government’s policies since May, growth is down and unemployment, borrowing and inflation are up.
Rachel Reeves
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, who says:
“Unless advanced countries can count on stronger private demand, both domestic and foreign, they will find it difficult to achieve fiscal consolidation”?
Mr Jones
Yes. That is the entire flaw in the Government’s policy: the idea that they can cut public expenditure as deeply and savagely as they are going to, and that somehow jobs will be created in the private sector—something that will just not happen. It might happen in parts of the economy, but there is certainly no indication that it will happen in my region. In fact, the situation is even worse, because Durham university’s model shows that taking out 20% of the public services will lead to 50,000 jobs going in the north-east, with 20,000 of them actually in the private sector. Replacing those jobs, in addition to the 30,000 in the public sector, is going to be very difficult.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the growth figures are wrong, the impact will be magnified and multiplied the further one moves away from the south-east of England? The impact on regions of the United Kingdom will be much more severe if the Chancellor has got it wrong.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but do the Conservatives care? No, I do not think they do. We saw that in the 1980s and early 1990s in the north-east of England. His constituents will face similar problems to constituents in the north-east, given the contraction of public sector jobs, which will have a direct impact on the private sector. Trying to attract business and growth to those areas will be very difficult, and I fear that we could have a two-speed Britain: a reasonably prosperous south-east of England, but stagnant or even declining regions, such as the north-east and Northern Ireland. Does the Conservative party care about that? No, I do not think it does.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
How does the hon. Gentleman deal with the fact that, even with Labour’s slower rate of deficit reduction, he could not have avoided a significant decrease in the number of public sector jobs to meet his party’s own projections of how it would reduce the deficit?
Mr Jones
I find that hard to stomach, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because he is giving succour to the proposals before us, which could damage the north-east economy more severely than even those in Thatcher’s day. He is looking both ways, as a Liberal saying one thing in the region, and then coming here and supporting and voting for a Conservative Government who are putting the proposals forward. [Interruption.] I will tell him exactly why. What we would not have done is put forward his and his party’s ludicrous proposal to abolish the regional development agency, One North East.
The right hon. Gentleman now has to defend his ludicrous policy on local enterprise partnerships, which I shall come to later. He struggled to get re-elected this time; I doubt whether the voters of Berwick will re-elect him if he stands next time. It is important to remember that none of this could have happened without the Liberal Democrats blindly going along and supporting those savage cuts, which will have a terrible effect on a region I know he actually cares deeply about.
Another major aspect of the current economic situation is inflation. The Bank of England is stuck between a rock and hard place. Interest rates are as low as they can go, and quantitative easing is continuing, yet the inflation target is way above where it should be. It is difficult to know what the Bank will do.
We continue to hear, as we have heard several times this afternoon, that there is no alternative to this approach. I am sorry, but there is a definite alternative. We also hear that the fact that we are in this mess is all down to a Labour Government—that only Britain went through the recession in 2008, while the rest of the world did not, and that we got into the position we did only because of Labour’s reckless spending and financial management. I want to put some facts on the record. Conservative Members use a lot of rhetoric and soundbites; the famous one from the Prime Minister was that Labour did not mend the roof while the sun was shining. In fact, we did, because when we came to power in 1997, the level of debt was nearly 50% and we reduced it. I remember the tremendous debate within my party when we sold off the 3G licences. People said that we should use that money to fund public expenditure, but the then Chancellor took the very good decision to drive down the level of debt. That left us, going into the economic downturn, in the strong position of having the lowest debt, unemployment and inflation in the G7, and the highest investment from overseas.
Was it right to transform and invest in our public services over those 13 years? Yes, it was. They have been transformed in many parts of this country, certainly in my constituency. When I was first elected in 2001, the hospital in Chester-le-Street was in the old workhouse. We now have a brand-new hospital in Chester-le-street, as well as three others in the area. We have six or seven new primary care centres in County Durham. That is a direct result of public investment. When the economic crisis hit, did we have to respond to that by borrowing? Yes, we did. Was it the right thing to do? Yes, it was.
At the time of the crisis at Northern Rock, if we had followed what the Conservatives, including the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, wanted to do, which was basically to let it fold, we would have had a far worse situation, with a banking crisis that would have devastated not only Northern Rock but every other bank. The then Chancellor put in place a package to support banks, subsidise mortgages, cut VAT, fund apprenticeships, and give people money to buy new cars and stimulate the economy—and it worked. If people want to look for the evidence for that, there is the growth of the economy in the months prior to, and just after, the general election.
Contrast that with what we have now—a Government who do not have a growth strategy and are wedded to a strategy that they feel it would be politically weak to go away from, repeating time and again that there is no alternative. I ask Conservative Members to reflect on what they would have done at that time. Last weekend, the Chancellor said that we were in this financial state because of a decade of over-expenditure by the Labour party. Well, the Conservatives supported our spending targets right up until 2008, so they cannot have it both ways. I ask them to look at the facts rather than what central office spun during the election campaign, which, unfortunately, some of them are continuing to repeat.
Sajid Javid
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that one should look at the facts. Is he aware that the spending cuts over this parliamentary period are only 3.7%—0.9% a year—in real terms, which is lower than the spending cuts that were implemented by Denis Healey, a former Chancellor? On that basis, would he still describe them as swingeing, drastic or tough cuts?
Mr Jones
I am sorry, but yes I would. If hon. Members are going to make comparisons, they should compare like with like. Whoever writes the central office briefings does one thing all the time. They compare our economy with that of Greece or, as the hon. Gentleman just did, they compare the British economy today with that of the 1970s. That is complete nonsense.
The central point—some Liberal Democrats are starting to wake up to this, including the Deputy Prime Minister—is that although there is a need and a desire to reduce the deficit, there is also an ideological drive to have a smaller state and to put into practice the ideological prejudices that the Conservatives have yearned to implement for many years. The people of this country will suffer from that. Is there an alternative? Yes, there certainly is.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
This trip down memory lane is very interesting, but, if he does not support the expenditure cuts, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much more he thinks we as a nation should be borrowing?
Mr Jones
Something that the central office spin machine does very well, and which Thatcher did, is somehow to compare the national economy to somebody’s personal expenditure. Can we afford to borrow at the moment? Yes, we can. Borrowing to invest in infrastructure and other things is the right thing to do, and is exactly what we were doing in government. We are increasingly borrowing not to invest in the economy and infrastructure and to add to the country’s economic power, but to support unemployment. That is exactly what the Major Government found in their dying days.
