Sovereign Grant Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The Committee will have seen from the provisional selection list that I have selected a number of manuscript amendments tabled by the Minister this morning. I would not as a rule select such manuscript amendments without good reason. I can see no reason why they were not tabled in the proper time, but in the unusual circumstances of the Bill, I am prepared to select them.
Clause 1
The Sovereign Grant
Paul Flynn
I do not think it is fair to blame the monarch for the way in which the measures were rushed into the House. Normally, if there is a change to business, a business statement is made to the House as early as possible; I cannot remember one being made at all in this case. Most hon. Members had other pressing business on that day, and only those who were here in the morning had any idea that the measures were going ahead.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, but we have just decided on the process that we are following; we now have to stick with where we are.
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.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
‘(3) A report on the impact of the current rates of income tax on inequality in the United Kingdom, also taking into consideration all other direct and indirect taxes including duties and excises, council taxes and mandatory charges for the use of cars and televisions and making specific reference to the overall tax rate of taxpayers grouped by decile in the United Kingdom and by each individual constituent country shall be prepared by HM Treasury and laid before the House of Commons not later than 1 December 2011.’.
Amendment 30, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
‘(3) All public sector employees whose earned income does not exceed £21,000 shall be entitled to a £250 reduction in tax liability for the tax year 2011-12.’.
Mr Hanson
I do not intend to detain the House for long on these amendments, although they are important. I particularly welcome amendment 30, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and which I will touch on briefly. Clause 1 deals with rates of taxation and, if approved, will set the rates for the next financial year at 20%, 40% and a special rate of 50%. Amendment 10, which is simple and straightforward, has been tabled by the shadow Treasury team because we want to shed a little light on how the Government will report on their future plans for the 50% rate of tax.
We already know certain key facts. We know that the Chancellor has asked HMRC to collect tax receipts for this financial year and that he has assessed the revenue levels of the 50% rate for this year. In Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said:
“The Chancellor’s Budget statement to the House on 23 March simply highlighted the fact that he has asked Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as part of that ongoing work, to see how much the additional rate actually raises. HMRC will look at all the available evidence about the impact of the 50% rate, including data from the 2010-11 self-assessment returns, which will become available next year.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2011; c. 22.]
My concern, which I will put directly on the table, is that the Government have already prejudiced any decision on the 50p rate of tax by stating clearly that they believe it will do lasting damage to the economy. We want further explanation of the methodology that they will use to consider the 50p tax rate for future Budgets, and I think that the best organisation to do that is the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Government set up the OBR and gave it a number of key roles, one of which I have helpfully drawn from its own website. Under the heading “What we do”, it states:
“We scrutinise the Treasury’s costing of Budget measures: During the run-up to Budgets and other policy statements, we subject the Government’s draft costings of tax and spending measures to detailed challenge and scrutiny.”
All the amendment would do is formally recognise that role in relation to the Government’s forthcoming review of the 50p additional rate.
The Chancellor has said to the House of Commons, the public and anyone who will listen that he sees this as a “temporary measure” and that it will do “lasting damage” to the economy. He has signalled that he will abolish the 50p rate as soon as he can, in line with Conservative thinking before the election. However, the timing remains uncertain. I believe that the Chancellor has pre-empted the review. When HMRC undertakes the review, it will do so on the assumption that at some time around 2013 the Chancellor of the Exchequer will abolish the rate on incomes above £150,000.
Civil List
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of straying into—
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, I will finish. Individual names are being attached to what is being said, and that is not what we should be doing. This is a general debate on the civil list, and we should not refer to individual members of the royal family or to individual amounts spent.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I will go on to the next speaker if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept it.
Mr MacShane
I said that I accept your ruling fully, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will not say another word, save that—[Laughter.] If it is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that it is not right for this debate to take place in the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent but not on the Floor of the House. That is all.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. There are clear rules for this House that we have to abide by. The right hon. Gentleman might not like it, but that is the case.
Mr MacShane
I actually believe that a plane should be made available for the use of senior Government Ministers, including the PM. He had to scrounge a lift from Prague to Brussels with the Czech President the other day. He got something out of it, but frankly, every senior Minister in most democracies has that mode of transport available to them. Our planes are continually available to any member of the royal family, while elected Ministers come second.
We then have the problem of explaining why the present monarch and the next one are such giant landowners. Is that an issue that we might be able to debate, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Of course we all enjoyed the royal wedding celebration this year and we will enjoy the diamond jubilee next year. Roman emperors promised their subjects panem et circenses: the current Government are doing their best to reduce the quota of panem with their cuts and cruelties imposed on the poor and handicapped, but they are increasing the availability of circenses through the royal shows.
I do not believe that there is any kind of republican mood in the country. It was interesting to hear the oleaginous loyalty, if I may put it that way, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who had a tremendous enthusiasm for the monarchy, which has surprised many of us. I remember the silver jubilee in Rotherham in 1978, when I am told that 41,000 Union Jack flags were sold in the socialist republic of South Yorkshire.
If we look at the European Union, we see that the states that are monarchies—Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and even, with all its troubles, Spain—enjoy less partisan and less conflictual politics. When it comes to growth, distribution and a fair social settlement since the second world war, we find that the EU’s monarchies generally have a much better record than the EU’s republics. The royal families, however, are also much cheaper there. In Spain, with its King, Queen and wonderful royal palace where I had the privilege and honour of having dinner with the Crown Prince of the Asturias and the lovely Princess—and Prince Charles—a few weeks ago— [Interruption.] The food was free, but I paid for my own air fare. The total cost of the whole Spanish monarch is €8.4 million, while the Queen of the Netherlands gets by on €828,000.
I ask only that we do some comparative analysis before simply continuing with an arrangement that, even with the Chancellor’s proposed modernisations, remains deeply anachronistic.
Finance Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Eligible medical insurance contracts—
‘(1) This section has effect to determine whether a contract is at a particular time (the relevant time) an eligible contract for the purposes of section [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)].
(2) A contract is an eligible contract at the relevant time if—
(a) it was entered into by an insurer who at the time it was entered into was a qualifying insurer and was approved by the Commissioners for the purposes of this section,
(b) the period of insurance under the contract does not exceed one year (commencing with the date it was entered into),
(c) the contract is not connected with any other contract at the relevant time and has not been connected with any other contract at any time since it was entered into,
(d) no benefit has been provided by virtue of the contract other than an approved benefit, and
(e) the contract meets one or more of the three conditions set out below.
(3) The first condition is that the contract is certified by the Commissioners under section [Certification of contracts] at the relevant time.
(4) The second condition is that, at the time the contract was entered into, it conformed with a standard form certified by the Commissioners as a standard form of eligible contract.
(5) The third condition is that, at the time the contract was entered into, it conformed with a form varying from a standard form so certified in no other respect than by making additions—
(a) which were (at the time the contract was entered into) certified by the Commissioners as compatible with an eligible contract when made to standard form, and
(b) which (at that time) satisfied any conditions subject to which the additions were so certified.
(6) Where a contract is varied, and the relevant time falls after the time the variation takes effect, subsections (1) to (5) above shall have effect as if “entered into” read “varied” in each place where it occurs in subsections (4) and (5) above.
