Spring Statement

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have laid a written ministerial statement today that sets out the reviews and consultations, and that is among them. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at that after this statement he will see that it is there.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I draw the attention of the Chancellor to the recent research published by the International Monetary Fund, which shows that the choice we made in 2010 to deal with the deficit primarily by controlling spending rather than raising taxes, as the Opposition would have done, was the right choice? It meant that the economy grew faster than those of our European competitors and has put him in the position where he can deliver more money for our priorities, while reducing the debt in the balanced way he has set out.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right: it was the right choice. Because we made that choice, throughout that period employment in this country continued to grow. We avoided the very high levels of unemployment suffered by many of our European neighbours. We avoided the catastrophic, generation-blighting levels of youth unemployment suffered by many of our European neighbours, which will be affecting their economies and societies not just for a few more years but for 30, 40 or 50 years to come. It was the right decision. We have executed our plan and we should stick to it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

It seems that the right hon. Gentleman cannot take yes for an answer. There is not a public sector pay cap. We have said that individual Secretaries of State will be responsible for making proposals on their workforces dependent on specific circumstances. We are facing very different issues in the NHS and in the armed forces. What is important is that we look at the evidence and make sure that we can recruit and retain the best possible workers in the public sector, but we also need to make sure that we do not price out of the market people working in the private sector.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Will the Chief Secretary urge her Cabinet colleagues, when they are making these decisions, to bear in mind that public sector pay rises must be fair not only to public sector workers, but to the five sixths of workers in the private sector who face the same pressures and challenges?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right. The fact is that we were left a legacy by a previous Government who spent money that they did not have. We have had to get the public finances back on track. We do recognise that there are areas in which we need to make sure that we can recruit and retain high-quality public sector workers, but we also need to make sure that we have a thriving private sector economy. That is why we have ended up with the lowest unemployment for 40 years.

Finance Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

This is not relevant to the debate, but a significant number of those jobs are incredibly low paid, and people have not had pay rises for many years. What the hon. and learned Lady says might well be the case, but the reality is that it is not about the quantity; it is about the quality—[Interruption.] Of course it is.

How insensitive and out of touch must this Government be to put clause 5 before Members today of all days? The Prime Minister has vowed that she will do anything and everything she can to help those affected at Bombardier and BAE, so perhaps the Minister would like to withdraw this provision here and now and put the Prime Minister’s warm words into action.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the concerns that those workers will be facing, but he knows perfectly well that the Government’s proposals in this Bill are designed to deal with abuse. He knows that there are no plans to change the rules in a way that would affect people on lower incomes who are not doing anything wrong, and the Minister made that clear on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering is making the concerns of those workers worse, rather than reassuring them, which is what he ought to be doing in this House of Commons.

[Peter Dowd]

The only people who are scaremongering are this Government who are threatening to tax people’s redundancy payments—that is the scaremongering in this House.

Perhaps the Minister would like to withdraw this proposal. I will happily give way to him if he wants to reconsider his decision—he might have discussed it with the Prime Minister. In some instances, a job loss can be even worse if individuals lose their employment because of base and nasty discrimination, whether because of their age, gender, race, religion or sexuality.

The amendments speak directly to the question of how much money an employee who has lost their job should receive in tax-free redundancy pay, and how much an employee who is discriminated against should receive in tax-free compensation from an employment tribunal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I will deal with the amendments and some of the issues introduced by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd).

Let me cover first the jobs position. The only criticism I have of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who raised this matter, is that, of course, jobs are created not by the Government but by businesses operating under the conditions that are created by the Government. It is important we remember that, because we should not take it for granted. The jobs performance of many countries in the European Union has been pitiful by comparison. Not that long ago, this country created more jobs than the rest of the European Union put together. That is not a trivial point; it makes a difference to millions of people across the country.

The hon. Member for Bootle ought not to sneer at the number of jobs. He is also wrong about the quality of those jobs. Figures from the Office for National Statistics clearly show that most of the jobs that have been created are permanent, full-time and skilled managerial or professional jobs. They are not rubbish jobs, as he calls them in that slightly sneering way. They are good-quality jobs and are providing good livelihoods for people across our country.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that Governments effectively have no role in creating jobs. The reality is that macroeconomic policies have an enormous effect on the creation of jobs. Those countries that have chosen foolishly to join the euro and now have a massively overvalued currency, in effect, have lost millions of jobs in some cases. We have fortunately not been part of the euro, and currency flexibility is a crucial part of that; that is Government policy.

[Mr Harper]

I completely agree, but the hon. Gentleman misquotes me. I did not say that Government have no role. I said that Government do not create the jobs, but I explicitly said that Government create the conditions within which businesses operate and can create jobs. He is absolutely right about that, and I do not necessarily demur from what he said. The euro and the straitjacket of monetary policy across Europe has led to appalling situations in some countries where unemployment rates are very high, which I do not think is sustainable. That is why our economic performance is incredibly strong. We should not throw that away.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how, when he was Chief Whip, Thames Water failed to pay taxation between 2010 and 2014?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I have not got any idea. I was not Chief Whip between 2010 and 2014. Individual taxpayer matters are for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and Ministers do not get involved in individual taxpayer decisions. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and several other hon. Members have pointed out, we have reduced the scope for businesses to avoid and evade paying taxes. We have closed that gap and are collecting more revenue that we can spend on our important public services, which I want to turn to.

The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned multinationals. He will know that there is nothing we can do unilaterally to collect money from multinationals that operate in different countries. That has to be part of an international process. He will know that David Cameron’s Conservative Government led that process and set up the initiatives. It is not very exciting, Mrs Winterton, but we are part of what I think is called the base erosion and profit-shifting programme. I am a non-practising chartered accountant, and I am afraid that we talk about such exciting things over coffee, but it is important because it relates to a set of international rules for treating where companies earn income consistently so that we tax them where they are genuinely doing their economic work. This Government cannot do that unilaterally; we have to co-operate. This Government have been leading and shaping that work across the world, not following others or trying to avoid it. Not only do we not have anything to be ashamed of, we have a lot to be proud of, which is shown in the revenue that we have been collecting.

Moving on to the substance of clause 5 and the amendments, I want to return to the point I made when intervening on the hon. Member for Bootle. There is nothing in the proposals that should alarm anybody—particularly those on lower incomes—who is playing by the rules. That issue came up when there were votes on the Ways and Means motions, and the Minister made the Government’s intentions clear and they are not what the hon. Gentleman suggested. Anybody worrying about their job at Bombardier, BAE Systems, about which we heard yesterday, or any other company should know that the Government have not proposed to alter the £30,000 tax-free limit at all. If the Government were to bring forward such a proposal, it would be governed by a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure, meaning that the matter would come to the House and that Ministers would have to make the case at the Dispatch Box and persuade the House to back a change. There is no such proposal. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not true and in saying that it is he is scaremongering and worrying people when they have no reason to be worried. He should be ashamed of himself.

As the Minister set out on Second Reading, clause 5 is necessary because the rules are unclear and complex and there is some abuse. Some 85% of termination payments are below the £30,000 threshold and will not be affected, but we must make sure that people do not abuse rules that are there for a good reason: to ensure that employees who lose their jobs are properly compensated and have some money to help them as they look for another job. There is no proposal to change that; this is about dealing with abuse.

On amendment 4 and “injured feelings”, there is a clear reason why it is foolish. Were it agreed to, it would introduce a large loophole into the process that would absolutely be abused. If someone wanted to offer some tax-free payments on loss of office, the payment could be labelled as “injured feelings”, rather than as something in the contract, and they could avoid paying tax and national insurance on it. The Minister should be congratulated on thinking things through and ensuring that people cannot dream up loopholes. Dealing with tax evasion is not just about acting after it has happened; it is about smartly drafting legislation so that loopholes are not left open in the first place.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful argument. I was just considering his remarks on tax avoidance, loopholes and, indeed, Thames Water, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and it is important to remember that industrial-scale tax avoidance arose under the previous Labour Government, who did nothing at all to stop this egregious practice. This Government have been passionate, trenchant and active in righting that wrong.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. We hear a lot from the Opposition about clamping down on evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, and I give them credit for talking about it a lot. Unfortunately, they did not do anything about it when they were in government. The Minister and this Government talk about it a little bit, but we spend most of our time dealing with it and collecting the money, which is the right balance.

[Catherine West]

The list definitely dates from 2010—if I am not mistaken, that was when the Tory Government came to power—and includes Google, the Vodafone sweetheart deal, and Amazon. Government Members should concede that, despite some gradual improvements, we are still not where we ought to be and that this group of amendments includes things that taxpayers would like to see this House take much more seriously.

[Mr Harper]

There are a couple of things in what the hon. Lady says. She is absolutely right that we need to do more to ensure that multinational companies pay tax in the appropriate jurisdiction, but we cannot do that unilaterally. We have to work with other countries, because we need international agreement on where a company’s profits are earned. The media sometimes does not understand this, but companies pay tax on profits, not revenues, so the whole argument is about where the profits land and that has to be addressed internationally. This Government are leading that international work, not following it—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) shaking her head. UK tax professionals have been leading this work and continue to drive it forward. We have a proud record.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have seen some of this from the inside, within the European Union. For example, I have seen measures against trusts and measures to introduce country-by-country reporting blocked by Conservative MEPs, and I frequently saw measures to attempt to introduce international co-ordination blocked by Conservative-related politicians.