It is important to recognise that unemployment in the north-east has reached 10.2%, and that is before the real effects of the public expenditure cuts work their way through. The idea of economic zones or business development zones, or whatever they are called, was announced in the Budget, along with the local enterprise partnerships. One North East was very successful in regenerating the north-east economy. It actually moved the economy away from the public sector and grew the private sector. It had real money. It had £180 million a year, and worked with the local university sector and local authorities to spend European regional development funding. The LEPs have no money attached and the regional growth fund has £1.4 billion to be competed for around the country. Today, we have the enterprise zones.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Government have said that they want enterprise zones to support real growth and long-term sustainability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the announcement of an enterprise zone for Tyneside means little for growth or sustainability when the Transport Secretary has said that he will not provide funding for the much-needed upgrade of the A19 Silverlink interchange, which businesses have told politicians is essential for the economic development of Tyneside and the wider region?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The interventions are becoming very long. I have said that we are under real time constraints, as Mr Jones knows as well.
Mr Jones
I do know that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is important to get these things on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) makes a good point. The two enterprise zones for the north-east will be in Tyneside and the Tees valley. That important piece of infrastructure is somehow supposed to be funded by the private sector, but that is exactly the kind of public expenditure that should be going into the region to create jobs and regenerate infrastructure. My concern about the enterprise zones is that places such as Durham and Northumberland have been left out. If we look back at the old enterprise zones, we see that all we got from them was a shovelling around of businesses and artificial borders. The zones will make it very difficult to attract inward investment to Durham and Northumberland.
As has been said, page 42 of the Red Book shows that funding for the 22 enterprise zones will add up to about £1 million each over their lifetime, which will not in any way help the regeneration of either Tyneside or Teesside. We will have the talking shops of the local enterprise partnerships, but no real money to do anything. The disastrous situation at the moment is that we have £106 million of European regional development fund but no money for One North East, local authorities or universities to match fund projects. The Government’s regional strategy is in a complete and utter mess, and the Budget will do nothing to assist.
One issue that has already been raised is—
Mr Jones
If the hon. Gentleman continues, I might go on for a bit longer, so he must be clever and not do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, it has been billed that the Government have somehow saved the motorist by reducing tax by 1p, but the effects of paying for that will be disastrous for the oil industry in this country, including Scotland. They will be disastrous for the north-east, as it relies heavily on Teesside and Tyneside to supply the expanding gas and oil fields, which need long-term investment. It is completely and utterly irresponsible to throw a spanner into the works of the investment in developing some of the most difficult oil and gas fields in the North sea.
Dame Anne Begg
Does my hon. Friend agree that the danger of today’s proposals is that they might fatally undermine the whole North sea offshore sector, which is fragile anyway because the geology makes it difficult to get the oil out? As a result, the country may lose even more money, because the sector is a huge taxpayer. As my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), said, 20% of all corporation tax is paid by the industry. What is being done today could put that in jeopardy.
Mr Jones
I agree, and there will also be a direct impact on jobs in oil exploration and in the booming oil supply business in Tyneside and Teesside. The short-term measure to try to get the Government out of a political fix on petrol prices will cause deep and long-term damage to jobs in the north-east and in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
The first-time buyer scheme, which the Red Book states will cost £250 million for just one year, will not help the north-east in any great way, because it will clearly be concentrated where a large number of houses are being built—the south-east and other areas. Because the Government have removed housing targets and affected social landlords’ ability to build new houses through the ham-fisted way in which they have structured the financing of social house building, I doubt whether there will be much effect on the north-east.
I also note that none of the £200 million additional investment in regional railways will go further than Leeds. Investment schemes for railways in the north-east—I have been calling for extra capacity for people to commute into Tyneside from Chester-le-Street and other places—will clearly not be forthcoming.
Finally, I wish to mention armed forces pay. The Chancellor said that there would be a £250 uplift for those in the armed forces earning less than £21,000. I remind the House that that is from the same Government who have frozen armed forces pay for the next two years. In addition, they have changed the calculation from RPI to CPI, which will cost many thousands of servicemen and women huge sums of money over the coming years. The Government should not be proud of that. I get rather annoyed because if the previous Government had done that, when I was a Defence Minister, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would have howled us down and called us a disgrace.
Is this a Budget for growth? No, it is not. Will it help the north-east of England? No, it will not. Under the confused regional policy that is proposed, which is supported by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the north-east, we will find that as the country’s economy declines and contracts, regions such as ours will go from the very bad position that they are in now to an even worse one.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I shall try to honour the time constraints that you have imposed Mr Deputy Speaker.
Today the United Kingdom has the highest inflation since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The RPI stands at 5.5% and the CPI at 4.4%. Today the United Kingdom has seen the Chancellor announce a lowering of the growth forecast from the 2.6% predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility last year and the 2.3% in the last Budget to 1.7% today. Today the United Kingdom has the highest unemployment since 1984, when John Major had just taken over from Margaret Thatcher. This is not a Budget for growth into the future. It is a Budget that will take us back to the future of Margaret Thatcher and John Major.
Inflation at 5.5% has a devastating impact on families in the UK, as £1 in every £20 that they earn is now lost. For example, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave up an enormous 24% of her departmental budget to the Treasury over this spending period, but inflation has now turned that into a real-terms cut of 31%. Have Treasury Ministers commissioned, or do they intend to commission, any research into the capacity of Departments to deliver on their performance indicators, given the effects of rising inflation on the departmental spending cuts that have already been incurred?
It is risible that this Budget has been delivered by a Government who style themselves the greenest ever. The establishment of the green investment bank has been delayed until 2012, and it is still unclear whether it can fully function as a bank or whether it will simply be a glorified fund. The carbon reduction commitment has already outraged the CBI and British business. Instead of rewarding energy-efficient businesses and returning £1 billion to business, as the Labour Government proposed when we introduced the scheme, the Treasury has shifted the goalposts and taken all of the money to itself. I had thought that the implementation of the scheme had been delayed until 2012-13, and that was certainly what was announced to business, but I see from measure O in table 2.2 on page 44 of the Red Book that the Government are now forecasting £715 million of revenue to the Treasury in 2011-12 from that scheme that only goes live in 2012-13. I ask Treasury Ministers to reconcile that anomaly.
The carbon floor price appears on the face of it to be a positive green measure, but in fact it betrays the lack of coherence in Government thinking on this area. The Government’s electricity market reform recognises the need to incentivise 18 GWe of new generation capacity in the UK by 2024. That is the equivalent of £200 billion of investment between now and 2020. As Ministers know, much of this generation capacity will come from gas. At a stroke, the Government have pushed away the very investors they sought to attract. They are now likely to encourage more imports and external dependency. Why should European generators generate in the UK when they can generate abroad with no such tax upon them, and then benefit from higher UK prices by use of the interconnectors? One element of the Government’s energy market reform strategy has been to increase the use of interconnectors. As a result of this step, investment will be pushed into France, Belgium and the Netherlands. There is incoherence at the heart of the Government’s thinking on this matter.
I did not support the Government in the Lobby on Monday night in the vote on military action in Libya. I pay tribute to our armed services, and to their valour and the work they do, but I cannot support the cost of the military escapade taking place in Libya, and I look to what could have been achieved if the funds being expended there were instead being expended around the rest of our country.
Barry Gardiner
No, I will not.