(7) For the purposes of this section a contract is connected with another contract at any time if—
(a) they are simultaneously in force at that time,
(b) either of them was entered into with reference to the other, or with a view to enabling the other to be entered into on particular terms, or with a view to facilitating the other being entered into on particular terms, and
(c) the terms on which either of them was entered into would have been significantly less favourable to the insured if the other had not been entered into.
(8) For the purposes of this section each of the following is a qualifying insurer—
(a) an insurer lawfully carrying on in the United Kingdom business relating to insurance;
(b) an insurer not carrying on business in the United Kingdom but carrying on business in another member State and being either a national of a member State or a company or partnership formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or another member State and having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business in a member State.
(9) For the purposes of this section a benefit is an approved benefit if it is provided in pursuance of a right of a description mentioned in section [Certification of contracts] (3)(a).’.
New clause 3—Certification of contracts—
‘(1) The Commissioners shall certify a contract under this section if it satisfies the conditions set out in subsection (3) below; and the certification shall be expressed to take effect from the time the conditions are satisfied, and shall take effect accordingly.
(2) The Commissioners shall revoke a certification of a contract under this section if it comes to their notice that the contract has ceased to satisfy the conditions set out in subsection (3) below; and the revocation shall be expressed to take effect from the time the conditions ceased to be satisfied, and shall take effect accordingly.
(3) The conditions referred to above are that—
(a) the contract either provides indemnity in respect of all or any of the costs of all or any of the treatments, medical services and other matters for the time being specified in regulations made by the Treasury, or in addition to providing indemnity of that description provides cash benefits falling within rules for the time being so specified,
(b) the contract does not confer any right other than such a right as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above or is for the time being specified in regulations made by the Treasury,
(c) the premium under the contract is in the Commissioners’ opinion reasonable, and
(d) the contract satisfies such other requirements as are for the time being specified in regulations made by the Treasury.
(4) The certification of a contract by the Commissioners under this section shall cease to have effect if the contract is varied; but this is without prejudice to the application of the preceding provisions of this section to the contract as varied.
(5) Where the Commissioners refuse to certify a contract under this section, or they revoke a certification, an appeal may be made to the relevant Tribunal by—
(a) the insurer, or
(b) any person who (if the policy were certified) would be entitled to relief under section 1 above.
(6) Where a contract is certified under this section, or a certification is revoked or otherwise ceases to have effect, any adjustments resulting from the certification or from its revocation or ceasing to have effect shall be made.
(7) Subsection (6) above applies where a certification or revocation takes place on appeal as it applies in the case of any other certification or revocation.
(8) In this section the reference to a premium, in relation to a contract of insurance, is to any amount payable under the contract to the insurer.’.
New clause 4—Medical insurance: supplementary—
‘(1) The Commissioners may by regulations—
(a) provide that a claim under section [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)] (3) or (6)(b) shall be made in such form and manner, shall be made at such time, and shall be accompanied by such documents, as may be prescribed;
(b) make provision, in relation to payments in respect of which a person is entitled to relief under section [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)], for the giving by insurers in such circumstances as may be prescribed of certificates of payment in such form as may be prescribed to such persons as may be prescribed;
(c) provide that a person who provides (or has at any time provided) insurance under contracts of private medical insurance shall comply with any notice which is served on him by the Commissioners and which requires him within a prescribed period to make available for the Commissioners inspection documents (of a prescribed kind) relating to such contracts;
(d) provide that persons of such a description as may be prescribed shall, within a prescribed period of being required to do so by the Commissioners, furnish to the Commissioners information (of a prescribed kind) about contracts of private medical insurance;
(e) make provision with respect to the approval of insurers for the purposes of section [Eligible medical insurance contracts] and the withdrawal of approval for the purposes of that section;
(f) make provision for and with respect to appeals against decisions of the Commissioners with respect to the giving or withdrawal of approval of insurers for the purposes of section [Eligible medical insurance contracts];
(g) make provision with resepect to the certification by the Commissioners of standard forms of eligible contract and variations from standard forms of eligible contract certified by them;
(h) make provision for and with respect to appeals against decisions of the Commissioners with respect to the certification of standard forms of eligible contract or variations from standard forms of eligible contract certified by them;
(i) provide that certification, or the revocation of a certification, under section [Certification of contracts] shall be carried out in such form and manner as may be prescribed;
(j) make provision with respect to appeals against decisions of the Commissioners with respect to certification or the revocation of certification under section [Certification of contracts];
(k) make provision generally as to administration in connection with sections [Medical insurance (pensioner tax relief)] to [Certification of contracts].
(2) In subsection (1) above—
“eligible contract” has the meaning given by section [Eligible medical insurance contracts], and
“prescribed” means prescribed by or, in relation to form, under the regulations.’.
Sir Paul Beresford
The new clauses would provide tax relief on medical insurance premiums for people above a certain age. “Pensioners” might be a better description of them. As a very part-time dentist, I must declare a potential interest, but I had better declare a further potential interest, as birthdays keep relentlessly coming upon me—and the rest of us.
As in much of the south-east, life expectancy in Surrey is somewhat higher than the England mean. The average life expectancy in England is about 78 for males and 82 for females, while in Surrey the figures are about 82 and 86 respectively. Moreover, the proportion of those aged 65 and over in my constituency is about one in five, or 20%. It is obvious to me, as one with a professional interest in health and as an observer of my constituents’ health, that that longevity brings with it a higher demand for health care and imposes large demands on health services, especially cardiac, carcinoma and orthopaedic services. A planeload of Surrey Saga tourists would really set the airport metal detectors buzzing as the hip and knee replacements proceeded towards take-off.
The Mole Valley constituency is served by three good national health service hospitals: East Surrey hospital, Royal Surrey County hospital at Guildford, and Epsom hospital. Those hospitals have expanded in certain health areas to meet the increasing demand for treatment from the elderly, the best example being Epsom, which has a special orthopaedic unit where more than 3,000 hip and knee replacement operations are carried out annually, almost entirely on elderly people from surrounding areas such as Mole Valley. As a result of those medical problems there has been a call for an enhanced and enlarged cardiac unit at Epsom as part of the retention and refurbishment of that much-loved hospital. I have given those two examples to illustrate the increasing demand for national health service care from, predominantly, those aged over 65. That increasing demand is not specific to Mole Valley or even Surrey, but is, to a greater or lesser degree, nationwide among that age group.
My older constituents are also served by private hospital services. Some are relatively local and some are in London, but there is choice for patients. Approximately 12.5% of the United Kingdom population are currently covered by private health insurance, and about 70% of that cover is corporate while about 30% is individual. On retirement, many may wish to take over their corporate private health insurance, but the personal cost becomes a heavy factor. Additionally, many of those who fund their health insurance personally may not feel able to do so when a regular personal income is just a pension or savings. That means that, just as their need for health care is likely to increase, those individuals turn to the national health service and absorb facilities and costs that they would not use if they could be persuaded to retain or take out private health insurance and use the private sector.
Before March 1997, when tax relief was available to those over 60, it was estimated that tax relief was paid in respect of 400,000 contracts to cover about 600,000 individuals.
Charlie Elphicke
I respectfully put it to the right hon. Gentleman that our priority is not to bung £200 million at people, as he describes it, but to see real increases in NHS spending as against the cuts that were in the last Budget of the Government whom he long supported.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I let the hon. Gentleman’s previous question go, but he is drifting way off the mark. This debate is about medical insurance.