[Mr Harper]

No. First, it cannot just be done at European Union level—[Interruption.] No, we have to do it globally, because many of the companies involved are US companies. The base erosion—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Opposition Front-Bench team are laughing. The base erosion and profit sharing programme comes from the OECD.

[Catherine West]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harper]

I cannot take an intervention when I am still dealing with the first one. The base erosion and profit sharing programme is a global initiative, and we are leading on that work.

As for the point of the hon. Member for Oxford East about the EU, if I remember rightly, the reason why the Government blocked the French-driven proposals for country-by-country reporting was that they were part of an EU plan to try to drive up the total amount of tax that we take from business, not to ensure that companies pay tax in the right way. We are not an anti-tax country. That move was part of an EU plan to avoid countries being able to have competitive tax regimes and to avoid businesses locating in the United Kingdom. The French wanted to stop that because many of their businesses and smartest people now work in London or other parts of the UK, but the change was not in our national interest and I believe that that was why we blocked it. However, we need to continue the international work, and I am pleased that we have been leading on it.

My final point is about workers’ rights. I understand that the hon. Member for Bootle has to do this stuff to please people on his side, but he is absolutely wrong. This Government have absolutely no agenda of the sort that he mentioned. When talking about our leaving the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we want to protect workers’ rights. We stand four-square behind the rights that are in place, and we will be legislating for them in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which I am sure will provide many hours of joy and fun in Committee. You may even be in the Chair, Dame Rosie, to listen to some of those exciting debates. We are going to protect workers’ rights, and there is nothing at all in the proposals to concern somebody who is worried about losing their job. This is about cracking down on people who have been abusing the provisions that protect legitimate workers who lose their jobs, using them as an excuse to get tax-free cash out of the system and cheat the taxpayer. That is what the proposals are about and that is why I hope that the Committee rejects all the amendments and supports clause 5.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is good to be back in the House after a bit of a recess and to be here again talking about the Finance Bill. It is our second such Bill this year—our second of three—so we are here for the long haul. I want to discuss termination payments and the relevant amendments tabled by the Scottish National party and Labour. The Government have been clear that they are just closing a loophole, but the Budget suggested that the measure will generate an extra £430 million a year. That is £430 million a year that these workers will not be getting when they receive their termination payments. However the Government want to dress it up, this is additional tax on these people who are losing their jobs and receiving termination payments. These people are in a vulnerable situation, as they are receiving a termination payment and are no longer in employment and they will be taxed more as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

To return to our previous discussion and the points made by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), measures to deliver change on an international level have been blocked by the Government.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady made a relevant point in the previous debate that I did not mention at the time. Some of the things that we had to deal with early in the last but one Parliament involved multinational tax arrangements that were put in place under the previous Labour Government. We did our best to get at least some money from those multinationals. It was not enough, but we did at least move things in the right direction. Profit shifting can only be dealt with internationally by agreement. If we do not do that, we will not make any progress. As I said in the previous debate, we are leading that international effort, which did not happen under the Labour Government.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am sorry, but it is not the case that Governments are completely unable to do anything unilaterally to prevent profit shifting. They can, for example, decide whether to execute secret sweetheart deals with large multinationals through their tax authorities, or they can decide to be transparent.

Finance Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to address the 1922 committee today.

The House considered the Ways and Means resolutions last Wednesday, and today is round two on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. We have just had wall-to-wall complacency from the Minister; it is as simple as that. Sandwiched between the two debates, we have debated the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The legislative powers up for sequestration by Ministers are eye-watering and unprecedented, and they cover a range of areas, including finance. Quite simply, that process does not befit a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentarians— I use the word loosely—on the Government Benches should be concerned about their acquiescence last night. The hand-wringing, unprecedented ceding of power to the Executive was unbecoming, and it goes to the heart of the scrutiny on this Bill. [Interruption.] It does.

What next? The devolution of tax-raising powers to the Chancellor without discussion, challenge or scrutiny? Forced loans? Ship money, going back to the civil war? We will have the delights of considering in detail the Finance Bill’s 72 clauses in Committee in October, but that might change if the Government apply the principle agreed in the withdrawal Bill. Last night we saw all the incensed huff, puff and bluster of Conservative Members, their worry about the Government’s land grab on parliamentary sovereignty, evaporate, as if by magic, before our very eyes.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He should be careful of complaining about scrutiny. There are rather more Conservative Members than Opposition Members here to scrutinise the Bill. The EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which he references, specifically excludes Ministers from making taxation measures. He should read legislation before commenting on it.

[Peter Dowd]

I saw a few tumbleweeds on the Government Benches last week. If there is a shiver looking for a spine to run up, it need not bother looking on the Government Benches. After last night’s vote, there were none to be found. The national interest is not synonymous with the interest of the Tory party, as most Conservative Members would like to think, although the word “arrogance” is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment.

Last week, we witnessed the Brexit Secretary, also known as Britain’s Brexit bulldog and master negotiator, on the receiving end of more punches from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, than a well-oiled guest at a summer Tory Pimm’s party. What a cocktail of horrors it must have been for the Brexit Secretary.

[Mr Harper]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could help the hon. Gentleman, as he is five minutes into his speech and appears not to have noticed that we are debating the Finance Bill. I thought the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to which he has devoted all his remarks, took place yesterday. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I could not quite hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but I am guessing what I thought he probably said. I must say that the content of the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) is not a matter for me, but I am aware that we are discussing only the Finance Bill and we must stick to that. The Bill is, however, wide and varied. I have it here and I have looked at it —[Laughter.] And I will make absolutely certain that nobody speaks outwith the order that is due.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am very grateful to be called to speak by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, particularly since we worked so well together in a previous incarnation. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate with you in the Chair.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who speaks for the SNP. She referred to the recent general election. I completely agree that while it did not go as well as we would have hoped, it did not go terribly well for her own party. I, for one, am very pleased to be joined on these Benches by a number of excellent Scottish Conservative colleagues. It might surprise her to know that I am equally pleased to be joined in this House by some Labour colleagues who are of a Unionist nature. The one very important thing that came out of the general election was that we strengthen the United Kingdom and the bonds that bring us together, whichever political party people are from, and weaken the forces of nationalism trying to break our country apart.

[Stewart Hosie]

Obviously this has very little to do with the Finance Bill, but for the sake of completeness, the right hon. Gentleman might want to remind the House that the Scottish National party won the election in Scotland with a majority, which is something that the Tories do not have. As for nationalism, I think he should perhaps look in the mirror and reflect on his British nationalism before he casts aspersions on anybody else.

[Mr Harper]

I was not casting aspersions. I was simply reminding everybody that the Scottish nationalists—that is what they are; they are a nationalist party—want to break up the United Kingdom, and I was simply congratulating my colleagues from Scottish constituencies on helping to strengthen our United Kingdom.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I think that my right hon. Friend is being too generous to the Scottish nationalists. They are not simply nationalists; they are incompetent. They were warned on the question of VAT and the police before they took those reforms though, and they went ahead regardless. It is their fault and their mess, and as usual they are trying to blame everyone else for it.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not think that it would be out of order for me to make some brief remarks about something other than the Finance Bill, given that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson spent 10 minutes talking about yesterday and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North spent quite some time doing the same.

Let me move on to finance and the essential capability of the Bill, which is, of course, to raise revenue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about that, and of course the central point is about balancing the public finances. I shall not talk about that at length because I was fortunate enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the subject which, much like today’s, was well attended, with more than 20 Conservative colleagues and only one Opposition Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). To be fair to him, he spoke extremely well, but he was the only Opposition Back-Bench Member to speak in that debate, which demonstrated that when it comes to balancing the public finances, Opposition MPs are very good at spending money, but not so good at thinking of ways of balancing the books and ensuring that we have sound public finances. That is important because the sound public finances that the Bill helps to put in place will ensure that the country continues to grow and that we can continue to deliver pay rises for people across the country.

[Stella Creasy]

I want to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge. I am sure that he is proud that the previous Government, of which he was part, extended capital gains tax to residential property sales for non-domiciles, so will he join me in suggesting that we close the loophole on commercial property sales? There is one idea that could raise some money for investment in this country.

[Mr Harper]

I am very pleased that the measures in this Bill, which Opposition Front Benchers seem so unwilling to support, raise something like £1.6 billion—I am sure that the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—on top of the £1 billion we have raised from non-doms. Put together, that is £2.6 billion, which is more than the Labour party raised in all the time it was in government. If the hon. Lady compares Labour’s record in government with ours, she will see that we have been much more effective in raising taxes from non-doms to spend on our public services than her Government ever was.