One Tomahawk missile costs £350,000, and 140 of them were launched in the first 48 hours of the attack, which amounts to a cost of £50 million. It is estimated that the cost of prosecuting this military conflict is £6 million each day. The cost of one day of action in Libya could restore in its entirety the £2.25 million of cuts in children’s services forced on my community in Brent by this Liberal-Conservative coalition Government. One month in Libya could protect children’s services across the whole of London. Nine months in Libya could protect children’s services across the entire UK. Aneurin Bevan once said that priorities is the language of socialism. Those are my priorities and that is why I will oppose this Budget.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth of the spending reductions set out in the June 2010 Budget.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
16. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on economic growth of the spending reductions set out in the June 2010 Budget.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s November economic and fiscal outlook takes into account the spending plans set out in the 2010 spending review. The hon. Gentlemen ask about a recent assessment, and I can tell them that the OBR will publish an updated forecast alongside tomorrow’s Budget.
Mr Jones
Durham university’s economic model shows that between 45,000 and 50,000 individuals will lose their jobs in the north-east of England as a direct result of public expenditure cuts, including 20,000 in the private sector. What message does the Minister have for those individuals and also for the 10.2% of the north-east population who find themselves unemployed?
Justine Greening
Coming from a Labour Member, given that unemployment rose during his party’s time in government, people will find that pretty hypocritical. The only way in which we will get sustainable jobs and a sustainable economy that is not as reliant on the public sector will be to carry out our deficit reduction plan. The hon. Gentleman will hear more about our growth review tomorrow.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend alerted me to the fact that he might ask this question. The House will understand that it is too early to give a robust estimate of the costs of the operations in Libya, but I can say that they should be modest compared with some other operations, such as Afghanistan. The MOD’s initial view is that they will be in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions. I can tell the House today that whatever they turn out to be, the additional costs of operations in Libya will be fully met from the reserve.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
T9. The Chancellor said on Sunday that the present financial difficulties were the result of “a decade of overspending”, so can he tell the House why in July 2008, 11 years into a Labour Government, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, told the CBI conference“we are sticking to Labour’s spending totals”?
Mr Osborne
What we did on coming into office was set out a credible plan to reduce the budget deficit that has moved this country out of the financial danger zone. One month ago, the shadow Chancellor told his entire Front-Bench team not to make any spending commitments, and after that they committed to more than £10 billion of spending commitments. They have opposed £50 billion of the cuts. It is completely incredible, and that is why they cannot find any reputable organisation in the world to agree with them.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NHS will incur another huge cost—a cost that will not go towards improving patient care—owing to the announced reorganisation of the NHS? For example, with the abolition of the primary care trust in my constituency, most of the money will go on redundancy and organisational costs, which will be another burden and, basically, a cut in the NHS budget.
John Healey
It is an extraordinary state of affairs that a series of serious and significant pledges, set out formally in the coalition agreement in May, should have been broken in the White Paper produced by the Health Secretary in July. My hon. Friend is right: the one thing that the Government promised not to do in the coalition agreement was to go ahead with a top-down internal reorganisation, but that is exactly what is now planned. It could cost up to £3 billion. It is high risk and high cost; it is exactly the wrong thing to do at this stage, when the NHS is facing such tight financial pressures. I also have to say to the Minister that his colleagues are already showing signs of strain.
I am anxious to return to the amendment that the House is discussing. The House will notice that it refers to the National Audit Office, which is an independent, authoritative body. The Minister will appreciate the assessments, analyses and authoritative views of independent bodies. He and his colleagues set up the Office for Budget Responsibility. Its independence has—shall we say?—been put on perhaps a slightly more questionable footing than that of the NAO, but it is nevertheless an important organisation. Indeed, the problems of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were compounded when their Office for Budget Responsibility updated the economic forecast and the fiscal numbers in November. One of the significant changes in its independent, authoritative assessment of this country’s economic prospects was to its forecast for inflation, thereby changing the deflator—in other words, the amount by which the Government and everyone else anticipate that costs in general, and Government spending in particular, will rise. Instead of a GDP deflator for 2011-12 of 1.9%, as set out in the OBR’s June report, its updated economic forecasts in November gave a deflator of 2.5%.
In other words, even before we take into account the double-counting of funding for both the NHS and social care, we have, instead of the wafer-thin rise of 0.1% for England that the Chancellor promised, a much heavier cut, of 0.5%. That has been confirmed by the Library, and by independent, authoritative bodies in the health field and the Select Committee on Health, which said in its report into public expenditure on 14 December that
“the Government’s commitment to a real terms increase in health funding throughout the Spending Review period will not be met.”
So the Government are breaking their promises to protect NHS funding in England, Scotland and Wales. Next year, Scotland is now being short-changed in NHS funding by £70 million, while Wales is being short-changed by £40 million. In total next year, there will be a shortfall from the promise made by the Government to the British people in their coalition agreement of more than £1.3 billion—not a rise in NHS funding next year, but a cut. On 20 October, the Chancellor promised to increase health spending over and above inflation. That promise is being broken by £1.3 billion.
Our amendments today, including amendment 8, are intended to be helpful, as I said to the Minister. They are intended to demonstrate how the Government can deal with the problem, if they have the will to keep their promises on funding for the NHS. We endeavour to act as a responsible Opposition, as our leader promised we would. The amendment is therefore designed to show helpful ways in which the Government can use this legislation to keep good both the Chancellor’s word and the Government’s promise to protect NHS funding, and thereby to see a real increase each year in this Parliament, and not, as at present, to deliver a real-terms cut.
The amendment suggests having an independent assessment and a report carried out by the National Audit Office. The independence is important: it is designed to try to give the public more confidence in what the Government are doing; to give this House more confidence in what they are doing; and to give everyone more confidence that what was a central promise from the Government and a personal promise from the Prime Minister is in fact being met.
This subject came up at the last Prime Minister’s Questions before Christmas, and it was interesting to note that the Prime Minister told the House:
“I am confident that we will fulfil our goal of real-terms increases every year in the NHS.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 502, c. 902.]
That will not happen next year. The Exchequer Secretary is a talented Minister and he has an opportunity to give his big boss, the Prime Minister, the confidence that he clearly wishes to see by accepting the amendment and allowing the NAO to do an independent report, demonstrating the extent of the shortfall and the extent to which the Government are breaking their promise fully to fund the NHS. By doing so, he would do the House and perhaps even himself a favour.
Finance Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure will also have an effect on the wider economy? For example, Newcastle airport in the north-east is a huge economic driver, and East Midlands airport, near my hon. Friend’s constituency, is a huge employer. The measure could have an impact on the business of those two airports—and many others.
Chris Leslie
There will be consequences if, because of the extra cost of a family holiday, our constituents are disincentivised from going abroad or travelling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s imposition of a holiday tax is something that I hope many travel pages in the Sunday newspapers and supplements will focus on, perhaps by modelling the costs for a typical family. About £400 million of travel insurance business is carried out in this country each year, and that accounts for a significant part of not only the insurance industry, but the economy more generally.
