Finance Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

That question probably sounded more cutting in the development in the hon. Gentleman’s mind than in the delivery. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) chunters from a sedentary position. He is welcome to intervene on me if he so wishes. I will be delighted to give way to him.

I say to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and others that abstaining on Second Reading, as he well knows because he is a veteran of debates on Finance Bills, both in Committee and in the Chamber, does not mean that we will not press matters to a vote later in the Bill’s passage. Indeed, on the second sitting day in September we will be considering the Bill in Committee of the Whole House, where we will have tabled amendments, on which we will be voting, on other important measures including bank taxation, the climate change levy and the insurance premium tax. We can all have a lot of fun then when it comes to voting on amendments and debating them at great length.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Opposition be supporting the reasoned amendment, opposing it or abstaining on it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will be abstaining on the reasoned amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. There are measures in the Bill that we definitely support. There are other measures that we wish to return to when the Bill receives detailed scrutiny in Committee of the Whole House and in Public Bill Committee, and we shall return to those issues and press some to a vote. On others, we will table probing amendments to gain greater understanding of the Government’s detailed intentions.

[Mark Durkan]

The Opposition Front Bench were saying similar things yesterday about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but they supported and tabled a reasoned amendment, so it is possible to abstain on a Bill but support a reasoned amendment. What is wrong with the reasoned amendment that would prevent the Opposition from supporting it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat debate with the hon. Gentleman, but the SNP did not support our reasoned amendment last night. In my opinion, the measured and sensible way to take the Finance Bill forward, as we have done with previous Finance Bills in the previous Parliament, is to scrutinise it in detail. There are more opportunities with Finance Bills because we have Committee of the Whole House as well as the Public Bill Committee, and we shall press important measures in the Bill to a vote when we reach the latter stages of the Bill’s passage; but given that there are very important measures that we do support, it is important that we signal that by allowing the Bill a Second Reading.

One issue to which we will return in Committee of the Whole House is bank taxation. The Government will decrease the rate of the bank levy from January 2016 and will at the same time introduce a surcharge on profits of banks over a threshold of £25 million, which represents a switch from a tax on balance sheets to a tax on profits. Those measures are contained in clauses 16 and 17.

We will debate those in detail in Committee of the whole House in September, when we will seek to increase transparency regarding revenues from the banking sector. We will also push the Government for further details about the impact that these measures will have on the diversity of the financial sector, including any disproportionate impact on building societies. That is one of the things that people have been warning about since the measures in the Bill were unveiled.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted, by 2021 there will have been 13 tax rates in 10 years as the bank levy is gradually reduced from 0.21% to 0.1% by January 2021. This measure will cost £1.8 billion from 2021 onwards. Because from 2021 UK banks will be taxed on liabilities in the UK and not worldwide, that represents a fairly significant giveaway that it is important to test further in Committee. In contrast to what is happening to the bank levy, the 8% corporation tax surcharge, in effect, on bank profits from January 2016 raises £1.3 billion. There are a number of questions on the rationale for moving to this form of taxation for banks, as well as on the original intention of the bank levy and whether that will continue to be met in the new regime. It is important that hon. Members have the chance to test this further in Committee. The Minister will know that the bank levy was designed to discourage risky leverage, but whether it has been successful in doing so is a matter for some debate. Moving to a system of having a tax on profits possibly introduces a risk that there may be some discouragement from declaring UK profits. It will be important to analyse what risk that might pose in the banking sector.

There is a particular problem with regard to challenger banks, which were not subject to the bank levy but will fall within the new surcharge. Challenger banks are important for the overall health of the financial sector, because we need them to challenge the dominance of the big four or five banks. The Government will say, rightly, that the £25 million threshold is partly designed to prevent too much of the impact from being felt by challenger banks. Nevertheless, the Government will also be aware that a lot of the commentary since publication of the proposals has focused on the genuine concerns of challenger banks, which are worried that despite the £25 million threshold, they will still be disproportionately affected, with a significant impact on consumer choice as well. We will need to look at those issues further.

Tourism Industry and VAT

Debate between Mark Durkan and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was just about to develop a point about the evidence presented by hon. Members in this debate, and how we will react to it if we form the next Labour Government and Treasury.

I start by recognising that cutting VAT is a significant monetary challenge. The Opposition are clear that we will put no unfunded promises in our manifesto, the basis on which we will seek election from the public in the coming weeks, and we will not borrow any more money for day-to-day spending. We note the evidence presented by hon. Members in this debate from notable academics who have considered the issue in detail. It has been cited in support of the argument by the Cut Tourism VAT campaign. From opposition, I am not in a position to assess that evidence in the same way that the Treasury can, as it has access to data sets that we do not, but I note the Minister’s answers to hon. Members in written parliamentary answers and oral answers during departmental question time in the House. He has said, on the basis of analysis undertaken by the Treasury, that a VAT cut for the sector would not produce sufficient economic growth to outweigh the consequent revenue shortfall. It would be helpful if in summing up, the Minister put more of that evidence on the record, if the position is the same as before.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I apologise for coming late; I was involved in the debate in the main Chamber. The hon. Lady says that the Opposition are unable to examine the figures, but during this Parliament the Opposition have posited that an overall decrease in VAT would encourage consumer spending on all sorts of important consumer goods. Does she not accept that there is evidence to suggest that the measure would at least help trap the multiplier in a more targeted way in areas that depend on the tourism economy?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in the early part of this Parliament, we proposed an alternative package to the Government as an immediate measure to stimulate the economy. It envisaged a temporary VAT cut, which at the time could have made a difference across the whole economy and might have meant being in a different position today. I note, though, that the previous Labour Government, when lobbied on the issue, felt that targeting the cut in the way then envisaged would not necessarily have produced the effects anticipated by hon. Members.