[Ruth George]

How does the right hon. Gentleman think that the estimate of £1.6 billion to be raised by increased taxes on non-doms will be affected by the increase to two years in the time they have to transfer their funds into offshore trusts, thereby avoiding that increase in taxation? How will that impact on the figures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Again, I am sure that the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the Treasury’s estimate of an extra £1.6 billion is, I think, robust. The hon. Lady ought to be aware that in the seven years the Government have been in power, we have introduced significant measures to clamp down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, and the Finance Bill continues those measures. We have managed to reduce the tax gap and are collecting more of the revenue that we should collect. Again, that record is better than that of the hon. Lady’s party in office.

[Wes Streeting]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have tried to take measures to tackle multinational tax avoidance, but they have not been very successful, have they? When the diverted profits tax was announced, it was hailed as the so-called Google tax. That was all well and good, except for the fact that Google did not end up paying very much, did it?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. There are measures that we can take here in the United Kingdom to raise more money from multinational corporations, and we have taken some of them, but to do a proper job we have to take measures in accordance with international partners. That is why I am pleased that the Government have been leading a lot of the work on the OECD’s base erosion project to come up with international definitions of profits and international agreements on how to tax those profits. Individual countries are not able to take those steps by themselves.

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for—

[Mr Harper]

I am sorry; I meant to give way to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).

[Stella Creasy]

Age before beauty.

[Wes Streeting]

Imagine lacking both!

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we need more international co-operation if we are to curb the excesses of multinational corporations’ power. Does he therefore share my sadness that we are currently driving a coach and horses through the most sophisticated political and economic alliance in the history of the world—the European Union—which gives us that global power and the leadership to tackle those global excesses?

[Mr Harper]

First, I am clearly not going to get in the way of the sophisticated political alliance between the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Ilford North. On the EU, I was on the same side of the argument as the hon. Gentleman—I campaigned for remain—but I am also a democrat. The country made a different choice and everyone in the House needs to support the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as we did yesterday, to ensure that we have a smooth exit from the EU. However, that does not mean that we should stop co-operating with our international partners. Even when we have left the European Union, I want to work closely with colleagues in Europe on finance, security and trade matters. We can work well with our neighbours, and we can also work with our international partners outside the European Union. Indeed, if we are to deal with global multinationals, we will have to deal with the United States and other countries where those multinationals are headquartered if we are to make progress.

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend is making a sound case, but would it not be right to suggest that it is even more important, in the light of Brexit, for us to be in total control of our finances at home and that we should draw in all the money that is owed to us in the best possible ways? That is going to be so important in keeping us productive.

[Mr Harper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that is why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury set out a number of important areas in the Bill that deal with those issues.

I want to pick up on an issue that, interestingly, has been referred to by a number of colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched on the question of public sector productivity, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who speaks for the SNP, also alluded to productivity. I think the hon. Lady got it a little wrong, however, when she talked about improving productivity by giving people higher pay. It is actually the other way round. We all want our constituents to get a pay rise—I think that that unites everyone in the House—but the only sustainable way to drive up pay in the public and private sectors is to improve productivity in both sectors. I shall set out a few areas in which we could do that.

First, however, I want to make a slightly humorous point to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not want to see an increase in the productivity of the parliamentary draftsmen in Her Majesty’s Treasury. Producing Finance Bills as thick as this one is perhaps not what we ought to be doing. I understand the complexity of these matters—I declare an interest as a non-practising chartered accountant—but I know from talking to colleagues in the business that they do not enormously welcome Finance Bills this thick. Much as this might upset them, I have to say that creating jobs for tax accountants is also perhaps not something that we ought to be doing. Slimmer Finance Bills with simpler, less complex legislation introducing lower tax rates from which we collect more revenue are the way to go. If we were to do that, we would be doing everyone a service, and those in the tax business could perhaps find more productive things to do. This gentle chiding is perhaps directed less towards my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury than towards officials in his Department.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I shall give way to a fellow chartered accountant.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I declare an interest: I am a practising chartered accountant, when I have the time. My right hon. Friend said that lower rates can produce more revenue. Is that not exactly what has happened since 2010 with our reduction in corporation tax rates, which is paying the dividend of a greater return for the Treasury?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and he is exactly right. This was one area in which the debate about corporation tax rates during the general election campaign became rather confused. The Opposition kept saying that we were cutting corporation tax, and making it sound as though we were therefore going to collect less revenue. What we were doing, of course, was to reduce corporation tax rates. The purpose of doing so was to collect more corporation tax revenue, both to attract more businesses to locate in the United Kingdom and to enable the businesses that are already here to be more successful. That is an admirable aspiration but it is, as my hon. Friend said, what has happened in practice.

One of my concerns about the Labour party’s plans is that an increase in corporation tax rates would lead to the collection of less corporation tax revenue; and we would have less money, rather than more, to spend on our public services and our hard-working public sector workers. [Interruption.] I see Opposition Members, including those on the Front Bench, shaking their heads, but since we cut corporation tax rates, we have collected more corporation tax—

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Harper]

It is no good the shadow Minister shaking her head. The fact is that that is exactly what has happened. We are in the business of collecting revenue to spend, not putting up rates to punish people in order to make ourselves feel good.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that has been shown to be true not only in the case of corporation tax but, in the Irish Republic, in the case of VAT? When VAT was reduced on aspects of the hospitality industry, tax revenues actually went up because that reduction generated more business. Indeed, there may be lessons to learn on VAT rates for the hospitality industry in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Harper]

I am always grateful to have excellent suggestions from colleagues in Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering that they bring a particular perspective to Brexit, given that they have a land border with the Irish Republic. We need to be very conscious of tax effects across the border as we leave the European Union.

I set out in my Westminster Hall debate, which I will not reprise now, our good record on economic growth since 2010, our reduction of the deficit and the significant number of jobs that businesses in the United Kingdom have generated. That is all very positive. But I am perfectly happy, as are the Government, to accept that there is one area in which the country’s economic record since 2007-08—under both the Conservative party and the Labour party, when it was in government—has been less impressive, and that is productivity. Since the economic crash, productivity growth has stagnated, and the level of productivity is significantly below that of the G7.

As I have said, it is essential to raise productivity if we are going to increase pay in both the public and private sectors. I want—I think all Conservative Members want—to give public sector workers a pay rise, just as much as Opposition Members do. But we understand that that has to be paid for. There is also an element of fairness. Private sector wages fell, in cash terms, after the crash, but that did not happen in the public sector. The work done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that after a number of years of pay restraint, pay in the public and private sectors is now roughly in balance. It is, perhaps, a little ahead in the public sector if we take account of the more generous pension schemes. I want workers in both the private sector and the public sector to be properly rewarded; I do not want to favour workers in one sector at the expense of those in the other. That idea is missing in the comments we have heard today from the trade unions about public sector workers. We have to have a balanced settlement for workers across the economy, not just those in one area of it.

It is not clear what has caused the lack of growth in productivity. It will probably not surprise anyone in the House to learn that according to economists—I apologise if there are any economists in the Chamber; I stopped my economic training when I left university—a number of things seem to be at the root of this, one of which is that there could well be a lack of wage growth, which means that companies are not investing in capital equipment to make work more effective. As a former Minister for Immigration, I think that having unlimited unskilled migration—it is definitely at the lower end of the labour market, keeping wage growth low—has certainly not encouraged companies to invest in machinery and equipment to drive up productivity. Leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to reduce importing unskilled workers from the current level. That does not mean reducing it to zero, but reducing it a little will help to improve such an incentive.

[John Redwood]

To help my right hon. Friend, let me say that there is a good reason and a bad reason why productivity has been disappointing. The good reason is that we have generated lots of lower-value jobs—it is better to have a job than no job—and we now need to help those people to work smarter so that they can be paid better. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want jobs for their constituents, but I do, and I then want to go on and get them, when they have been trained and skilled up, into better-paid work. The bad news is that we have lost a lot of top-end jobs in the North sea oil industry because of the maturity of the fields and the decline of output, as well as the hit on the price, and we have also lost quite a lot of top-end jobs in the City—some people did not like those top-end jobs very much, but the crash destroyed quite a lot of them in the City—and that has obviously depressed the overall productivity figures.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I agree with him that the response to what he said about the growth in jobs was very disappointing. One thing I touched on in my Westminster Hall debate was the comparison between this country and some of our European neighbours. I must say that in Britain, where the level of unemployment for young people has fallen from 20% to 13%—I accept that that is still too high—the record, particularly for younger people, is phenomenally better even than in countries such as France, where the rate remains at 20%, while in some European countries that have completely lost control of their public finances, the rate is—

[John Redwood]

Fifty per cent.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Half of young people in Greece are unemployed, and that is after a significant number of other young people have come to countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany to work. I must say that that is not a sustainable economic model. I suspect there is going to have to be a shake-up in the eurozone at some point—more fiscal transfers, or looking at the currency—because it is not sustainable for half of a country’s young people to remain unemployed for a considerable period.

Thankfully, we have not had to confront such a problem in our country—we have a different set of challenges—but my right hon. Friend is right about productivity. Let us look at the Bank of England analysis. He has already referred to falling productivity in the oil and gas sector and the financial sector. As I have said, there has been the impact of the financial crisis on allocating capital. I think there is now enough capital in the economy, but the issue is about getting it to the right businesses. There has also been a slowing rate of growth in innovation and discovery, as well as some inaccuracies in the data.