Mr Gauke
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the increase in insurance premium tax, which is payable by insurers, is likely to be passed on to consumers. We are not denying that; in simple terms, we need the money.
Even if the increases to the standard and higher rates of IPT are passed on in full, the impacts will be very modest, costing households less than 20p a week on average and businesses an average of less than 0.01% of annual turnover, even for smaller businesses.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has renewed his car insurance or household policy recently, but he will find that most insurance policies make it clear exactly how much tax is paid, so I do not think it is the case that they will withhold the increase and not pass it on to the consumer.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining an earlier point that I made—that it is not necessary to introduce regulation in this area. As I say, we anticipate that it will be passed on, but it is not mandatory. I am not denying that position.
Despite these modest impacts, the IPT rate increases will contribute more than £450 million a year to reducing the deficit. As I said, such decisions have been forced on us by the economic circumstances that the UK finds itself in, and they have not been taken lightly. We are confident, however, that this modest rise in IPT, which leaves the main rate of the tax significantly lower than that of many of our European competitors, is a means of raising much-needed revenue that will not have a significant impact on households, businesses or the insurance industry.
Mr Kevan Jones
Over the past few weeks since the coalition came into being and the announcement of the Budget, the rhetoric that we have heard has been all about fairness. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said on many occasions, “We’re all in this together.” The other phrase is, “There’s no alternative.” We have heard the accusation that the previous Labour Government did not have a deficit reduction strategy. Well, this element was a key part of that—£3.6 billion of it.
I am quite sad that only one Government Back Bencher is in the Chamber, and I notice that the Liberal Democrats have not been here throughout this debate. During the election, we heard nothing about the VAT rises, but we also heard nothing about the fact that one of the things that the Government would do in their first Finance Bill would be to give a £3.6 billion tax give-away to the richest 2% of pensioners. I am sure that that would have gone down very badly with the electorate if the Government parties had been honest with us at that time. During the past week, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, in their great coalition together, have been arguing that VAT is not regressive, although a key exception is the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has found this policy very difficult. However, one cannot say that the measure we are debating is progressive at all.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the amendment, which would require a distributional analysis of any changes, were accepted, we would be in a position to make a judgment on whether a system that is complicated, as the shadow spokesman said, was at least being replaced with a system that was fair and did not, as the hon. Gentleman says, give a huge amount of money to the very richest people?
Mr Jones
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There seems to have been confusion from the Minister in the sense that she is saying, “Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more”—in other words, that the Government might not actually introduce this measure. If this change is to be made, we need to know who it will affect lower down the income chain. If the top 2% are not going to carry their share of the burden, people lower down the tax scale will be affected, such as pensioners, who are already being hit by VAT and other implications of this Budget.
This proposal affects 300,000 people—2% of pension savers and 1% of working age taxpayers. We are being told that it is fair, just and progressive to abolish what was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which would have raised £3.6 billion to help to reduce the deficit that was created because of the lending we had to provide following the economic crisis. I am sorry, but I do not accept that that is fair, and I think that if this were explained to most members of the public, they would agree. Currently, no one who earned under £130,000 a year would be affected by this measure. If someone is in a Cabinet packed full of millionaires, that perhaps skews their perspective on what poverty is and what income buys. However, the average member of the public, certainly in North Durham, would be appalled by the fact that we are going to let off people who are earning what is not just a good wage but, for most of my constituents, a fantastic, unimaginable wage.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is obviously very much in touch with the north-east of England. Would he care to speculate as to whether, among the 2% of the population who will benefit, there will be an equitable distribution across the UK, or whether the vast majority who will benefit will be located in certain parts of the country not too near his constituency or mine?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend raises a good point. Clearly the net beneficiaries will not be in the north-east of England, Northern Ireland or Scotland. They will be those in the south-east of England. The disposable income of those individuals will be a lot greater than that of a lot of our constituents, who will be hit by the VAT increase.
We have seen that give-away, but there is something else in the Budget that I find absolutely amazing. We heard the other night that under the corporation tax proposals, the banks will be given a cash-back of £400 million. The same individuals will no doubt benefit from the proposals that we are currently discussing. We have been hearing the mantras in the past few weeks that there is no alternative and that Labour left the economy in the mess.
Mr Jones
Let us not forget that one. However, the proposal in clause 5 will leave a big black hole in the deficit reduction strategy. The Economic Secretary hinted, “Well, we might not do it, or we might do something different.” I am sorry, but if we are to have a thought-out plan to reduce the deficit, that is not the way to approach the matter. What we need is firm figures that do not make the poorest in society pay, which the proposal clearly will. She needs to explain to the House why neither she nor the Liberal Democrats went into the election saying that they would make this change. A lot of pensioners will find it very difficult to stomach.
Ms Angela Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that neither partner in the coalition Government went into the general election telling pensioners that they would change the definition of indexation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, either?
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)
Order. I hope that before the hon. Gentleman responds, he will reflect on the fact that the point that has just been made is not really relevant to the matter being discussed.
Mr Jones
I would not want to go against your judgment, Mr Amess, but may I say that my hon. Friend’s point is another example of how hard-working pensioners in my constituency will be affected by the Budget? However, I defer to your wise counsel and would not want to get on the wrong side of you.
Distributional analysis is needed before anything is done. We also need to know, if the relief charge is not going to go ahead, where the money is going to come from. It will affect pensioners lower down the income scale. Many on quite small incomes, who have saved all their lives for their pensions, will basically be paying for a give-away to the richest 2% in the country.
I hope that we can get the message out loud and clear from today’s debate that we have a Government who are clearly taking care of their friends, the top 2%. They have to start being honest with the British people—this Budget is not about deficit reduction. It is about an ideological approach to where the burden of taxation should fall and to the size of the state, and it will not help many of my constituents in North Durham.
Geraint Davies
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who puts his finger on one of the key points. Obviously, the previous Government were attempting to raise £3.6 billion to tackle the budget deficit. They targeted the top 2% of people—those earning more than £150,000, including employer contributions. Those people anticipated that increase and budgeted for it and now, in the ashes of the economic downturn imported from the United States, the impact of raising the £3.6 billion is being spread across a much wider pool—10% of the people.
As has already been said, the suggestion that we are all in it together rings hollow. Public sector workers are on pay freezes and the incomes from their pensions, like those from private sector pensions, will be reduced by 16% over 20 years through the other change that has been mentioned—the link to the consumer prices index. On top of all that, the tide of the £3.6 billion will break over them. The impact will be great, and I very much regret it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that the 2% of taxpayers who will get the £3.6 billion cash give-away are also in a position to take tax and accountancy advice, which could reduce their tax liabilities? That will not be open to pensioners who are paying the VAT increases or the public sector workers to whom he referred.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend is right. The status quo proposal of getting the £3.6 billion from the top 2% was based on standing back and considering whether there should be greater tax relief for those who are already the richest. The answer was no. At difficult times, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but now, the burden is being taken from them and placed on much weaker consumers. That will undermine the attractiveness of pension schemes among larger numbers in middle income groups.