Frank Dobson
Let me return to the point. The proposition before us is to divert £200 million of taxpayers’ money to a group of pensioners—not to the national health service, or even to the private health care sector, but to those particular pensioners. I cannot believe that many people in this country, at this moment, believe that that is the first priority of anyone sensible—it is certainly not my priority—but that is what we are being asked to say by those who want us to vote for this new clause.
I can remember the claims that were made when the old scheme was introduced. Despite that, nobody was able to adduce any evidence that it added to the number of pensioners who took out health insurance or stayed as pensioners who had health insurance. When it was abolished, the predictions from the national association of scaremongers, led by Bupa and others, created the impression that the whole system would collapse, that hardly anybody would keep using private health insurance, and that legions of the formerly insured would be pouring into every hospital, clinic and doctor’s surgery. That did not happen. The main function of the scheme was to put a few bob in the pockets and handbags of the better-off pensioners, and that is what it did. It had virtually no impact whatever on health care either in the national health service or in the private sector, and I suspect that the situation would be similar today.
If we have £200 million to spare—apparently we do—and we want to put it into health care, I would be very happy to see some of it go into my local hospitals so that they were not laying off nurses and doctors and other staff in the next couple of years while having to put up with the ridiculous marketising shambles that the Health Secretary has wished on the country. In case it has not been clear, I am opposed to this proposition and, given the opportunity, will vote against it.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
On that issue, there is clearly a very large deficit, which we inherited from the hon. Gentleman’s Government. On funding for this proposal, we have seen a 74% increase in our net contribution to the EU, which many Government Members would not like to see paid. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made very substantial savings by keeping us out of the Greek bail-out—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I do not think that we will be tempted down that route. We will stick to insurance.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is always tempting. I suspect that you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I pointed out that it was this Prime Minister who went to the European Council and failed to live up to his promises. Therefore, let me move back to the substantive debate, which is being so ably chaired.
This proposal is a Trojan horse. Government Members tried hard to cover up their anti-health service rhetoric, but every now and again it seeped out in their speeches. The national health service is an institution that Labour Members are proud of. It is the greatest achievement in 100 years of the Labour movement. It has transformed our country’s health. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am doing an Open university degree in history. [Interruption.] I am asked where I find the time. I have a great wingman in my parliamentary duties. I am currently studying a module on the history of medicine from 1500 to 1930. It is fascinating to see that the pre-war health system that was available to the vast majority of people did not compare one iota to the achievement of the 1945 Labour Government. It was fascinating to hear the disdain of Government Members for the national health service. They are attempting to allow privatisation through the back door and to undermine the national health service. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and whether he agrees with his own colleagues on the issue.
Jonathan Edwards
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. I had an hour-long speech prepared for this debate, but as it is going well past my bedtime, I will try to keep my remarks as short as possible.
I move this new clause with a sense of déjà vu, as only last July I closed a Finance Bill debate on an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) that aimed to overturn the decision in the emergency Budget to raise VAT to 20% from January this year. Many of the arguments I made then remain relevant, but I will resist the temptation to air the same speech twice. Interestingly, that debate [Interruption]—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Too many conversations are going on in the Chamber, and I am sure that everybody wants to hear the hon. Gentleman.
Jonathan Edwards
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Interestingly, when the House divided on that amendments the Labour party abstained. Since then, it seems that the official Opposition’s main critique of the UK Government’s economic policy has been based on the Treasury’s VAT policy. I hope that when we divide later the Labour Front-Bench team will set aside its usual partisan approach to votes in this place and will walk through the Lobby with us. As I see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), grinning, I hope that that will be the case.
In the 2010 general election, Plaid Cymru campaigned against a VAT increase—unlike the Liberal Democrats, who had their tax bombshell poster, we meant it. That is why we tabled an amendment to prevent the increase last year and why we have done the same again this year. Last year, I said that there was both a social and economic reason why the increase in VAT was a bad idea, and I hope to concentrate on those reasons during my speech. We are against the ideological cuts and the rush to achieve a zero deficit within one parliamentary term with the net result of hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and unimaginable pain across our communities. We have consistently expressed our concern at the possibility of what the former Monetary Policy Committee member, David Blanchflower, called a “death spiral”, whereby cuts in expenditure become cuts in receipts.
A country’s economy is not like a family budget. Although it is good public relations, making misleading references of this sort is a very dangerous game for the UK Government to continue to play. In the case of the state there is a direct link between expenditure and income. Indeed, an overt reduction in expenditure can lead to a reduction in income and an increase in the deficit. Some would argue that we are in that situation already, even before the real cuts start to bite.
The state cannot cut its expenditure and assume that its income will remain constant. We are talking about intrinsic fine balances, which is why it always makes more sense for a state to change its expenditure levels modestly, rather than go cold turkey, as is favoured by the current Government. Four main elements drive economic growth: public sector expenditure; exports; private investment; and the key element as far as today’s debate on VAT is concerned, which is household spending.
VAT is, in essence, a tax on consumption. Economic growth in the Labour years was largely driven by consumer spending, resulting in a situation whereby personal debt levels in the UK have rocketed to an unsustainable 100% of gross value added, at £1.4 trillion.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I shall speak to new clause 10, but before I do so, may I remind the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) that he fought an election on the Tory tax bombshell? I remember pictures of the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), standing in front of a poster that referred to a Tory tax bombshell—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would want to speak through the Chair.
Mr Hanson
I remember the hon. Member for Redcar standing with the Deputy Prime Minister in front of a poster that said “Tory tax bombshell”. I find it amazing to hear the hon. Gentleman speak this evening as an apologist for the Conservative Government’s imposition of VAT on people in Britain.
New clause 10 calls for a review of the assessment of the impact of VAT on UK economic growth over the next three months. As Members know, last Tuesday we voted on a Labour motion, which was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, to cut VAT on a temporary basis to 17.5% while economic growth is restored. The Conservative party voted against that motion, which would have ensured that we had the VAT cut proposed today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Hemming, you have had one intervention. If the shadow Minister is not giving way, you should respect that.
Mr Hanson
When the Conservative party, supported by Liberals who at the general election opposed VAT increases, imposes VAT increases, it does so on businesses and on jobs and hardest on the poorest people in our society. I will now give way to the Minister so that he can explain that.
John Hemming
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who is an accountant, that on the basis of expenditure deciles VAT is a mildly progressive tax. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whose name appears above unselected new clause, 16, which would put VAT up to 20% once things improve, why the Labour party, having opposed VAT at 20%, now believes that it should be at 20% in the long term.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are not going to get bogged down in the VAT figures. We need to talk about the new clauses in the group. We are drifting into parts where we should not be.
Mr Hanson
I remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) that new clause 10 calls for a review of the impact of value added tax on businesses and families over the next three months. Labour Members voted last week for a temporary reduction in VAT. Labour policy is to have a temporary reduction to tackle the real issues that we all face in our constituencies in relation to jobs, living standards and the future of our businesses.
The Economy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can we be a little calmer? Mr Bryant, I know you are very excited, but I am sure that people will give way.
Mr Osborne
The shadow Chancellor is a man with a past, but no ideas for the future. The Leader of the Opposition may be uncomfortable having him in the shadow Cabinet, but we are not, because he is going to be a living reminder that people can never trust Labour with the economy again. Meanwhile, the rest of us have got to get on and clear up the mess he left behind.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I have just joined the debate—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I know that the hon. Lady is an enthusiastic Member, but she should not just walk into the Chamber, give it about five seconds and then intervene. It is not fair. It is up to the hon. Gentleman whether he gives way, but it is discourteous to everyone else who wishes to speak.