There is no single thing that we can do, which is why I am very pleased that the Government have set out a range of options in the productivity plan published by the previous Chancellor, George Osborne, in his Budget immediately after the general election in 2015, and in the measures set out by my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor, who was in the Chamber earlier. In relation to the national productivity investment fund, the Chancellor has set out some very important areas of spending, which I will briefly mention.

The first area is accelerating the housing supply, which is absolutely critical. I share the concerns expressed by Opposition Members. It is absolutely critical that we look at growing the housing supply urgently so that younger people, and not only younger people, can find affordable houses for them either to rent or to aspire to buy. A very significant sum in the national productivity investment fund will go towards that incredibly important area. The second area is investment in transport. I welcome today’s announcement about the very significant investment in the A303 and the significant amount of money to ensure that we properly protect the ancient monument of Stonehenge. That is very important for me and colleagues from south-west England. We are also seeing improvements to rail, and to the missing link on the A417—the bit of the road that is not dualled—in which the Government are committed to investing. Therefore, there is investment in some important areas of transport.

I also welcome the conversations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is having with colleagues in the north of England about significant investment that we could make on top of HS2 to connect cities in the north properly. My understanding is that if we see an agreed plan from Transport for the North, the Government will be very keen to fund that to drive productivity growth in the north of England, in the same way that significant investments in road infrastructure have driven productivity growth in London and the south of England.

It is important that we invest in other transport infra- structure such as airport connectivity. Particularly in the light of our leaving the European Union, Britain needs to be able to join up with global markets all around the world. I am particularly keen, as a south-west MP, for the Government to move forward on the Heathrow option and install that extra capacity so that businesses in my constituency, the south-west of England and elsewhere can be joined up properly with the rest of the world.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that an important issue in respect of connectivity and airports is the detrimental impact that high levels of air passenger duty have on the opening of new routes and on encouraging people to use existing routes from the United Kingdom to other parts of the world? The Government need to look at that seriously. What should we do about air passenger duty, and how can we stop it being detrimental to the kind of connectivity he is talking about?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It would be helpful if we reduced the level of air passenger duty, but the Government have to be mindful, since I have heard lots of bids in the debate for money to be spent, that we also have to raise it. If we want to reduce air passenger duty and we think that that will reduce the amount of revenue we collect, we will have to look at areas where we can reduce spending, at other taxes or at growth in productivity in the public sector, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, in order to do that. It is not a simple question. The Chancellor will no doubt look at it in the round as he makes his Budget judgments later this year.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s explanation, but perhaps the point the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was making—one with which I have some sympathy—was that, in the same way that we make the argument about corporation tax that if we lower the rate we will collect more money, perhaps if we lowered air passenger duty more people would fly and we would gather more revenue. There may also be more economic activity generally around the airports that would see an increase in passengers.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I accept that this is an area that is difficult to model, but when the Treasury does its Red Book and its economic forecasting—I think I understand this correctly —it uses a largely static model for tax forecasting. It assumes that if we reduce the rate of tax, we will collect not more money, but less. I understand that there is difficulty in doing the opposite, which is a dynamic model that tries to take into account the fact that there might be more economic activity and that looks at whether more or less revenue would be raised. I accept that that is a difficult process and I suspect that, on balance, the Treasury is trying to be relatively conservative with a small “c”. However, there is merit in looking at that. The Financial Secretary might want to consider the extent to which the Treasury, in making judgments about taxes, can look at how much we would drive up economic activity if we were to reduce tax rates, and therefore whether we would produce more tax.

[Kit Malthouse]

There is a particularly strong case where aviation is concerned—a number of airlines, such as easyJet and Ryanair, rely on dynamic pricing and the elasticity of demand to fill their planes. They recognise that the lower their prices, the more likely they are to fill their planes, and that the greater frequency with which they fly their planes, the more people are likely to come. In my view, lower APD would therefore result in more economic activity and more people flying.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has made that point powerfully and I see that it has landed with the Financial Secretary. We will see whether it fructifies into a policy shift.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a little more progress, then of course I will give way.

I would like to make two more points before I finish, Madam Deputy Speaker. The other area I wanted to mention in relation to the national productivity investment fund, which is incredibly important for my constituency, is the acceleration of the roll-out of broadband, in particular the full fibre roll-out. We have made considerable progress in rolling out broadband. By the end of this year, I think 80% of my constituents will have superfast broadband. In Gloucestershire we have a plan, with a new supplier, to roll out to the remaining households to meet the Government’s commitments under the universal service obligation. That is welcome. The more we can do to extend that across the country to increase those speeds with full fibre to the home and to business will be very welcome.

Finally, given the competition we face in the world, and the challenges, rightly raised, of ensuring that, as we leave the European Union, we have a global outlook and we remain competitive, it is very important for Ministers to have a sense of urgency in driving forward developments in housing, productivity and investment in road infrastructure. As a constituency MP, I know that the length of time it takes to build new houses and roads and to roll out broadband is very frustrating. I am sure that frustration is shared by Members across the House. One thing Treasury Ministers could do, when thinking about the settlements they make with Departments, is to reward those that accelerate progress. Perhaps Departments that deliver against the Government’s objectives more quickly could be rewarded with more money to go ever faster, and Departments that are a little slower at delivery perhaps might have some of their funding removed and moved to higher-rewarding parts of government where things are delivered more quickly. That might boost public sector productivity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned.

The Finance Bill is a good start. It raises some much needed revenue to help to continue balancing the books. I, for one, will have no trouble supporting it in the Division Lobby today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have made sure that basic rate taxpayers are paying £1,000 less tax by raising the personal allowance. We are also introducing the national living wage, bringing in a £1,400 rise in take-home pay for the lowest earners.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The important thing for ensuring that people get a wage from an employer is to make sure that they have a job. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury welcome the record fall in unemployment to a 42-year low, particularly among young people, which is giving them much better opportunities in Britain than those available in most other European Union countries?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right. We now have the lowest levels of unemployment since 1975, thanks to the economic policies pursued by this Government to improve skills and infrastructure, and to take sensible decisions on public sector pay.

Balancing the Public Finances

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

If Members wish to remove their jackets, they should feel free to do so, and of course their ties—I have removed mine, as you can see.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of balancing the public finances.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this new Parliament, Ms Ryan. This is the first time I have secured a Westminster Hall debate since the general election. If you will forgive the indulgence, it is also a great pleasure to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), in his place. He served with tremendous distinction in the Whips Office, which I had the pleasure of leading after the 2015 general election, and I am pleased to see him in his current role. I look forward to him responding to the debate.

I am conscious that a large number of Members wish to speak, so I will speak for a little less time than I had originally intended. The first thing worth drawing to the attention of the Chamber, however, is how few Opposition Members are present, which I find astounding. To draw some conclusions from the attendance, we can see that the Conservative party and our allies in the Democratic Unionist party believe in balancing the public finances and making the difficult decisions necessary to ensure that we can grow the economy and create jobs. Judging by the turnout on the Opposition Benches, or rather the lack of turnout, the Labour party is clearly not interested in balancing the public finances or making sensible decisions; all that it is interested in is spending other people’s money until it runs out. Whereas, so many Conservatives are here that they are having to move right around the Chamber and take over the other side.

I will probably have to draw my remarks to a close sooner than I had expected, in order to allow other Members to speak, so let me do a quick précis of my argument. We have come a long way since 2010: we have cut the deficit by three quarters; we have had faster economic growth than almost any country in the G7 largest countries; and we have cut unemployment to levels not seen since I was at primary school in 1975. That is incredibly important, because those are not just statistics; they represent real people getting the opportunities to succeed and thrive.

There are things that we should be proud of, and we could and should have talked about them more during the election campaign. I was very pleased to hear the Chancellor’s outstanding speech in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, in which he set out our economic record and our plans for the future. My central message at the conclusion of my speech today will be that although we face difficult decisions and many pressing needs for spending public money, we need to raise that money while keeping taxes low and economic growth moving along. Those are difficult decisions. The Chancellor is the man who must make those decisions, and he must make them in a balanced way, taking into account all the factors, including economic growth. He needs to make those decisions at the Budget in the autumn, and Conservative colleagues should give him our support in doing so.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech. Is it not the case that Britain has become addicted to public sector debt? The truth is that since 2002 Governments of both colours have been spending more each year than we have been collecting in taxes. If are to stop doing that in future, it will be a bit like a drug addict coming off drugs.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend sets out clearly what has happened in the past, and I want to spend a little time on the challenges facing us in the future, but it is worth looking at the economic record. We did not make the decisions and get the success we have had easily; they were contested, and our political opponents challenged us every step of the way. But we have been successful, which gives us the credibility to talk about facing the challenges of the future.