In essence, the proposal is to reduce the tax allowance from £255,000 a year to some £30,000 to £45,000. That creates an enormous difference in how many and which people are captured, and generates great anxiety in the industry—the providers that it represents and consumers whom it serves.
Justine Greening
Many people on the minimum wage will not view it as progressive for someone who can afford to pay upwards of £100,000 a year into a pension fund to be given a 20% marginal rate tax break. In fact, that was not the only problem. Having listened to the concerns of the pensions industry and employers, this Government have real reservations about the approach towards pensions tax relief that was adopted in the Finance Act 2010. We believe it could have unwelcome consequences for pension saving, bring significant complexity into the tax system and damage UK business and competitiveness. The director general of the CBI said of the previous Government’s measure, brought forward in the Finance Act 2010:
“This will have serious consequences—it will make it much harder for UK business to attract and retain global talent… In every way, it’s a bad move.”
In addition, a number of features of the approach adopted in the Finance Act 2010 were unfair. For example, it included a very complicated income test, which made it difficult for individuals and advisers to understand. It also made it difficult for individuals to plan, as they would not know their final income until the end of the tax year so they would not know until then whether or by how much they would be affected. The income test also created many perverse incentives, avoidance opportunities and anomalies. For example, different charges could arise, depending on whether an individual or their employer made the pension contributions.
Under the approach in the Finance Act 2010, individuals on the highest incomes, who are able to put in very large pension contributions—upwards of £100,000 to £200,000 in one year—would have continued to get pensions tax relief, as they would still have been able to get relief at the basic rate rather than the higher rate. That is worth up to £51,000 a year. Given our concern for fairness, we believe—
Justine Greening
We are proposing a different approach, which would address that very measure. The decision for the hon. Gentleman to take tonight is on whether people who are able to pay £100,000 to £200,000 a year into their pension fund should be able to get tax relief at the basic rate. That is the question for him to answer.
Finance Bill
Kevan Jones Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 11, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2) Subsection (1) shall not have effect unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report on the extent of avoidance and evasion of corporation tax and on the measures he proposes to take to ensure the payment of tax which is due.’.
I almost feel like apologising for returning to the issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance, which I have pursued for a number of years since the debate that we had about the merger of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to form Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The amendment is fairly straightforward in seeking that a report be prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before corporation tax and capital gains tax measures are agreed by the House. I will not repeat myself in relation to amendment 12 to clause 2, although I will move amendment 12 formally. We have argued consistently about how to tackle evasion and avoidance and the investment required to do so.
Let me explain the rationale behind the amendment. I listened to the Second Reading debate into the early hours, including the discussions about Randalls of Uxbridge, which were enlightening at that point in time—
John McDonnell
As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, the discussions were refreshing, to say the least. I think there is another sale on at the moment.
The debate was about how to resolve the deficit that has arisen as a result of the credit crunch and the economic crisis that we face. Clearly, the division was around the level of reductions in public expenditure required and the time scale for their implementation. There was fierce debate about the level of public expenditure decreases and their implications for jobs losses, cuts in services and the impact on communities.
What was absent from the debate was a discussion of increasing tax revenues as an alternative to cuts. Everyone appreciated that the deficit needs to be reduced. There was some agreement, even across Benches, on some cuts, particularly with regard to ID cards and, perhaps, Trident. With regard to cuts in education and welfare benefits, however, there were strong differences. We need to look again at tax avoidance and evasion. There has been confusion about definitions in previous debates. Tax evasion is defined closely as the illegal non-payment or under-payment of taxes, usually resulting from the making of false declarations, or from no declarations of taxes to tax authorities, and can result in legal penalties. Tax avoidance is seeking to minimise a tax bill without deliberate deception, but contrary to the spirit of the law.
John McDonnell
The difference is clear with regard to legality and illegality. The technical implementation of tax legislation can be complex, so people can misunderstand which side of the fence they fall. During earlier debates in the House, the Denis Healey quote was cited that the difference is a prison wall. The implementation of measures to tackle tax evasion in particular is critical to the sound management of public finances and, obviously, to probity in the management of tax resources.
Chris Leslie
My amendment is quite simple. It does not seek to alter the rate of corporation tax suggested in the Budget, except in one respect: it should not apply to banks and banking institutions. Surely few issues can highlight the unfairness and injustice of the Government’s Budget more effectively than the suggestion that, of all the sets of institutions that should benefit from more advantageous tax arrangements, the banks should be given such a windfall at such a time.
I was prompted to table the amendment by a flurry of reports that appeared immediately after the Budget statement, suggesting that the banks would be net beneficiaries. Deutsche Bank analysts were reported as saying that the Budget was a “good outcome for banks”, and John-Paul Crutchley, an analyst at UBS, expected that Lloyds and HSBC would benefit by 2012 as a result of, particularly, the cut in corporation tax.
We must look at this measure in the context of the other Budget provisions. While the Finance Bill is, I suppose, substantial to a degree, it addresses only one short set of Budget measures that presumably will be brought before the House in different Bills at different times in the coming year, and it is a shame in a way that we will not get a chance to address this corporation tax measure in that wider context. I do not think any Members are opposed in principle to the banking levy that the Chancellor announced, although many might question whether it is tough and stringent enough.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that this cut will be unfair to small businesses in that while the major banks that got us into the financial mess two years ago will benefit from it, many small and medium-sized businesses will have to pay for it through the cut in the annual investment allowance from 2012?
Chris Leslie
Indeed, I think there is a set of unfairness issues that affect not only public services and our constituents, but business to business. Many small businesses will be incredulous at this giveaway to the banks, which are having their corporation tax cut. HSBC’s own banking analysts agreed that they would be better off. One of them was quoted in the media as saying:
“We’d expect most domestically-orientated banks, for example Lloyds, to be better off after four years than they were pre-Budget.”
Analysts at Redburn Partners said that Lloyds in particular would see a 3% rise in its earnings per share by 2012, especially as corporation tax is planned to be reduced to 24% over time. The measures in this Bill make only a 1% change in that tax from 28% to 27%, but as the years pass the banks’ gains clearly will accrue and become even greater.
It was no coincidence that the share prices of some of our leading banks leapt after the Budget statement, even though, paradoxically, it included a banking levy that they supposedly feared. Lloyds shares gained 2.7% the morning after the Budget, and others were similarly jumping for joy. The Daily Mail—a journal of great repute—reported that a city insider was privately very happy, saying that
“some banks will have a feeling of glee at the way this has worked out. But none would be stupid enough to say anything openly.”
It will be for the Minister to defend this measure of course, and I look forward to hearing him explain why, of all institutions, the banks deserve this windfall at this time.