That is why it would be helpful to hear more from the Minister about current Treasury thinking and analysis of the available evidence. An incoming Labour Treasury would certainly want to consider all that evidence and see the analysis at first hand. In particular, we would want to understand the relationship between different measures that could be taken, including a potential VAT tax cut compared with, for example—the Government have also cited this in defence of their position—the employment allowance, a £2,000 rebate on employer national insurance contributions introduced by the Government earlier in this Parliament. I would also want to be convinced that we would achieve as close to 100% pass-through of such a big change if we were to start considering seriously the case for making it.

However, we return to the fact that if we cut VAT in that way, the most recent Office for National Statistics data from 2012 suggest an annual cost to the Exchequer of £11 billion to £12 billion. Those sums would have to be found elsewhere, and we as an incoming Labour Government would not be in a position to make that choice. So I cannot commit to a VAT cut of the nature called for by the campaign, although I can of course commit, if I become a Treasury Minister after the election in May, to assessing the analysis and all available evidence. I will also work with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to examine what else can be done to assist the tourism sector and ensure that it plays its full part in encouraging sustained and balanced economic growth. I am sure that the Cut Tourism VAT campaign will continue to make its case in full heart in the life of the next Parliament; it is certainly made up of doughty parliamentary campaigners. I look forward to engaging with them in much the same way that I know the Minister has engaged with them thus far in this Parliament.

Tourism is a hugely important sector to the UK. It is our fourth largest service industry; it employs 9.6% of the UK work force, or 3.1 million people; it generates 9% of the UK’s entire GDP; and in 2013 it contributed £127 billion to the economy. So, it is in everybody’s interests to ensure that the sector grows, thrives and continues to provide the jobs necessary for UK plc.

As I highlighted in our debate on tourism last year, there are other policy levers that can be pulled, without the cost implications that a VAT cut on tourism would entail, which would still be of real benefit to the sector. One of the most effective of those levers could be around immigration policy, particularly given the complexity around fees, visa applications and the monitoring required to make sure that people do not overstay their visa. The Government have made particular changes with respect to some countries, such as China. However, it is the case that other countries are deemed to be a high risk for potential overstaying but whose genuine visitors are often locked out. I see that in my own constituency with visitors who want to come from the Indian subcontinent, but the immigration officials almost take a first view that those people are more likely to overstay than not. Often, that is not the case. People want to come to the UK to see the land that their forefathers left their countries of origin for, and they wish to come and celebrate family events such as weddings. They will spend money here, and their British citizen relatives will spend money showing them a good time and showing them what Britain is all about. We should assist that process and not hold it back.

Therefore, although I cannot agree for the cut that has been called for, I commend the work of the Cut Tourism VAT campaign and the work of its supporters in the House. We will continue to work closely with the tourism sector and we look forward to hearing more from the campaigners in the future.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Shabana Mahmood

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am going to make some progress. I have been quite generous, and I will take some more interventions a little later.

On annual renewal, covered in new clause 7, there is a symbolic and practical importance to Parliament asking itself every year whether the powers that it has given the Home Secretary are still necessary and in holding the police and the Government to account for how those powers are used. That is an important measure of checks and balances. As we discussed in Committee, it also concentrates the mind. It requires the police and everybody else to consider regularly whether we truly need these powers, whether the risk is such that we cannot do without them and whether some mechanism might present itself that would enable more people to be brought within the criminal justice system rather than be kept outside it.

Our debate in Committee featured the idea of exceptionalism—the idea that these powers are an exceptional part of our legal framework and should not be permanent. Of course, the Bill did not originally have the provisions of new clauses 3 and 4 in it, and I am grateful that the Government have made some movement and taken on board some of the arguments made in Committee in support of more regular review and renewal of the powers. However, I do not believe that the new clauses go far enough, or that review every five years would meet our concerns about how the Bill and the new TPIMs regime will operate in practice.

There are a number of reasons for our concerns. The first, which the Minister touched on, is about resources. We have real concern about the additional resources that the police have said will be required under the new regime because there will be a higher risk under TPIMs. We are concerned about how they will be deployed and come on line ready for the police to use. Given that uncertainty, annual renewal and an early opportunity for Parliament to consider how the new TPIMs regime is getting on would be very welcome. It is necessary also because of the draft Bill that the Government printed only about four days ago as it would bring control order powers back into the system by way of emergency legislation. We have a number of questions about how that alternative regime may operate, which we will come to in the next group of amendments.