When we came to power in 2010, the budget deficit was the equivalent of just under 10% of the size of the economy, at £150 billion a year. According to the most recent set of actual figures, we have reduced the cash deficit to £46 billion—down by 70%—and the deficit as a proportion of the size of the economy is down by 75% to 2.5%. That is a significant achievement, and it means that in this Parliament the size of our stock of national debt as a proportion of the size of the economy will start to fall. That is incredibly important for the future.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. The impact is not simply one of taxes and of borrowing and spending, but of Government spending on personal finances, which has a massive impact because of interest rates and personal interest rates. If we let borrowing get out of control, interest rates in the real economy would rise. That is when we have repossessions, and that then is when we have a depression.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we let the public finances get out of control, interest rates would rise and hard-pressed families who are having to make difficult decisions would see the cost of their mortgages and other debts go up, which would not make their lives any easier at all.

Let us consider the impact of controlling the public finances on the real economy. If we look at growth, at how fast the economy has grown over the past seven years, we see that our economic performance among the G7 largest countries in the world has been second only to that of the United States. Interestingly, we have grown our economy at almost double the rate of our nearest neighbour, France. In 2014 and 2016 we were the fastest growing G7 country, and the joint fastest in 2015. That is an impressive record. I mention that because our political opponents often pretend that balancing the public finances has not worked, but in generating economic growth it absolutely has worked.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the reduction in corporation tax to 19% has brought in the highest yields ever, bringing another £11 billion into the economy? Does he have any thoughts on what increasing the rate to, say, 26% would have on jobs and, importantly, our ability to reduce the deficit?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend, who makes a good point, tempts me to leap forward to the end of my remarks, but I will say only this about taxes: there is a big difference between rates of tax and how much money is raised. As Conservatives, we believe that the purpose of taxes is to raise money to pay for our public services. The Chancellor made it clear in the debate on the Queen’s Speech that by reducing the tax rate, thereby encouraging businesses to locate here and be more successful, we raised more money to pay for those public finances—I think the Chancellor said £18 billion more.

Looking at that performance, it seems to me likely that if we were to raise corporation tax two things would happen: first, we probably would not raise the money, so although we might pat ourselves on the back and pretend that we were raising taxes, we would not raise the money to pay for public services; and secondly, it is fairly obvious to everyone, or to everyone on the Government side of the House, that those taxes do not fall on businesses at all. When we raise taxes on business, there is no mystical “business” to pay them; those taxes fall either on workers, who will receive smaller pay rises, or on customers, who will see higher prices. Taxes all feed through, so everyone in the economy would pay the price of any corporation tax rises, which probably would not raise any more money to pay for our public services, so we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) makes exactly the right point.

I also want to mention our record on jobs, which is what I am proudest of: 3 million more people are now in work than were when we first came into office. Let me give the specific example—I think this will be heartening—of the impact on young people. In 2010 the unemployment rate among young people in this country was about 20%, which is comparable with that of our neighbours in the European Union and in the eurozone. Since we came into office, to this point, in those countries the unemployment rate among young people has been broadly flat, up a little but still around 20%. In our country it is down six percentage points, to 13%. That is not just a statistic; it means that hundreds of thousands of young people have had the opportunity to get a job when they leave school, college or university.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate. We reduced corporation tax from 28% to 20% but actually increased the tax take. As we exit the European Union, we will need to encourage more businesses to come to this country and create more employment, so it is essential that we reduce taxes further, rather than putting them up. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we are going to leave the European Union, we want to be more global and outward-looking and we want more companies to locate in Britain, so it seems to me that this is exactly the wrong time—if there ever is a good time—to increase corporate tax rates.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of what this Government have done for young people, but can he tell us how many people in the figure he mentioned are on exploitative zero-hours contracts? If the Government are so passionate about young people, why will they not pay them a real living wage? Why are they discriminating against the under-25s?

[Mr Harper]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises zero-hours contracts. It simply is not true that everyone on a zero-hours contract is being exploited. There is some good evidence from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. I am not sure whether these data have been updated, but it did a survey in 2014 that showed that around 63% of people on a zero-hours contract—higher than the proportion of people on a permanent full-time contract—were satisfied with their terms and conditions. Most people on zero-hours contracts actually find that they fit their requirements, because they are either students or people with caring responsibilities.

There are of course people who would prefer not to be on a zero-hours contract. That is why I welcome Matthew Taylor’s review, which was published today. He thinks that employees should have the right to ask their company to put them on a permanent contract. Indeed, McDonalds recently offered that to its employees. It is true that some of its staff on flexible contracts said that they would prefer to move to a fixed-term contract, but about 80% preferred to stay on a flexible contract because it suited them. I just do not agree with the contention that a zero-hours contract is by definition exploitative. In many cases, it suits the worker and it suits the business—it is a win-win. But it is completely true that if such contracts do not suit people, it is better that they should have the opportunity to move to a full-time or permanent contract to guarantee them hours. I am pleased with Matthew Taylor’s report.

My final point about youth unemployment concerns what happens to young people’s opportunities in countries that do not deal with their public finances. The most obvious example is Greece, which clearly has not dealt with its public finances, where 47%—nearly half—of young people are without work. Countries that do not deal with their public finances damage young people’s opportunities, probably for their lifetime. I do not want us to go down that road and be that sort of country; I want us to keep focused on balancing the public finances.

There is an interesting factor relevant to my constituency. I looked at a debate in the House in 1983, in which my predecessor but two, Paul Marland, spoke. He pointed out that at that time unemployment in his constituency was 15.3%, which was 2% above the national average. I am pleased that, seven years into a Conservative Government, unemployment in my constituency is 1.6%, which is below the average for the south-west—1.7%—and below the United Kingdom average. Our economic record has not just delivered for the United Kingdom and for the south-west; it has absolutely delivered for my constituents, who now have the opportunity to be in work, which is important for their families.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is giving a characteristically powerful speech, which is why this debate is so well attended. In my constituency, youth unemployment has fallen by a staggering 61%, making a real difference to people’s lives. That is partly due to the expansion of apprenticeships, which more than 10,000 students have started. Last week I was proud to attend once again the graduation ceremony at Swindon College, where we are equipping young people with the real skills they need.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He knows—not everyone in the Chamber will—that Swindon is my home town. I actually did my A-levels at Swindon College, so I am particularly pleased to hear that that institution is still delivering opportunities. The opportunities that I got at a comprehensive school in Swindon and at Swindon College meant that I was the first person in my family to go to university, and definitely the first person in my family to make it to the House of Commons. I am pleased to have had those opportunities, and I want every young person in our country to have them too. That is why this matters.

All that I will say about the Opposition—[Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] My hon. Friends make the point that there are hardly any of them here. [Interruption.] An hon. Friend says that they are out spending. They opposed all the reductions in public expenditure over the past seven years. It seems to me, having done a back-of-the-envelope calculation, that the debt would already have been more than £300 billion higher based on the Opposition’s public spending plans, and that if they had carried on spending at the rate they were when they left office, an extra £1 trillion would have been added to the public debt by the end of this Parliament. At the last general election, the Labour party manifesto was just, “Spend, spend, spend other people’s money,” with no credible plan to pay for it. That is not the route that our country should follow. The fact that so few Opposition Members are here to defend their plans tells us everything we need to know.

Having gone through our record and why I think we have been successful, let me say a few words about the challenges we face. Public sector pay is an important topic—in fact, it is what prompted me to call this debate. We all know hard-working public sector workers in our constituencies. It is good to pay them fairly for the jobs they do, but it is also fair that we look at all our constituents—those who work in the public sector and those who work in the private sector. It is worth reminding ourselves that after the financial crash a lot of people in the private sector experienced reductions in their pay, which did not happen in the public sector. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is a respected organisation, public sector workers are still paid slightly better than private sector workers, even after adjusting for qualification levels. Even after some public sector pay restraint, the levels of pay in the private and public sectors are about the same, and people in the public sector obviously have the benefit of a more generous final salary pension scheme.

We have not talked much about the fact that the 1% pay cap is of course a cap not on individuals’ pay but on the pay scales. Most people will not be aware that, even with that pay cap, many public sector workers have actually seen significant rises in their pay because they have moved up pay bands. I think that half of national health service staff have had a pay rise of more than 3%. Teachers have had an average pay rise of 3%, because many, unless they have a performance issue, move up the pay bands during their career. That is on top of the 1% pay rise. We need to look at all those facts and conduct the debate in the proper spirit.

There are many pressures on public spending. There is public sector pay and funding for our national health service and for social care, and colleagues want more money put into schools. Part of the challenge of being in government is that we cannot say yes to everyone; we have to make choices and set priorities. The right way to do that is to look at the economic growth forecast, at how much tax revenue we think we will have, and at recruitment needs in public services. We have to look at all those things together.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the overall issue of rebalancing the public finances, does he agree that there is an example of effective and pragmatic expenditure in the recent announcement by the Prime Minister and the leader of my party? Is not it a good idea to have investment in an area of the United Kingdom such as Northern Ireland, where there has been high dependency on the public sector, in an effort to reduce the debt that is due to Northern Ireland, by the creation of private sector finance and private investment and thus better investment opportunities and more jobs? Is that a good project for the rest of the United Kingdom to follow?