Claire Perry
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been tied up with constituency business. I just wanted to say that I welcomed the reference to Bill Gross, who, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, also described the UK’s economy as sitting on a bed of nitroglycerine ahead of the election.
Scotland Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 8 —Funding formula for Scottish Government (No. 2)—
‘(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before the House a report on the formula for allocating funds from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Government, and on alternative ways of calculating the sums to be paid.
(2) Within six weeks of laying the report referred to in subsection (1) above, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before the House proposals for a new funding formula which would ensure that the funds allocated to the Scottish Government are no more than 5 per cent. below or above the equivalent figure for each of the other nations of the UK.’.
New clause 9—Tax on profits of companies—
‘In Part 4A of the 1998 Act (as inserted by section 24), after Chapter 4 (inserted by section 30) insert—
Chapter 5
Tax on Profits of Companies
80L Tax on profits of companies
The Secretary of State shall, within one month of the coming into force of section 80B of this Act, lay in accordance with Type A procedure as set out in Schedule 7 to this Act a draft Order in Council which specifies as an additional devolved tax a tax charged on the profits of companies.”’.
New clause 19—Spirits, wine, beer and cider duties—
‘(1) The 1998 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Act, in section A1 (specific reservations: fiscal, economic and monetary policy), after the heading “Exceptions”, insert—
“Spirits duties, wine duties and beer and cider duties”.’.
Amendment 25, in clause 24, page 16, line 35, at end insert—
‘(c) Chapter 5 provides for an Order in Council to specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax charged on the profits of companies.’.
Amendment 24, in clause 26, page 20, line 24, at end insert—
‘(3) T is deemed to be in Scotland at the end of a day when T commences a journey in Scotland before midnight and arrives at a destination in England after midnight, irrespective of the time at which the border between Scotland and England is crossed.’.
Government amendments 31 and 15.
Amendment 26, in clause 32, page 25, line 10, leave out
‘with the approval of the Treasury, borrow by way of loan’
and insert ‘borrow’.
Amendment 27, page 25, line 15, at end insert—
‘(1C) In borrowing any sums under subsection (1A), the Scottish Ministers must have regard to any code of practice agreed by them and the Treasury.
(1D) A code of practice agreed under subsection (1C) may include provision as to—
(a) how the Scottish Ministers are to determine and keep under review how much they can afford to borrow,
(b) the terms and conditions on which sums may be borrowed,
(c) limits on the aggregate at any time outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed.’.
Government amendment 32.
Amendment 28, page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.
Government amendment 33.
Amendment 29, page 25, line 43, leave out subsection (10).
Government amendments 34 and 35.
Amendment 23, in clause 39, page 28, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 29 and insert—
‘(2A) Subject also to the provision made in sections 26(1) to (6), 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 as to how those sections are to have effect, Part 3 shall come into force at the end of the period of two months after the new funding formula referred to in subsection (2) of section [Funding formula for Scottish Government (No. 2)] has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons.’.
Amendment 37, page 28, line 35, at end insert—
‘(c) section [Spirits, wine and beer and cider duties]’.
Amendment 18, page 28, line 40, at end insert—
‘(3A) Notwithstanding any provisions in subsection 3(a), (b) or (c), sections 26(1) to (6) and 27, sections 28 and 29, and sections 30 and 31 can not be commenced without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.’.
Amendment 2, page 29, line 2, at end insert
‘except new subsections (1A) and (1B) of section 66 of the 1998 Act, inserted by section 32(3), and subsections (9) and (10), which shall come into force on 1 April 2012’.
Mr Gauke
It gives me great pleasure to return to the House to discuss the Scotland Bill after the Committee debate in March.
The first group of amendments on today’s selection list is fairly extensive and addresses several different aspects of the Bill’s finance package. I will set out why we have tabled Government amendments and why we will not accept the non-Government amendments.
In Committee, we debated the definition of a Scottish taxpayer for the Scottish rate of income tax. I said that the Government would table a new clause to apply the same definition to the Scottish variable rate, in response to one of the recommendations of the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee. The reworked definition of a Scottish taxpayer for the new Scottish rate of income tax is a significant simplification. I appreciate that it is unlikely that the Scottish variable rate will ever be invoked. Nevertheless, without the amendment, there would be two separate definitions of a Scottish taxpayer in place at the same time. There is potential for practical difficulties for taxpayers, employers and their professional representatives, who might need to familiarise themselves with one definition for the years up to 2015-16, only to have to switch to a different definition for subsequent years. That is entirely unnecessary.
Applying the definition of a Scottish taxpayer that has been developed for the Scottish rate of income tax for the purposes of the Scottish variable rate will help smooth any transitional issues, and will also make it easier for people to understand whether they are classed as a Scottish taxpayer. The Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee rightly recommended the change, with which the UK Government very much agree, and I commend the new clause to hon. Members.
On a previous occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) raised a particular query. He has tabled amendment 24, about which he intends to speak later. I will respond to the issues that he raises after he has had an opportunity to set out his thoughts on that.
Government amendment 31 would make a small, technical change, to which I hope the House can agree. Section 989 of the Income Tax Act 2007 contains several definitions, which apply for the purposes of income tax legislation. It includes definitions of the basic, higher and additional rate of income tax. They refer to the rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament in the year in question. Government amendment 31 would extend those definitions to include the rates applicable to a Scottish taxpayer. As I said, it is a minor drafting amendment, and I do not anticipate its proving too controversial.
The purpose of Government amendment 15 is to correct a technical fault with the Bill so that it is consistent with the Government’s policy intentions as set out in the Command Paper, which states that the Scottish Government will be able to borrow to manage the difference between forecast and outturn tax receipts. However, as I explained in our Committee debate on 14 March, the Bill as it currently stands enables the Scottish Government to borrow to manage this difference only for fully devolved taxes, and not the Scottish rate of income tax. That is a technical fault, which the amendment corrects. I hope that it will be accepted.
Let me deal with Government amendments 32 to 35. The purpose of Government amendment 32 is to introduce a power, which will enable the Government to amend in future the way in which Scottish Ministers can borrow, including by way of bond sales, without the need for further primary legislation. The Bill gives Scottish Ministers a new power to borrow, by way of loan, from 2015-16 up to £2.7 billion of total debt, £2.2. billion of which can be used to fund capital expenditure.
The UK Parliament has an interest in ensuring that Scottish Ministers can borrow efficiently and sustainably because, although interest paid on any loans will be funded from the Scottish budget, it will be included in the UK fiscal aggregates. The Bill therefore gives Scottish Ministers the power to borrow in the most efficient and sustainable way—from the national loans fund, as recommended by the Calman commission. In addition, should Scottish Ministers so choose, the Bill gives them the power to borrow by way of commercial loan where that represents value for money.
Reports on the Scotland Bill by the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Scottish Parliament have recommended that Scottish Ministers should be granted additional borrowing powers—specifically, the power to issue bonds. The First Minister made the same points in his discussion with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The reports and discussions have highlighted the discrepancy between the powers of Scottish Ministers and local authorities, which already have the power to issue bonds.