The interplay between the banking levy and the impact of the corporation tax cuts must be at the heart of our considerations this afternoon, and I am glad that my Front-Bench colleague my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) have tabled amendments that also seek to probe that issue. My amendment would have the effect of not passing on the corporation tax cut, and theirs’ would insist that at the very least the Treasury conduct a review of these matters.
My concern remains that the banking levy was set at far too low a rate—starting at 0.04% and rising to the heady heights of 0.07%. I gather that might even be about half the level at which the Americans set their banking levy. The notion that this was all done internationally at the same level is absolutely not the case. For some bizarre reason, the Chancellor really held back. He made great play of this levy in the Budget statement because he knows the general public are angry about the situation the banks have left in this country. They are furious that the banks were the source and cause of many of our national debt problems and the deficit we face today. I am glad that the Government say at page 26 of the Red Book that they will consult on the final details of the banking levy, and I urge the Minister to think carefully about how that levy will play in relation to the corporation tax reduction, because if the banks are gaining from that, it must be possible to ensure that they pay their fair share at some point .
Chris Leslie
I may be wrong, but it is my recollection that a number of countries simultaneously came out with their banking levy arrangements, on the continent as well as America, and it was, of course, the natural point at which to introduce a banking levy. It is a matter of nuance whether we get a collection of large industrial countries to act simultaneously or we act on our own as a country, but I think it is necessary to have a banking levy that recoups all the payments that the banks took from our taxpayers.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend refers to page 26 of the Red Book, which states at paragraph 1.63 that
“the Government will introduce a levy based on banks’ balance sheets from 1 January 2011, intended to encourage banks to move to less risky funding profiles.”
The paragraph concludes by saying:
“The levy will result in a rebalancing of the burden of taxation between banking and other sectors.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that that actually supports his amendment, in the sense that we should not take decisions on the banks’ corporation tax rates before this levy is introduced?
Chris Leslie
I could not agree more. It would not be in order to stray too far from the topic of corporation tax, but it is important that we see this change in context. It appears that the Chancellor press-released the fact that he was taking, in some brave measure, an amount of money from the banks through the banking levy, but failed to publicise that he was also giving that back with the other hand through the reduction in the corporation tax rate.
We are talking about significant and serious amounts of money, and the Minister ought not to be so careless with this revenue as it is needed to repair our deficit and to protect our public services. I am very surprised that the Treasury did not take action to plug this loss of revenue, but chose instead to apply the reduction in corporation tax across the board.
We must not forget that the banks have already benefited from an enormous amount of largesse from the taxpayer more widely. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group had £76 billion of their shares bought by the taxpayer. The Bank of England had to be indemnified against losses incurred in providing more than £200 billion of liquidity support. There have been guarantees of up to £250 billion of wholesale borrowing by the banks to strengthen liquidity. Also, £40 billion of loans and other funds were made to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. There was insurance cover of more than £280 billion for bank assets as well. These changes were not unnecessary at the time; they were absolutely vital as a way of ensuring that our banking system—our credit system—did not collapse entirely.
Had the coalition parties been in power at that time they would have had to fulfil exactly those same commitments, assurances and undertakings to make sure that our banking system did not collapse. That is why it infuriates so many members of the public to hear Members on the Government Benches claiming that that was a partisan cause or that our spending such a large share of our national income on public services is the real cause of our deficit, when in fact responsibility lies squarely at the feet of our banking sector.
Chris Leslie
That is entirely so. Those with significant financial wherewithal—the corporate advisers, the consultants, the accountants—are always exceptionally adept at lobbying Ministers and making their points in their detailed ways, often with the general public entirely unaware that such measures are being put in place to their advantage. Clearly, the banks have been very aggressive in lobbying for these changes. It appears they may well have been successful in watering down the banking levy, while at the same time gaining benefit from this corporation tax change.
The Minister may argue, “Ah well, some of our banks made very significant losses in previous financial years, and because of the complexities of our corporation tax law, companies have certain rights to recoup some of those losses from the corporation tax they paid previously.” In my view, the banks should also be excluded from making such claims—or at least, their ability to do so should be lessened. I was unable to frame my amendment in that way—that takes a certain level of drafting—but we must ensure that the Treasury does not allow the exceptionally clever and highly paid advisers whom the banks can employ to find their way round the provisions and take even more money from the taxpayer.
Mr Kevan Jones
Reference has already been made to Barclays, whose full-year profits increased, I understand, by 92% in 2009 to stand at some £11.6 billion. Does my hon. Friend agree that Barclays will also gain from what is now proposed?
Chris Leslie
That is especially true over the longer term, and, as I was saying, although clause 1 refers only to the financial year 2011-12, the Government clearly intend to go even further even faster.
There may well be a case for saying that all companies need to be treated the same and that it would be wrong to discriminate against a particular class, and the Minister may argue that there are other sets of corporations—large oil companies, the privatised utilities and so on—that the public would frown on if they regained a corporation tax benefit, for example. In my view, the public are getting wise to the cause of the reduction in public spending, some of which, naturally, is driven by Conservative party ideology. However, the reductions that are driven by the existence of the deficit are largely the result of the costs incurred in bailing out the banks and the subsequent recession. Because of the lack of credit available in the wider economy, we had fewer tax receipts. In fact, the real story of the deficit is not that we are spending so much on public services, but that tax receipts are considerably lower.
Chris Leslie
I just wanted to place the hon. Lady’s comments in their particular context.
It is certainly true that the general public have a distaste for the excessive bonuses and remuneration of those in the banking industry, but such remuneration would not be possible were it not for the high profit rates that the banks were able to post and report on so many occasions. We are indeed all shareholders in many ways—either directly, or indirectly through our pension funds or as taxpayers—and Members on both sides of the House will hope that, over time, the banks will be returned to some level of normalcy. However, necessarily, they must not, as institutions, evade—or avoid; I want to use the correct parlance—paying their fair share.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not just the general public who feel that way. On 20 April 2010, the now Deputy Prime Minister—I think he and his party are still one and the same—called bankers “reckless and greedy”, saying that they have been allowed to hold a gun to our heads.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend is right. Before the general election, there was a lot of tough talk and rhetoric from both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Indeed, The Sun—a journal of great repute—said on 20 March that the then Leader of the Opposition
“singled out the banking industry as one example of ‘vested interests’ he is determined to confront and who he accuses Prime Minister Gordon Brown of failing to stand up to. ‘We had the biggest bank bail-out in the world. We can’t just carry on as if nothing happened’”.
I am afraid we may well be carrying on as if nothing had happened, especially if the banking levy is offset by this giveaway in corporation tax.