[Mr Harper]

I welcome that intervention, because one of the things that we set out in our manifesto, and that the Chancellor set out in the House of Commons, is our plan to invest across the United Kingdom in infrastructure such as broadband, to help the economy and businesses to be more productive. That is how to raise tax revenue, grow the economy and create the jobs that enable us to spend money on our public services.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is right to highlight the importance of jobs, growth and apprenticeships, which should be at the forefront of any general election debate in a normal time. Does he agree that the public services are under pressure at the moment? We must recognise that. I work in those public services and I see it in my working life. According to the latest forecast, the target—a structural deficit of less than 2% of national income in 2020-21—will be comfortably met by sticking to the current tax and spending plans, so there is about £25 billion of leeway to invest a little more in those important public services, while paying down the deficit in a responsible manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend about investing in public services. He will know that part of the reason why the Chancellor loosened the target a little in his first Budget last year was to build in some flexibility to deal with the headwinds that we may face in leaving the European Union, and some of the challenges, and I think that was right.

I was going to say—my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) has given me an excellent lead-in—that we can pay for our public services only by raising the money through economic growth, as he suggests, or by borrowing more, which I do not think would be sensible. It would damage the public finances, raise interest rates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) said, and put pressure on our hard-pressed constituents. Alternatively, we would have to raise taxes, which I do not think would be the right thing to do either.

When the Chancellor looks at the public finance position in his Budget, he needs to consider the growth forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—what tax revenues he is likely to have. He then needs to consider the pressures on public servants and public services. He needs to look at all the pressures across the piece and come to a balanced Budget judgment, weighing up all those things. Then we need to back him in those decisions. What we cannot do is have a particular story that goes around each week, or decide that something happens to be the flavour of the month, and discover at the time of the Budget that we have run out of money. That is not the way to run a sensible Government, and that is the message for the Chancellor.

I want finally to consider how we pay for things. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that in our manifesto we said that we wanted to keep taxes as low as possible, because taxes are levied on businesses that employ people and on individuals who work hard and face decisions about how to spend their money. We will always be the party that keeps taxes as low as possible, and we want to reduce taxes on businesses and on Britain’s working families. We made it clear that we would deliver an increase in the personal allowance, that we would not increase value added tax, and that we would stick to our plan of reducing corporation tax, because that will bring investment and jobs to Britain. As I have already said in response to an intervention, that approach will raise more money for the public finances, not less. We need to stick with that plan and give the Chancellor the opportunity to act in that way.

Any Government worth their salt need to stick with sound public finances. That is how to get the growth, jobs and investment in the public services that we depend on. There are always more pressures on public spending than can be paid for. It is a difficult job for the Chancellor to balance those things. What we need to do, as his Conservative colleagues, is give him space to listen to the input—we can make our bids to him privately. He then needs to balance those things, taking everything into account, and come up with a balanced Budget judgment in the autumn. We need to back the Chancellor, which will mean we are backing our country and its growth prospects, and backing the prospects for jobs, growth and prosperity for all our constituents.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I will not, because of time pressures.

Austerity strangles the lifeblood out of an economy by exacerbating inequality. The Government’s tax and welfare reforms disproportionately affect the least well-off. Charities have warned that current planned welfare cuts are set to drive a potential fall in incomes of 10% for the poorest third of working-age households and a rise in inequality not seen since the 1980s.

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

In conclusion, let us have a debate about balancing public finances but let us be serious and not balance the public finances on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for securing this much-needed debate and for his excellent points.

I want to focus my comments on one issue only: income inequality, which the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) referred to. Almost a year ago today, the Prime Minister gave a statement on the steps of Downing Street in which she focused on her aim to make Britain a country that works for everyone by tackling deep-rooted injustices such as income inequality. That is one of the most pernicious issues facing our country, and it lies at the heart of our Prime Minister’s vision for our country. In this Parliament, we are setting out the meaningful ways in which we will effect change.

One thing that came up time and again in my election hustings, and I am sure those of other hon. Members, was the idea of taxing the rich more to pay for all the things on which Opposition Members propose to spend money. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has proposed that as a highly desirable option, which he thinks would lead to lower inequality in our country. However, far from having the desired effect, would that not have precisely the opposite effect?

Is it not a fact that, under the Conservative Government, the people who pay the highest taxes in actual and relative terms are the rich? In 2016-17, the richest 1% in our country are set to pay 27% of all income tax revenue, a higher proportion than under the Labour Government. The richest 5% will pay 38% of total tax. I welcome that. Never let it be said that the Conservatives shy away from taxing the rich. We do tax them, but we do it in a way that delivers real income to the Exchequer. Labour Members—if they were here—would do it in a way that damages the economy, hurts businesses and jobs, and results in tax hikes for ordinary hard-working people, including my constituents in Redditch. Is it not a fact that, under the Conservatives, people on lower incomes are paying less tax than they did in all the years of the Labour Government?

[Mr Harper]

I will be very brief, but I cannot let what the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said go unchallenged, which is why he did not give way to me. Over the years that the Conservatives have been in power, income inequality has reduced. The country has become more equal, not less. That does not support Opposition Members’ arguments, which is why they do not want to hear it, but it is a fact of which Government Members should be very proud.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend—he has managed to make my speech a bit shorter.

I will focus on the lower paid, hard-working earners. For 2017 to 2018, the personal allowance is being raised to £11,500, which means that the amount of tax-free income someone can earn will be more than 75% higher than in 2010. That means more money in people’s pockets to cope with the cost of living, because taking people out of tax has the same effect as giving them a pay rise. We have discussed the importance of giving pay rises to everybody, which I welcome. People are keeping more of what they earn.

I reiterate my right hon. Friend’s comment that income inequality is in fact at a 30-year low. It continues to fall, and we want to see it go further. It is the Conservatives who are on the side of the lowest paid—we have taken them out of tax. We are on the side of those earning the minimum wage, and we are boosting their incomes with the national living wage. We are on the side of hard-working people, and we are stabilising the economy so that it creates jobs for people, and they can go to work and earn a decent living. It is the Conservatives who believe in fairness, because we have delivered the lowest levels of income inequality for 30 years, giving people a sense that our country works for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we do not start to see the figure coming down, it can only bode ill for the future. That is why we are so determined to get it down.

Turning to the contributions that have been made, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean made important points about our record on growth and jobs, about the threat of interest rate hikes if we fail to get on top of our debt and about keeping taxes low, particularly for our businesses. Many Members have made the point that as we have reduced corporation taxes the actual tax yield has increased, which rather suggests that the Opposition’s policy of raising them would be counterproductive in every sense. He made very important points about public sector pay. Let us not forget that this is not just about controlling public sector pay and spending, but about preserving jobs. The OBR reckons that by sticking to our plans we are protecting about 200,000 jobs in the public sector. When we talk about the 10,000-plus more nurses and 10,000-plus more doctors in the NHS, one of the reasons we have them is that we have given ourselves the room to afford them.

If I may, I will turn now to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who made an impassioned attempt to take on the powerful arguments from the Government side. He is somewhat outnumbered. He suggested that he was like Lieutenant Custer. Of course, at Custer’s last stand, which was in 1876 at the battle of the Little Bighorn, unfortunately Custer was annihilated: he lost five companies, two of his brothers, a nephew and a brother-in-law to boot. It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman is still standing after the onslaught from the hordes on our side of the Chamber today.

The hon. Gentleman made one point about the tax gap. He bemoaned the fact that, at £36 billion, it is higher than we would like it to be. That is absolutely true, but what he did not mention is that it represents 6.5% of the tax that we raise and is at the lowest level for very many years. As another hon. Member pointed out, since 2010 we have had about 55 new tax avoidance measures that in total have raised no less than £140 billion, which is three times the size of the deficit we face.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) delivered the essential truth that borrowing must be repaid and the intergenerational unfairness of failing to do so. He made important points about the cost of servicing our debt and that if we lose the confidence of financial markets, those costs will rocket, to our detriment. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) referred to Brexit as an ideological obsession, but I say no, actually: it is respecting the democratic will of the people. Although I, probably like him, was on the other side of that argument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) made some very important points. The Opposition always say that we are looking after the wealthiest in society, but the truth is a long way from that. Some 27% of tax is paid by the wealthiest 1% in this country. A statistic that could also have been used is that the wealthiest 3,000 people in our country pay as much tax as the poorest 9 million. We are doing a huge amount on the issue of income equality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) made an impassioned speech in which he referred to the importance of keeping interest rates low by keeping on top of the debt. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) finished his contribution on the Queen’s Speech debate today, and I am glad that he did because he made some important points, particularly on productivity, and quite rightly referred to our £23 billion productivity investment fund.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) gave a powerful speech and referred, I think, to the shadow Secretary of State for Education’s performance on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, when the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) referred to Labour having a large abacus. I have to say that my jaw hit the Stride sofa when I heard her say that it would cost about £100 billion to wipe out student debt and that this was something they were looking at.

[Mr Harper]

The other point that the shadow Education Secretary made was putting her leader straight when she admitted that more working-class children were able to go to university with tuition fees and that it is simply not correct to keep asserting what he says, which is that fewer had done so. The fact that she put her leader right was spot on.