So far, the main evidence that has been provided to the Government in support of Scottish Ministers issuing bonds is “because other bodies can do it”. However, with the exception of Transport for London, the vast majority of local authorities have not exercised those powers in recent history, not least because local authorities judge that they have access to more efficient and sustainable forms of borrowing.
The Government continue to believe that the case against bond issuance is clear cut, particularly in the medium term, given the uncertain outlook and challenging fiscal mandate. All the evidence suggests that further bond issuance would have a negative impact on the UK’s fiscal position.
In the context of the highest deficit since world war two, the Government would consider allowing Scottish Ministers to issue bonds in future only when that does not undermine the overall fiscal position, or have a negative impact on total UK borrowing. If a case is made that Scottish Ministers’ borrowing powers could be extended without undermining the overall UK fiscal position or increasing UK borrowing, the amendment that I am tabling today would allow changes to the borrowing powers of Scottish Ministers to take effect swiftly, by way of an order.
The Government have committed to conducting a review of the costs and benefits of bond issuance over other forms of borrowing to help inform any decision. The amendment would have the effect of, first and foremost, protecting the UK’s fiscal position by continuing to allow Scottish Ministers to access the most efficient and sustainable source of borrowing.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
After the Bill has been passed, the Welsh Government will be the only political entity in the British state unable to borrow. Will the Exchequer Secretary address that matter quickly, rather than awaiting some prolonged Calman process, which the Government currently envisage?
Mr Gauke
I want to make it clear that Government amendment 32 would not grant the power of issuing bonds to the Scottish Government. However, it would enable us to move more quickly should that decision be made in future The Welsh Assembly Government are not alone in their status, although the amendment would enable us to move more quickly should we decide to proceed in that direction.
Amendment 2, which was tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition, would bring forward the introduction of the capital borrowing requirement set out in clause 32 from April 2015 to April 2012. Amendment 26 would remove the role of the Treasury in approving capital borrowing and the restriction that such borrowing must be by way of a loan. Amendment 27 would introduce a new statutory code of practice, to be agreed between the Treasury and Scottish Ministers, to govern capital borrowing permitted by section 66(1) of the Scotland Act 1998. Amendment 28 would remove the £2.2 billion aggregate limit on capital borrowing by Scottish Ministers. Amendment 29 is consequential on amendment 28. As hon. Members wish to remove the borrowing limits from the Bill and the ability to revise those with the approval of the House, clause 32(10) would no longer be necessary, because there would be no such secondary legislation.
Eurozone Financial Assistance
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
I did not say anything adverse about it at the time other than that the opportunity was not taken, despite advice I tried to give, to use the treaty opportunity to say to other member states that we would not agree to the treaty and would veto it unless we were taken out of the EFSM; we could then have brought forward the arrangements currently proposed for 2013. That proposition was eminently reasonable, eminently possible and €440 billion was available under the facility, which is in operation until 2013. In other words, the whole EFSM issue pivots on vanity and a determination not to unravel something that cries out for unravelling. It is not just; it is not right; it is completely irrational.
There are going to be further and deeper riots and protests. Worse still, I believe that the Government are contributing towards instability throughout Europe while claiming that within the time frame extending to 2013, bailing out the German and French banks—we should remember that that is what lies at the root of the problem—as well as Portugal and Greece will achieve stability. It will not. The argument is not only wrong, but totally—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are running out of time very quickly, and I want to enable as many Members as possible to speak. We need to hear about the amendment, so I now call Chris Heaton-Harris. If there are fewer interventions and Members do not use all their allotted time, we shall do very well and get much lower down the list.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I speak with some trepidation from the depths of the Maastricht maestros on the Government Benches. If I may echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), it is a tribute to many people, surrounding me today and not in the House, that we are no longer part of the euro and that we have been able to establish a healthy Euroscepticism both in opposition and since we came into government.
Let me go back in history to see how we reached this sorry state of affairs. Many Members will remember the debates around the time of the Nice treaty in 2001. Indeed, there are Ministers on our Benches today who urged the Government of the time in the strongest possible terms not to sign up to the treaty as they believed it would give away any future veto on bail-out mechanisms. We were assured at that time by the then Minister for Europe that article 103 made it clear that there would be no bailing out of member states, whether that meant Britain or any other member state. I question whether the Minister for Europe at that point knew what was being done.
In May 2010, the acting Chancellor of the Exchequer signed Britain’s commitment to the temporary European financial stability mechanism. Our total commitment is 12.5% of the putative total of €60 billion—€7.5 billion, a substantial sum. Later, I shall address what that means for hard-pressed British taxpayers. First, let me move the timeline further forward one step to December 2010. As has been said several times, the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that Britain would play no further role in a permanent European bail-out facility and also fought for and had implemented a number of stringent requirements for draw-downs from the existing facility.
What will this facility cost the taxpayer? As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) said earlier, it is a contingent liability. A number of things must happen before there is any cash bail-out. The entire thing has to go belly up and the countries all have to default. Given that our ranking on this debt is pari passu with the facilities put in place by the IMF, we will have a superior credit position and will be paid first in the unlikely event that there is a partial or full default. It is not a gift or a grant but a contingent liability of €7.5 billion, of which approximately €1.2 billion has been put into the facility to date. The suggestions we often hear from Members on the Government Benches that hard-pressed taxpayers will see further cuts to public services or will not see the schools, hospitals or road repairs that they have been promised are simply fiction. It is not the case.
This amount is a proportion of the EU budget and the budget is agreed for this year, so the liability is capped at this level. There is no further liability under the facility. What is the “so what” of this point? It is my belief that the action of this Government’s Chancellor has stopped Britain further sleepwalking into handouts, bail-outs, gifts or grants to the European Union. This fund is a eurozone experiment about which we have many concerns and I share the concerns that have been eloquently raised by Government Members about the long-term future direction of countries that are hamstrung by the tightness of their currency conditions and the overall problems with their economies.
A Conservative Chancellor argued for tough conditions and pari passu rating with IMF debt for this facility, the only facility in which we have involvement. If hon. Members consider the conditions under which a country can access the facility, they will see that extremely tight conditions must be met and plans must be made. Although the situation is not ideal, the Government have done far more than the previous Government to put a stop to such developments—in fact, they have done the opposite of what that Government did for 13 years. The point that has been made about fighting to ensure that there is equal draw-down from the facility is right and I believe that the amendment also calls for that.
I urge Members on both sides of the House to stop this Eurosceptic scaremongering, to focus on the facts of the debate and to ensure that we collectively never again sign our country up to the sort of bail-out mechanisms and removal of vetoes with which the previous Government left us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Andrea Leadsom. You have two minutes before the Front-Bench wind-ups.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I put it to you that the Backbench Business Committee is in fact not being allowed to operate as was clearly originally intended when it was established? Because the motion was amended, the Committee was unable to allow the House to vote on the motion that it had selected for debate. What advice can you give to the House on how that matter might be rectified so that in future, as on Opposition days, the motion is voted on before the amendment is taken? What advice can you give to enable that to happen in future?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I recognise that there is a lot of frustration at the way the motion was dealt with today. However, things have been carried out in order. I am sure that the Leader of the House will reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s comments and think about them, but I am also sure that he will speak to the Committee to see whether there is a way forward for everybody. Hopefully, some amiable agreement can be reached in future, if that is the desire of the Committee.