Chris Leslie
I would not want to set the hare running across the City of London that the long arm of the law is necessarily about to grab them on the shoulder, but I understand the frustration and anger of the British public more widely, and all politicians in this House should be angry. While it is fun and games for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats constantly to say, “Ah well, it was the Labour party that left us in this predicament”, they know very well that the root cause was the greed and excess of the banking sector, which ought to pay its fair share.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Lady makes her case. We can all, in hindsight, say that regulatory improvements should clearly have been made. The British Government could claim that work should have been done to ensure that that was the case in America, in every country in Europe and all the around the world. It is absolutely true to say that the whole worldwide banking system ought to have been more closely regulated, but that was the first time I have heard a Conservative Member defend the reduction in the corporation tax rate—that is the specific measure that we are discussing. There may be a need to debate the regulatory changes that should apply to the financial services industry—I look forward to those proposals being made—but I still do not understand her argument about anti-competitiveness. It is important to hear why the Government believe that the banks deserve this particular cut.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has just said that we should not have a differential rate of tax, but may I again cite paragraph 1.63 on page 26 of the Red Book, which comments on the introduction of the banking levy? Its final sentence says:
“The levy will result in a rebalancing of the burden of taxation between banking and other sectors.”
Is that not exactly what we are going to see here?
Chris Leslie
Quite, and this is important. We could send a signal from this House that we, as politicians and representatives of the general public, believe that that particular industry has to pay back the cost it is has left upon the shoulders of the general public. Is it not always the case that the general public—the ordinary working people—have to dig us out of the hole created by those affluent and comfortable individuals who work in the banking system?
Chris Leslie
If some analysts, who on the secondary evidence before me are saying publicly that they believe that the corporation tax—
Chris Leslie
If they are saying that the corporation tax cashback, as my hon. Friend says, will offset the levy, perhaps by less than the banking levy or perhaps by more, then I think this would be wrong. It sounds as though the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is defending the cashback arrangement that he wants to implement—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he is in favour of cutting the corporation tax rate for the banks. Government Members will vote that way. I am incredulous about that.
Andrew George
I am not sure that I am qualified to advise, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. If the Treasury could be encouraged to adopt this approach, I hope that it would at least ensure that it was sufficiently free-ranging to deal with any of the consequential behavioural activities that might arise as a result of such proposals.
Mr Kevan Jones
Although we are rewarding the banking sector, the proposals on annual investment allowances, which are cut in the Budget from £100,000 to £25,000, will directly affect many small and medium-sized businesses. Surely it is wrong that we are rewarding the people who got us into this mess in the first place, but penalising small businesses, which are getting a double whammy, because they are penalised by the lack of lending from the very institutions that we are rewarding.
Andrew George
Opposition spokesmen and the Treasury Ministers will have heard that intervention, which further embellishes the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make. I have no further comments to add, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has become a rather lonely figure on the Government Benches. Last week, he was the only Liberal Democrat who was not defending the indefensible, for which I pay him credit. At least he is prepared to come to the Chamber and argue against the measures in the Budget that will affect his very poor community in Cornwall, unlike some of his colleagues, who make comments in the press, but are absent from debates on the Finance Bill. I hope that on at least one or two occasions he will join us in the Lobby to stop the effects of the measure on his constituents and mine, although I know that he feels uncomfortable about voting against the coalition.
In 2008, in the run-up to the general election, bashing the bankers was something that everyone wanted to do. It is strange that we now have a Finance Bill that will reward them. There has been a change in the past few months from the stance that the Deputy Prime Minister adopted on 20 April, when he described bankers as “reckless and greedy” and holding
“a gun to the head”
of the country.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives. I wish to deal with the effect on other sectors, which that amendment raises. We have discussed the banking sector a great deal, but it is important to look at other sectors, too. There has been a feeding frenzy, which suggested more or less that the previous Government got things wrong, and that we should be penalising the banking sector. That view was reinforced by the Prime Minister himself who, when he was in opposition, said on Channel 4 in December 2008 that
“more senior bankers should be sent to prison.”
On another occasion, he should that they should do voluntary work rather than earn large bonuses in the City. The Conservative party went very quiet at the election, possibly because, as the Deputy Prime Minister said—and I agree with him—it is
“completely in hock to the City”.
We have seen that position defended tonight.
A number of banks have clearly made huge profits. Barclays, as has been mentioned, had a 92% increase in profits in 2009, and stand at £11.6 billion. The Royal Bank of Scotland—remember that?—paid its investment bankers £1.3 billion in bonuses, despite making just £1 billion in profit. Lloyds has made a profit of up to £1 billion. The proposals in the Finance Bill to reduce corporation tax rewards the banks for the mess they got us into, and do not acknowledge the fact that the individuals in question have been carrying on regardless, even though, as several hon. Members have said, the people who have suffered will have their services cut. The members of the public who are the victims are somehow to blame for the financial mess that we are in.
I do not understand how—well, I can, because they are called Conservatives—in the lead-up to the election, people can speak tough words against the banking sector, but one of the first things they do is to reduce corporation tax and reward the individuals who got us into the mess in the first place. Those same Conservatives—this was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East—opposed all the measures that we took not only to ensure that the banking sector did not collapse but to protect the British economy.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend is making an extremely strong case for the amendments. Is it not the case that the Government absolutely have to try their best to pin the deficit on the Labour party, rather than, correctly, on the banking sector? If they took the latter course of action, they would have to increase the banking levy and would not make these changes to corporation tax. They are clearly not prepared to see justice done to those truly responsible for the situation we are in.
Mr Jones
That is true. The Government’s drive to reduce public spending has very little to do with reducing the deficit. It is more an ideological move to reduce the size of the state. Unfortunately, like a boa constrictor, they have wrapped themselves round the Liberal Democrats, and will slowly squeeze the life out of them in the coming weeks, months and years. That is dawning on the hon. Member for St Ives, who does not want to be the mouse that gets squeezed at the end of the day. Let us hope that he will escape the clutches of the boa constrictor, which is slowly strangling the lifeblood from the modern Liberal Democrat party. I should not be too sympathetic to the Liberal Democrats, however, because I have spent a lifetime opposing them both in local government and nationally, so their demise might not be an unwelcome consequence of that strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East has tabled an amendment that suggests that there should be a 28% tax on the profits of the banking industry, as defined by section 2 of the Banking Act 2009. The reason for that is supported very well in the Red Book. Paragraph 1.63 on page 26, which is entitled “Bank levy” says that
“the Government will introduce a levy based on banks’ balance sheets from 1 January 2011, intended to encourage the banks to move to less risky funding profiles. The Government believes that the banks should make a fair contribution in respect of the potential risks they pose to the UK financial system and wider economy. Final details of the levy will be published later this year, following consultation. The levy will result in a rebalancing of the burden of taxation between banking and other sectors.”
We have seen a very strange Finance Bill this year, with a very short preamble to be followed later by major changes. If we are going to have a major change which, in the Government’s own words, is going to rebalance
“the burden of taxation between banking and other sectors”,
I cannot understand why they are allowing the reduction in corporation tax for this year to apply to the banking sector. To me, it would seem right to wait for whatever the banking levy comes up with. That fits in very well with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East is proposing.