[Mel Stride]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) made important points about retaining the confidence of financial markets, and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked about the importance of productivity, technical education, infrastructure, housing and all those elements, which matter.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) did at least welcome the personal allowance increases that we have implemented. They are now at £11,500 compared with about £6,500 in 2010, and will increase to £12,500 over the coming period. She made various comments about pressures on pay and wage growth, but one fact that I will share with her is that those in full-time work on the minimum wage have actually seen pay boosted by £1,400 a year going back to 2010. That is an achievement that this Government should be rightly proud of.

I very much welcome the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) to his place and look forward to a constructive engagement over the weeks, months and years of this Government. He said that he has read the Conservative party manifesto. I urge him to read it again and again and to learn from it. I am afraid that even though he has read it, he has failed to explain how to square more spending and spending, taxing and taxing and borrowing and borrowing with future sustainable economic success.

May I finish with one overall observation? The Opposition are very keen at every turn to say that our commitment to what they call “austerity” and what I call “living within our means” is some form of harsh, uncaring cruelty. Surely the cruellest cut of all is when a politician struts the stage telling the audience that which they most dearly wish to hear, but knowing in his heart that he has no way of delivering it—knowing in his heart that what he suggests will lead to financial and economic ruin. When we look at that situation, what question do we have to ask? We have to ask: who will be most hurt if we go back to the days of 1976? The answer is the most vulnerable—the poorest—because they are the least nimble and the least well-resourced to get out of the way of the damage. They are the people who lose their jobs and cannot cope. They are the people who see interest rates on their mortgages go through the roof, and struggle to pay as a consequence. As many Members have also said, the others who suffer are the young and the as yet not born—those who end up being saddled with the debt of the profligacy of our generation and have to pay it down themselves.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean for securing this debate. We must stay the course. We must make the hard choices. We must make it the first priority of this Government to have a responsible stewardship of our public finances.

[Mr Harper]

I am particularly grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for closing his speech so excellently, because it leaves us with this one thought: balancing the public finances and having sound public finances is not an academic exercise; it is about enabling growth and jobs and allowing us to protect the most vulnerable in society, allowing the investment in public services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) set out, and making sure that we can deliver on those important promises. Those who do not want to live within their means—the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) spent a lot of money in his speech but did not set out how he could save it—would disappoint people, let them down and fail them. That is not a mistake that we are going to make.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Points of Order

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I say in response to the hon. Lady that I am not sure that this is an occasion for pronouncing on a reform to the process, as she puts it. It is difficult for the Chair to give a ruling without certain knowledge of the facts, but what I would say at this stage is as follows—and I would welcome any clarification the Leader of the House can provide. The first point is that, as I understand it, it is the Government’s firm intention to ensure that the text of the motion is widely available today. Members can apparently consult it—I cannot say this for certain—now in the Table Office.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Harper)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Grayling]

indicated assent.

Wales Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

The latter part of that question would of course be a matter for the First Minister, were those taxes to be devolved to Wales, but I think that I have been absolutely clear that we are not in favour of Wales undercutting the rest of Britain to afford benefits to itself. We do not think that would be beneficial to Wales in the long term. Let me be clear: were that to happen, we do not imagine that Wales would continue to enjoy the same degree of welcome support that we receive from the rest of the UK.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am now thoroughly confused about the hon. Gentleman’s position. If he is in favour, as I think he is, of devolving these tax powers, but not of their being used to reduce taxes, he can only be in favour of them being used to put taxes up. Is he really saying that he wants Wales to have tax powers, but only so that people living in Wales can pay higher taxes than those living anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

[Owen Smith]

That is a misrepresentation of my position, but I have come to expect little else from the hon. Gentleman or, as he is also known, the shadow shadow Welsh Secretary—well, shadow shadow Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] Maybe, but he seems to be auditioning these days for the Welsh Secretary’s job. Perhaps he will move on to the Foreign Secretary’s position at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

Enabling the Welsh Government with tax-raising powers would incentivise the Welsh Government to improve the Welsh economy. At the moment, they are a spending body, in essence; there is no incentive for them to improve the economy. That is why these fiscal powers are so important.

[Mr Harper]

It might help the House if we thought for a moment about what Opposition Members mean when they talk about a “race to the bottom”. They mean that we allow hard-working families and other people to keep more of their own money so that they can make decisions about spending it, rather than having it taken off them and spent by the Welsh Government. That is what Opposition Members mean and it indicates all too clearly what they are about.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Well, that is the hon. Gentleman’s position. But if the Labour party’s position were to hold true in Wales, there would be a uniform business rate across the 22 Welsh local authorities. There seems to be a slight misunderstanding in Labour’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I wish to speak briefly in support of amendment 13 and against the removal of clause 2. I oppose dual candidacy simply because if a candidate is not elected by a constituency under the first-past-the-post system, it cannot be right for them to be elected under the list system. If the electorate have rejected someone once as their first-choice candidate, it is not acceptable for them to have the opportunity to re-enter the game through the back door. In mainstream society people get one chance at a job; if they are not successful at an interview, they have to accept the decision and they do not go back squealing to the prospective employers saying, “Can we change the rules now? Can I possibly be appointed under different criteria or under a different set of interview processes?” Things should be no different for politicians. There should be no swapping or alternatives; it should be the same for everybody.

Let us examine the attitudes towards dual candidacy. We have heard a lot of pooh-poohing of the Bevan Foundation’s inquiry and report, but my constituency took part in that inquiry and I did not see any party members participating; those who participated all came from local community groups and pensioners groups, were not affiliated to any particular party and were not aligned to any political point of view. Some of them were sceptical about devolution and the political process, whereas others were very supportive of it. Those who participated sent a clear message saying, “We are really concerned about the way politicians are behaving on the dual list system and about what is happening.”

The report found that more respondents said that

“dual candidacy was unfair compared with those who felt candidates should be free to stand in both.”

Someone who was interviewed said:

“I think it is unfair…It’s like people can sneak in the back door.”

Another said:

“It seems unfair in a way, surely if they weren’t popular enough they shouldn’t be able to get in.”

There has also been international criticism of the dual candidacy idea. Moves have been made to improve things in New Zealand and in Canada, and Canadian research states:

“Voters are displeased with the case where a candidate is not successful in a single member constituency, but is elected anyway by virtue of being placed on the top of a party’s list.”

In further support of my argument, I give the example of the unfairness—this has already been mentioned by colleagues—in the Clwyd West constituency. It puzzles most people in Wales that it was possible for all four candidates on the first-past-the post list to end up being elected. When I got into politics, a very wise old bird told me, “Siân, don’t get into politics if you’re not prepared to lose, because there’s only one winner.” We have totally turned that on its head with devolution and now anyone can be a winner, as long as they are at the top of their party’s list. I think the public find that difficult to understand and they are puzzled by it.

[Mr Harper]

We debated this issue at length in Committee. What the hon. Lady is really doing is criticising a closed-list system whereby voters can vote only for parties and have no choice of candidates. She is not really offering a critique of the Bill’s proposals. If she does not like that system, she should remind herself that it was her party that put it in place.

[Mrs James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is not true that I am opposed to the list system. I think it is excellent and that it gives an opportunity to all parties. It is fair and gives a voice to parties that may not otherwise have had a voice in the Assembly. What I oppose is placing candidates at the top of the list so that if they lose in one system they have the chance to win in another. I am not criticising the system; all I am saying is that dual candidacy is not acceptable.

For an individual who is already standing as a candidate on a constituency list to have an opportunity for a second bite of the cherry is political carpetbagging—that’s all it is, pure and simple—and therefore unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a number of productive debates on this Bill, and I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. It was in November 2012 that the Silk commission recommended a package of measures to devolve fiscal powers to the National Assembly and the Welsh Government. We have had a number of debates in this House since then on giving the Welsh Government increased borrowing powers; on the devolution of a portion of income tax, subject to a referendum; and on the devolution of taxation on land transactions and landfill. Our debates on the Bill have enabled us to fine-tune those proposals further, and I appreciate the broad support that the Bill has received from all parts of the House. I would again like to thank Paul Silk and his commissioners for their work on their two reports, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and the other members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs for their excellent pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

This Bill is a major milestone for Wales, and it demonstrates the Government’s commitment to strengthening Welsh devolution and Wales’s role in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Harper]

In the debate in Committee on 6 May, at column 109, the Secretary of State committed to updating the House, either on Report or on Third Reading, on the conversations he was going to have with the Secretary of State for Health about the health service. Is he able to do that today?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me about that important point. I can tell the House that I have engaged with the Department of Health, and that NHS England is continuing its efforts to work constructively with the Welsh Government to find a solution to the problems faced by English patients, such as my hon. Friend’s constituents, who access NHS services in Wales. Work on resolving the issues raised by the cross-border protocol is continuing, and it is hoped that this work will conclude by the end of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of the level of employment.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of the level of employment.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

There are more people in work than ever before, with the latest figures showing the fastest increase in employment since records began. Today we have the very welcome news that Abu Dhabi will be investing £1 billion in building new houses in Manchester. That is a step towards it becoming the northern powerhouse I want to see, and it is a £1 billion vote of confidence in our long-term economic plan.