Mr Davidson
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does that not demonstrate quite clearly that this set of Government Whips is just as bad as the previous one?
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.
Mr Hanson
You have caught me slightly off guard, Mr Hoyle. I was expecting my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to participate in the previous debate, but I shall plough on as ever. It is good to see you back in the Chair. I hope that you had a refreshing evening’s sleep after we had considered earlier matters.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. As we know, we are debating the bank levy. There has been some stretching of the debate already, and we are in danger of stretching it even further. We have had a good debate so far, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to keep to the amendment.
Mr Love
I bow to your advice, Mr Hoyle. I will conclude my remarks about the lack of a growth strategy by saying that as an optimist, I believe that it is never too late. I hope the Government will think carefully and recognise that the growth strategy they produced on paper simply does not respond to the real needs of the economy.
I finish where I started, by commending the amendment to the Government. It poses no threat to them; it simply seeks to review the bank levy system that they are introducing. They will know, because they have spent a great deal of time on this, just how important the public think the role of the banks in getting our economy sorted out is. After all, it is widely perceived that the banks were the main cause of the problem in the first place, so people are looking to them to help our economy in a meaningful way. For the reasons that I have stated, the amendment will address some of those issues and provide an opportunity to examine how the levy is working in December. I hope that it will provide us with an opportunity to straighten out and ensure that the levy really addresses the needs of our country.
Chris Leslie
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I understood that this was a Committee stage, and that we were considering the Bill in detail. Is it usual practice for a Minister responding to a debate not at least to give way and allow a dialogue on the clause in question?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to decide whether to give way, and I am sure that he heard the cries for him to do so.
Mr Hoban
Subsection (2)(a) of the amendment requires a report on
“the Government’s analysis behind the rate and threshold chosen for the bank levy”.
It might help Opposition Members if I explained how we designed the levy, and why we set the rate and threshold as we did. The levy is intended to ensure that the banking sector makes a fair and substantial contribution, reflecting the risks that it poses to the financial system and the wider economy. It is intended to encourage banks to move away from risky funding models, and complements the wider regulatory agenda to improve standards and enhance financial stability. During the crisis, it became clear that some banks had become over-reliant on short-term funding for long-term lending. When financial markets seized up, those banks were exposed.
I must emphasise that the levy is based on the liabilities of a bank, not on its assets. It is based on the bank’s deposits, its share capital and loans made to it, not on loans made by it. It applies to the global balance sheets of UK banks, building societies and banking and building society groups, and to the UK operations of banks from other countries.
In determining the scope of the levy, we concluded that foreign banks operating in the UK also posed potential risks to the UK financial system and the wider economy, whether they operated as branches or as subsidiaries. It therefore follows that they should contribute on the same basis, and branches and subsidiaries of foreign banking groups are included to ensure that they cannot avoid the levy by group restructuring. That will ensure the provision of a level playing field for all banks operating in the UK.
The levy will be paid by between 30 and 40 building societies and banking groups, and we have made it clear that we expect it to yield about £2.5 billion of revenues each year in its steady state. That appropriate contribution balances fairness with competitiveness, and the rates of the levy were chosen to allow it. We initially announced that a reduced rate would apply for 2011, recognising the uncertain market conditions prevailing at the time, but we no longer consider that to be necessary.
In December the Bank of England noted that the near-term outlook and resilience of the UK banking sector had improved. Markets also now have greater certainty about the timing and direction of regulatory change, with the Basel III regulatory reforms being introduced in 2013 and transition periods being extended to 2015. We therefore decided that from 1 March this year, the full rate of the levy should be introduced for 2011. The levy will now yield £2.5 billion in that year. The steady state target yield was set out last year, when we also announced our intention to make significant cuts in the main rate of corporation tax.
Mr Lammy
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. In Committee, when Ministers have not answered questions from Back Benchers, is it normal for them not even to give way? Surely the Financial Secretary could simply photocopy what he is reading out, and send that to all of us so we can go home?
The Chairman
That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to decide how he wishes to reply to the debate.
Mr Hoban
I think that is the best suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has so far made in this debate. I shall send a copy of my speech to all hon. Members who are interested in it, so they can then go home.
The levy is a permanent tax, and is part of our wider package of far-reaching reforms. It is designed to be consistent with global regulatory practices, drawing on proposals from the International Monetary Fund and reflecting emerging proposals from the Basel committee. Excessive risk taking in the financial sector was a significant contributory factor in the recent financial crisis. As I said earlier, the levy is intended to encourage banks to move away from riskier funding.
The levy should not be seen in isolation from other reforms to the banking system. Domestic, European and international banking reforms will change the landscape of banking. For example, Basel III will lead to higher capital levels, and its liquidity reforms will change the funding profiles of banks. There is a vigorous debate within the EU and the G20 about whether the holders of bank debt should be required to contribute to the recovery or resolution of banks, for example through the conversion of debt to equity. As I said earlier, we have established an independent commission on banking to consider structural and related non-structural reforms.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) raised issues to do with the implicit guarantee, to make sure the right reforms are in place so banks are not dependent on the guarantee from the taxpayer. We have tackled that issue, whereas when his party was in government, it failed to do so. I wish he would give us some credit for the action we have taken to reform the regulation of the banking system during the year in which this Government have been in office.
The final element of the report calls for information on the total tax revenues expected from banks in each year to 2016-17. We have been clear that we expect the levy to raise about £2.5 billion each year. We have also taken other steps to ensure that banks pay their fair share. The previous Government introduced the code of practice on taxation for banks, but they utterly failed to get banks to sign up to it. They talk tough now, but they failed when in government; only four of our leading 15 banks actually signed up to that code of practice when they were in office. By the end of November, however, all the top banks had signed up to the code, and by March 2011 some 200 banks had adopted it. We therefore need take no lessons from the Labour party about getting the banks to sign up to codes.
We are very clear that banks should make a contribution reflecting the risks they pose to the UK financial system and wider economy. While amendment 9 calls for a report, this Government are delivering action. We have already set out the reason for the rates chosen and the decision to set an allowance at £20 billion. We have been clear on how the bank levy fits with and complements our wider reform package and we have been clear that we expect revenues from banks to grow as the economy recovers. We have also secured agreement from the top banks on the tax revenues they expect to pay over the spending review period. We are raising more in this levy than the previous Government raised through their one-off bank payroll tax. Labour Members refused to introduce a bank levy when they were in government. We backed it where they have failed to act and I ask hon. Members to support the clause.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
The Chairman
Order. I think it would be of interest to the House to hear from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), and I am sure that he will not take too long.
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.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 7, page 12, line 36, at end add—
‘(8) The Chancellor shall publish, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.’.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.
Kerry McCarthy
The backdrop to today’s debate is an economy that is flat-lining, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted last week. Since the Chancellor’s spending review, we have had no economic growth, and it is ordinary people who are hardest hit by that stagnation, with 2.5 million people out of work, including nearly 1 million young people—one in five 16 to 24-year-olds. An increasing number of people have been jobless for more than a year—nearly 850,000 and rising. This year, as the Government’s cuts start to bite, hundreds of thousands more people could lose their jobs. I believe that that is what the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office called an
“immediate national crisis in the form of less growth and jobs than we need.”