Matthew Hancock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene. He has just admitted something that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) could not deny, but did not admit. After this Budget, because of the banking levy, the banks will be paying more tax relative to other sectors of the economy, and that is stated on page 26 of the Red Book. I am very grateful for that important admission.
Mr Jones
No, I am sorry, we do not admit that. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make or whether when he went into the general election in May, he had on his election leaflets, “Yes, we will be tough on banks for the rhetoric in the lead-up to the election, but if we get into power we will do a con trick where we take the money with one hand and gave it back with the other.” If, as the hon. Member for St Ives said, we do not know what the figures are, that makes it worse. We are asking the public to take severe cuts in public services and higher taxation, while at the same time the people who are still being paid high bonuses will get money back. That was reflected in a comment made earlier about the increase in bank share prices that took place once the Budget had been announced.
Clive Efford
To correct the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), it is just not true to say that the banks are going to pay more. Deutsche Bank has said:
“Taking 2% off the 2012 tax rate for the five banks listed in the UK would increase profit by £1.16bn, that is it should almost offset all of the banks tax. Overall a good outcome for the banks.”
Similarly, HSBC said:
“We’d expect most domestically-orientated banks, for example Lloyds, to be better off after four years than they were pre-budget”.
Mr Jones
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which completely blows a hole in the myth that this coalition Government are somehow being tough with the banking sector. Not for the first time, we are seeing rhetoric overtaking reality. The spin and presentation that is the hallmark of the Prime Minister is clearly catching up with him now he is in power and able to help his friends in the financial sector.
This policy also has an effect in terms of the banking sector itself, because the banks that are being rewarded are the ones that got us into the mess in the first place. Most people will rightly be horrified by that prospect.
Ian Lucas
Does my hon. Friend agree that what makes it even worse is the fact that the banks are still not lending? We all have examples in our constituencies of businesses that have good business cases but are not securing the lending from these banks that are making massive profits.
Mr Jones
That is a good point. We have heard about banking codes and other ways of forcing the banks into lending, but many small and medium-sized enterprises will be paying for this. They are facing a double whammy, because they are paying for it not only through the reduction in investment allowances but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, through not getting access to the lifeblood of working capital that they need.
That brings me to what the hon. Member for St Ives said about other sectors. Amendment 50 says:
“This section shall not come into force until the Treasury has laid before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of this section on—
(a) the banking sector, and
(b) all other sectors to which corporation tax applies.”
That makes an important point about how this cut in corporation tax is being paid for—that is, through the reduction of the annual investment allowances, which from 2010 will fall from £100,000 to £25,000. That will affect a lot of SMEs in the manufacturing sector. One need only look at some of the comments that were made on Budget day. The Engineering Employers Federation, representing manufacturers, said:
“Reducing the corporation tax rate over time was in principle the right course of action. But financing it, in part, by cuts to investment allowances will be a heavy price to pay, especially for smaller companies. It might be a positive signal for large companies, but not for their suppliers.”
That reflects a key point made in the amendment—the need to look at the effects on other sectors of the economy and how they are paying for this.
Even members of the coalition are feeling some concern about the corporation tax plans. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills signalled a recognition that they could hinder the interests of British industry when he said in the Financial Times on 14 May:
“The one thing I would want to make sure is that the productive parts of the British economy are helped and not hindered by corporation tax changes…I will certainly make an input to the debate defending the interests of British industry and making sure there are proper incentives to invest.”
We are now seeing this time and again in policy areas. The Liberal Democrats can protest all they wish, but they are being overruled on every single occasion, and this is clearly another example of that happening.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the EEF have both criticised the Government for reducing investment and capital allowances. The IFS’s post-Budget briefing on business and capital taxes dated 23 June said:
“Biggest benefits go to low-investment, high-profit firms—banks and supermarkets rather than manufacturers”.
The Budget talked about rejigging the economy away from the public sector and the banking sector into manufacturing, but this will not assist the manufacturing sector in any way at all. One can add to that the pressures that are resulting locally from the abolition of the regional development agencies and the nonsense that is going on with the freezing of grants for business investment. For example, Geka Manufacturing in my constituency, which vitally needs such a grant to secure 130 jobs in Stanley, has had it frozen by the Government. Local manufacturing SMEs are not only being hit by the corporation tax changes in the Budget but affected by the winding up of the RDAs in terms of the small business support that is vital for their investment decisions.
If we are to consider the effect on other sectors, as the hon. Member for St Ives suggested, we need to ensure that that includes not only SMEs but the manufacturing sector. If the Red Book is to be believed, I do not understand how the levy will result in a rebalancing of the burden of taxation between banking and other sectors. Clearly the SME sector will pay dearly, and that is in addition to some of the other matters that will affect it.
The cuts in capital allowances will prevent many SMEs from investing in vital equipment. That is no way to grow the economy in the way that the Government are suggesting. Despite the rhetoric that we heard before the election about bashing the bankers—[Interruption.] I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), who looks at me in horror, that I said “Bashing the bankers”. Instead, the Government are going to give back to banks the money that they will take from the levy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East pointed out, it would have been right to wait for the results of the 1 January review, whenever they come, before introducing the decrease for the banks.
I ask hon. Members to support the amendment, which makes sense. Once the public recognise what the Con-Dem Government are doing, they will be disappointed that the Government are basically letting the banks off scot-free.
Sajid Javid
I shall keep my contribution brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on making a very good maiden speech, and I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the declaration of Members’ interests.
Sajid Javid
That is not relevant. The hon. Gentleman can read the entry in the declaration of interests.
If we are to address the amendments properly and consider the changes to corporation tax that the Government have proposed not just for banks but for all companies, we cannot get away from the serious mess that the economy is in. As Members have heard on a number of occasions, as an inheritance from the previous Government, the Government are borrowing some £3 billion a week and our budget deficit is £155 billion, which is 12% of GDP—the highest in all G7 countries and the highest in Europe.
To address the issue, we need to consider how to restore growth to the economy and start paying back our debt. That will not just be through the changes in the Budget, such as raising extra taxes and cutting spending, but through restoring growth in our economy. That is at the heart of the changes to taxation, especially corporation tax, put forward in the Budget. The gradual reduction of corporation tax from 28 to 24% is all about giving business people and entrepreneurs incentives once again to take the risks that are always involved in starting and running businesses. It is such growth that will rejuvenate our economy and create the employment that we need to push up GDP and help us repay the debt that we have inherited.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a banker, and therefore possibly a bit detached from the SME sector and others, but how can cutting the investment allowances of SMEs and rewarding bankers with cuts in corporation tax make sense as a way to generate and grow new businesses?
Sajid Javid
I am not detached from small business, because my father was a small business man, I grew up in a small business and I know what it takes to make a small business grow. As well as hard work, it takes low taxes, less regulation and a desire for Government to get out of the way of business people. That is what this Government are desperately trying to restore after 13 years of the opposite.