Apparently, it is what the Chancellor describes as “good news” and a sign that the economy is on the right track. Families are feeling the effects of the crisis in their pockets. Prices are still rising by more than 5% on the retail prices index, while earnings are growing at just 2% a year.
Rising fuel prices are a big part of this squeeze. According to the Office for National Statistics, fuel prices are currently one of the most significant contributors to consumer price inflation. According to this week’s figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the average UK pump price is now £1.36 for a litre of petrol and £1.42 for a litre of diesel. I am sure that many Members will be aware that at their local petrol pumps prices are even higher. That means that petrol is more than 3p a litre more expensive than it was last month, or 15p more than this time last year, and that diesel is 3p more expensive than last month, or nearly 20p more than last year. Unfortunately, the 1p saving we got from the Chancellor’s cut in fuel duty lasted barely a week before price rises at the pumps wiped it out.
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 Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend noticed the projections for the increase in household debt under this Government? The Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting that it will increase by more than £500 billion this year and over the next five years, and it is also saying that the reason for this is not only inflation but the comprehensive spending review and the Budget.
The Chairman
Order. We must keep questions to the subject of the amendment that we are dealing with.
Kerry McCarthy
Before the election, the Economic Secretary said in this House during a debate on fuel duty:
“What people want from the Government today is a helping hand to get them out of their financial troubles. Instead, what they see from the Government is no help at all. Far from providing a hand to pull them out of their troubles, the Government are pushing them further down into them.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 359.]
How astonishing, then, to find that that is exactly what she and her Government are doing. They may have made a show of helping people up with a small fuel duty cut, but that is after they have given them a much bigger push down with their VAT rise on fuel. Before the Chancellor gave his Budget statement, Labour Members called for him to look again at the fuel duty escalator, which I think the Economic Secretary is muttering about from a sedentary position. In previous Budgets, we cancelled or postponed fuel duty rises when pump prices were rising quickly. In the 2010 Budget, the then Labour Chancellor phased in the increase for that year in three stages to ease pressure on business and household incomes. In the 2008 Budget, the previous Government postponed the increase in fuel duty for six months, again to support the economy and help businesses and families. We therefore welcome the fact that the Chancellor has done so again in this Finance Bill. However, when that cut is put in context, we see that families and businesses are facing more pressure than before as a result of the Government’s policies on fuel tax.
This is not the only policy in the Bill that is not all that it seems when it is put in context. The Government have made much of their increase in the personal allowance for income tax. The Chancellor said:
“The increase in the personal tax allowance already announced will vastly exceed anything lost through employee NICs uprating”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 954.]
However, he failed to mention that the rise in the allowance is swamped by his VAT rise, which will take £450 a year, on average, from the pockets of families with children. Families earning as little as £31,000 could lose their child tax credits as the Government take £400 million out of the system, while the Government’s Welfare Reform Bill creates uncertainty for families over whether they will keep their child care support and free school meals. In a couple of years, a family with two children with a single earner earning just £44,000 could find that the Government have taken £1,750 a year away from them in child benefit. It is no wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Chancellor was
“giving with one hand…and taking away with lots and lots of other hands.”
Nor is it surprising that the economist Roger Bootle said today that household incomes were “all but certain” to fall.
All this comes at a time when Government cuts mean front-line cuts in services that people rely on—schools, the NHS, social care, even the police—and workers in those vital public sector jobs are facing redundancies. The Government may say that some factors are outside their control. When we were in government, oil prices rose substantially, as we are seeing now, but we left government with a proportional tax take on fuel lower than when we came into government—down from 75% to less than 65% on petrol and down from 74% to 64% on diesel. It is no coincidence that under the last Conservative Government fuel taxation shot up from 66% of the price of petrol in 1992 to 75% in 1997, and from 66% to 74% for diesel.
The Minister of State for International Development made the front pages in March, saying:
“if this does go wrong”,
referring to the Budget,
“£1.30 at the pump could look like a luxury, $200 a barrel is on the cards”.
He can hardly have expected that remark to put a stop to speculation in the oil markets.
Rather than helping people through the tough times, the Government seem to want to make things worse. There was an alternative for the Government. Before the Budget, we called on the Chancellor to scrap the hike in VAT on fuel. That would have been of genuine help to families and businesses.
Stewart Hosie
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. It is entirely up to the hon. Lady to give way as she sees fit, but when the Scottish National party moved to strike out the VAT rise, Labour most certainly did not vote for it. Could she correct herself—
Alison McGovern
Thank you, Mr Hoyle. It would be testing your patience not to stick to the amendment, as I shall endeavour to do for the rest of my remarks.
All Members will realise that the average family, the average couple and the average pensioner are facing a more and more difficult situation as the money coming in has to be stretched even further, and with prices going up in the shops. That is people’s experience. The impact of taxation on fuel prices and its role in driving up inflation and driving down living standards requires investigation and careful thought. This is not just my view or that of just some economist: when I looked into the possible causes of rising inflation in the UK, the first person I thought might have the answer was the Governor of the Bank of England, who, in his letter to the Chancellor about why the Bank had not met the inflation target, cited the VAT rise as one of the inflationary pressures facing the country.
As I said, I am not some inflation hawk who holds to a 1980s antediluvian economic philosophy that inflation is necessarily bad. Some countries have had relatively high inflation as well as growth. However, the important thing about taxation and fuel prices, and their role in inflation, is that it is possible to build in inflationary expectations in the long term through some of these measures. I wonder whether the Government have really thought about what they are doing in not combating some of the issues related to rising prices that we have seen.
There is also an obvious link with people’s worry about the lack of investment at this time. There is no doubt that investment means jobs today and productivity tomorrow, and therefore a more effective economy that enables people to have a better standard of living at less cost. That has to be the aim. At the moment, the Government are balancing the books using VAT and extremely flat taxes that do not pay regard to people’s income. They are asking people in my constituency on relatively modest incomes to pay the same higher prices at the fuel pumps as people in the Chancellor’s constituency down the road in Tatton, who by and large—not universally—are a bit wealthier. That is not fair.
We have to consider carefully whether the increased taxation on fuel resulting from the VAT rise is having a negative impact on the economy in a wide-ranging sense. It is not only about whether fuel prices are up—obviously that could be the result of several things—but, most especially, about what that is doing to inflationary expectations. We need to consider whether it is having a damaging impact on the broader economy, and whether it is a disincentive to growth and productivity improvements in the UK. We also need to consider what it is doing to the living standards of people such as those whom I represent in Wirral and Merseyside who have seen living standards fall severely in the past two years.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with the old adage, “You can’t fool all the people all the time”, but that is exactly what the Chancellor tried to do with his 1p tax cut to fuel duty. However, is it not the case that since the Budget, petrol prices have gone up several times more than that 1p tax bribe, and that the VAT increase in fuel duty is causing damage to motorists and businesses—
The Chairman
Order. I am ruling that interventions must be short and letting the Committee know that we will be taking only short interventions.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes an important, if a little lengthy point. People will not be fooled, because they will see fuel prices going up and ask themselves what the Government have done to help. People are connecting the impact on prices across the board with what happens when they fill up the tank. When they go to the shop, they see higher prices all around them and they wonder where they are coming from. There is one clear answer: No. 11 Downing street. The Chancellor has decided that people will have to pay more in the shops. Let us not imagine that he has said, “Well, I’m sorry everyone. These are tough times—we’re going to ask you to put your hands in your pockets until we can lower VAT again.” Rather, this is a permanent rise that will build in higher prices for the long term. Given the downward pressure on wages, the really worrying thing is that the rise is building in not only a reduction in quality of life, but inequality, which is very worrying and will hurt for many years to come.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. The amendment is very narrowly drawn. I have listened to the debate very carefully. Can you tell the Committee whether it is in order to discuss the matters that have been raised in it, ranging from the abolition of child benefit to the widening of the A1 and, now, the abuse of red diesel?
The Chairman
The Chair will decide that. I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very senior Member of the House, is questioning the judgment of the Chair.
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.
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.
The Chairman
Order. I think we are now beginning to stray a little from the subject under discussion. I am sure we will return to the topic of the fuel levy.
The Chairman
I do not think we really need to hear from the hon. Gentleman at this stage.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I should apologise to you and the Committee for an inadvertent breach of the conventions of the House, namely that having chaired the Committee earlier this evening, I inadvertently forgot the convention that I should not vote. I have, in fact, voted twice in Divisions since then. I apologise for that oversight.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The Committee is grateful for that explanation.
Clause 7
Increase in rate of supplementary charge
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 13, page 2, line 36, leave out ‘for “20%” substitute “32%”’, and insert
‘after “a sum equal to 20% of its adjusted ring fence profits for that period”, insert “increasing by 1 per cent. for every $5 by which the reference hydrocarbon price exceeds $75 subject to a maximum rate of 32%”.’.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 14, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1A) A reference price will be determined by an independent arbiter agreed jointly between the Government and Oil and Gas UK and will determine separate prices for oil, gas and condensates.’.
Amendment 15, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1B) The increased charge shall not apply to fields producing more than 90 per cent. gas. Where a field produces oil and gas the charge will be based on the price of oil equivalent taking into account the ratios of oil to gas produced.’.
Amendment 16, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1C) The supplementary charge may be abated or offset against the cost of investment to increase production.’.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 2, leave out ‘24 March 2011’ and insert ‘30 September 2011’.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 2, after ‘2011’, insert
‘and before 30 September 2012’.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 4, leave out ‘24 March 2011’ and insert ‘30 September 2011’.
Amendment 18, page 3, line 4, after ‘2011’, insert ‘or 30 September 2012’.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 8, leave out ‘24 March 2011’ and insert ‘30 September 2011’.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 8, after ‘2011’, insert ‘or 30 September 2012’.
Government amendments 11 and 12.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 27, leave out ‘24 March 2011’ and insert ‘30 September 2011’.
Amendment 20, page 3, line 28, after ‘2011’, insert ‘or 30 September 2012’.
Amendment 10, page 4, line 7, at end add—
‘(11) The Chancellor shall produce, before 30 September 2011, an assessment of the impact of taxation of ring fence profits on business investment and growth including an assessment of the long-term sustainability of oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.’.
Clause stand part.
Malcolm Bruce
The purpose of this group of amendments is to persuade the Government to engage with the oil and gas industry to ensure that no major new investment opportunities are lost. I will explain the purpose of the main amendments, and I very much hope that Ministers will respond in a constructive way, because these are intended to be constructive proposals.
The Government are on record as saying that they understand the need for stability in the fiscal regime, and the Chancellor has described this as a Budget for growth. It is worth saying, however, that in contrast to the cautious way in which the Government have applied new taxes to banks, which have squandered our resources to the extent that many of them had to be nationalised, it is quite harsh to apply a marginal rate of tax of 82% to our single biggest industry. It is an industry that invests in real infrastructure and real engineering, and it takes risks in regard to weather, geology, exchange rates and cost unpredictability, as well as taxation.
I accept that the current spot price of Brent crude, at $125 a barrel, allows for unforeseen profits, at least for some fields. However, that does not apply to gas fields or to fields with large quantities of associated gas and, as Ministers will know, that is not the price that many operators actually realise, as they often contract their production at an average well below the spot peak.
I say in passing that the link between the oil tax changes and the fair fuel stabiliser are tenuous. Many of the companies operating in the North sea have no retail division, and there is no direct connection between their returns and the pump price. Also, the Government are themselves the recipient of a windfall. According to the Library brief and, I think, the Red Book, North sea profits are running at between £1.5 billion and £1.9 billion per annum over the next four years. That is additional revenue that was not anticipated in the pre-Budget statement in November. The Government have also received a VAT windfall on pump prices, averaging about 6p a litre. However, my point is not that there is no case for additional contributions from North sea operators and field shareholders. I do not take issue with the Government about that. My point is that this should be done after proper consultation and taking due account of the complex character of the mature North sea industry.
I have monitored the industry for 40 years. Indeed, 40 years ago this September, I started work as research and information officer for the North East Scotland Development Authority. Towards the end of that year, 1971, BP announced the successful commercial test of a well, which turned out to be the discovery of the Forties field. However, it is interesting to note that, believing that it had reached the end of its useful life, BP sold the Forties field to Apache in 2003. Since its acquisition of the field, Apache has greatly enhanced recovery from Forties and sees long-term potential for its development. It is worth noting that Apache has been one of the most vigorous critics of the Government’s policies, and that it questions whether its investment will be fully committed or realised.
The Chairman of Ways and Means
Order. We are straying from the amendments if we start talking about job losses. Let us try to keep as close as we can to the amendments before us.
Helen Goodman
I entirely accept your guidance, Mr Hoyle.
There is obviously a supply chain for the oil and gas sector. Equally obviously, if we damage the financial viability of the oil and gas companies, there will be an impact further down the supply chain. It is worrying that the industry is predicting that 40,000 jobs will be lost. Those are 40,000 jobs that we can ill afford to lose at this time. This is absolutely typical of the measures being taken by the Government that, across the board, are not being thought through. The statement by Statoil that it is going to put on hold a $10 billion investment is very worrying.
We also need to pay attention to the fact that the North sea province is different. It is not only a mature province—we all understand what that means—but it is in a very competitive arena. The Government do not appear to understand what being in a competitive arena means, or that those companies have a choice about where they invest.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can you face the Chair, please? Thank you.
Helen Goodman
There is also a problem with partnerships between the private sector and the universities.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman speaks about nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy. Does he have an opinion on the Scottish National party’s view on nuclear energy?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. He has asked his question. Members should not just walk into the Chamber and intervene.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am not aware of the SNP’s policy. It may have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman, but I stand here as a Conservative Member of Parliament.
I have a final plea to the Minister. I know that there are problems with the European Union interfering in all aspects of alcohol and that we cannot do certain things, but can he look at putting higher taxation on non-draught beer? He may have done so already and it would be interesting to hear about that when he sums up. That does not involve saying that if beer is sold in a supermarket it will be taxed more, which brings competition law into play, but just that draught beer will not be taxed as much as other beers. The reason for raising tax on non-draught beer is that draught beer is served in pubs and publicans have a responsibility to ensure that people do not drink out of control, because they are licensed and controlled. I think that that idea would go some way towards countering the binge drinking problem. It may be that we cannot do that under European law, but I make the plea to the Minister. I will be interested to hear whether it is something that he has considered.
I support the Bill and believe that it is the only way we can secure growth. It is an intelligent and credible way forward that, frankly, is not just trying to get a good headline in The Guardian, which the shadow Chancellor seems keen on.