[Mr Harper]

Between 2003 and 2008 the Labour Government did create jobs, but unfortunately less than 10% of them benefited British citizens. Since this Government have come to power, through our skills, immigration and welfare policies over three-quarters of the 1.4 million new jobs have benefited British citizens. Is that not a long-term economic plan of which to be proud?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to his contribution in making sure that the jobs that are being created in this recovery are jobs that British people have the skills and incentives to take. It is heartening that three-quarters of these jobs are going to UK citizens, as opposed to the truly staggering record of the last Government, when less than a quarter were taken by British citizens.

Wales Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

We may hear talk later about parity with Scotland, and in the next few months there will be a great deal of intense debate in Wales on that issue. I note therefore that the Scotland Act 2012 provides for the Scottish Government to introduce new taxes or credits. By incorporating the Silk commission’s recommendation on tax credits in the Bill, we seek that ability for Wales now, too. The impact and compatibility of any new tax or tax credits would of course have to be measured and assessed in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998, European Union state aid rules and other directives, but it would be for the Welsh Government, through a resolution of the National Assembly, to decide what use they wanted to make of an innovative new tax.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I will speak in more detail in my speech about why I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 33, but may I ask him to clarify whether he envisages the definition of a “Welsh taxpayer” for any of these new taxes being the one set out in clause 8, proposed section 116E? That is relevant to my constituents, who might inadvertently be caught by any of these new taxes.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that was made at an earlier time. He has outlined particular difficulties faced by his constituents, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I might as well concede that this is a probing amendment and I would be interested to hear what he has to say later in the debate. We have a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members across the House who point to the border as a particular problem area; as has been said in the earlier debate, so many of our population live just over the border and vice versa, so I entirely concede that we need to take this issue seriously.

Paragraph 4.6.8 of the Silk commission’s first report states:

“In addition to the use of taxes to achieve policy outcomes in devolved areas, credits can also be applied so that activities are effectively subsidised. While existing tax credits such as the working tax credits (and in future the Universal Tax Credit) should remain UK wide, the Welsh Government should be able to introduce its own credits in relation to devolved taxes and through use of devolved grants and subsidies to promote investment and getting people into work.”

That is a laudable aim and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support us in order to fulfil it.

Amendment 33 would enable the Welsh Government, by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, to introduce a new tax without the need for approval by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Obviously, Plaid Cymru’s starting position is that Wales should be an independent country and that it should be for the people of Wales, through our own democratic institutions, to decide how its taxes are structured. However, the amendment would simply tidy the process of bringing in the new tax credits should the Welsh Government, through the National Assembly, decide to do so. I need not remind Members who represent Welsh constituencies or who are interested in the smooth functioning of democracy of the disastrous bureaucratic and constitutional nightmare that was the legislative competence order system. I was involved in that as a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Before the successful 2011 referendum on full primary law-making powers, the Government of Wales Act 2006 provided for further devolution, on paper. The reality, I am afraid, was that it came to resemble a Kafkaesque constitutional quagmire when the powers were to be devolved. The Welsh Affairs Committee, reporting in 2010, stated that requests for extra powers from the Welsh Assembly Government, as it was named then, too often disappeared into the black hole of Whitehall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. The contrast between what I propose now and the LCO system is extreme. I think I counted 27 individual stages, but it might have been 28 or 26—the figure is lost in the mists of time. It was an extremely complicated business. To be fair, Members on both sides of the House made positive contributions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who is not in his place, for his skilled chairmanship. We got a lot through, but it was against the odds.

There is a danger that matters get lost in process, are ignored by the government machinery and do not progress at good speed. If we repeated the LCO process, we would be repeating a mistake and would unnecessarily create a drag on the smooth functioning of democracy. Surely the Members of the Assembly, through scrutiny, have, in partnership with the Treasury, the ability to carry out the requisite research, impact assessments and consultation. I hope that that ability is there. The need for a lengthy process of resolution in each of the Houses of Parliament when there is so often a strain on time—perhaps not at the moment, but often there is a strain on time—is surely a bar to the swift adoption of the system once the requisite preparatory work has been carried out in Wales. Surely if a matter is devolved, it should be devolved, and devolved fully and without the Government in Westminster seeking to keep their oar stuck in. As with many of our amendments that were considered in Committee last week, we say that it should be for the people of Wales, through their democratically elected institutions and representatives, to decide on the matters that have been devolved without being harried back and forth. The Government have conceded that Wales should have the power to introduce new taxes, and we are arguing for tax credits as well, as did Silk. That should be done without strings being attached that could prove a restriction and impediment.

Finally, let me return to the LCO process, which operated in much the same way as the new tax process is designed to operate. The Assembly used to submit a request for more powers, which was then scrutinised by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs before its final approval by MPs and peers. There is no proposal in this case of scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee, and one does not have to be a constitutional expert and/or an accountant to see what a tremendous drag and immensely time-consuming process that might be. At the time, the critics of the LCO procedure maintained that it was cumbersome and opaque, and they were proved right. Sir Jon Shortridge, the former head of the civil service in Wales, said that Wales was often seen as “a complication too far” by London. The Welsh Affairs Committee also said that there was “an unacceptable lack of transparency” in the Whitehall clearance process.

All this talk of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the 2011 referendum reminds me that Westminster always relinquishes its grip on power with a clenched fist. Where it can, it will inevitably introduce roadblocks or constitutional caveats that mean that the power on offer is never fully recognised at first despite the overwhelming majority of people in Wales being in favour of devolving more powers.

For the smooth functioning of democracy and to save Members’ time in this place in the future, I strongly urge hon. Members to support our amendment should it come to a vote and impress on the Government the need to learn from the mistakes of the past and streamline the process of introducing new taxes and tax credits in Wales.

[Mr Harper]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Primarolo. After the earlier exchange, I feel left out by not having experienced the pleasures of legislative consent orders. They sound absolutely fascinating and were clearly invented by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) so that he could be the self-proclaimed world’s greatest expert in them. I am feeling very left out indeed, but let us return to the matter in hand.

I want to say a little about this group of amendments and new clauses. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) reassured me on one point by saying that he shared my concerns, but I shall talk about that in a moment.

When I read amendment 32, which would allow the Welsh Government to introduce tax credits by resolution of the National Assembly, I wondered whether, as tax credits are an instrument of welfare policy, it would effectively amount to the devolution of that policy. That was perhaps a little unfair, but the hon. Gentleman did go on to talk about universal credit and other areas of welfare policy, suggesting that he would like to see them devolved to the Welsh Government. I do not think I would.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s view, as he wants an independent Wales and to devolve absolutely everything, but if we devolved every area of tax and spending—welfare spending is, of course, the single largest area of Government expenditure—that would in effect create an independent country. I accept that that is the hon. Gentleman’s ultimate goal, but I suspect that in this Chamber today it is a goal that is not shared by anyone other than his right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). It certainly is not shared more widely. I would not support it and the hon. Gentleman set out clearly in his opening remarks why this measure on tax credits is a Trojan horse to smuggle through the changes to welfare policy more generally that I, for one, would not want to see introduced.

Amendment 33, also tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon and his colleagues—I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd in his place—concerns a new tax. I asked the hon. Gentleman a question about a matter of concern to me. I said on Second Reading and on the first day in Committee that I was content with the definition of a Welsh taxpayer as set out in the Bill, but this proposal fills me with concern for two reasons. First, it does not say anything about whether the definition of a Welsh taxpayer would remain the same, and I set out in earlier debates my concerns about companies in my constituency employing residents of both England and Wales and the increased complexity. I raised that with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who was able to reassure me that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would be able to look at such things when it reports both to this House and to the Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting contribution. I agree about the need to consider the impact in other parts of Britain, including Northern Ireland, of asymmetry in taxation. He says he is sanguine about the prospect of these powers being exercised in Wales, but would he be sanguine about lower taxes for higher rate taxpayers potentially attracting to Wales higher rate taxpayers who contribute to the local economy of the Forest of Dean?

[Mr Harper]

I have a couple of responses. First, because I was present for our interesting debate on the first day of Committee, I know that the so-called lockstep provisions in the Bill mean—this is my understanding; I am sure the Exchequer Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that it would be impossible to reduce the higher rate of taxation without also reducing the other rates in lockstep.

I would be delighted if taxes generally were reduced. Government raise too much money and spend too much of people’s money, and I am very pleased that in his recent Budget the Chancellor was able to increase the personal allowance again to allow my constituents to keep more of their money. I think they generally spend it better than even the Exchequer Secretary can spend it. I want my constituents to keep more of their money and keep his grubby mitts off it, but of course we have challenges to deal with, such as the deficit that we inherited, so increasing those tax cuts will not be possible. Cutting taxes generally would be helpful, and if cutting taxes in Wales meant that we saw lower taxes across the United Kingdom, that would be an entirely welcome prospect.

[Owen Smith]

Cutting taxes in Wales would not necessarily lead to lower taxes across the whole of the UK. The hon. Government is right about the lockstep provisions being designed to mitigate the effect of cutting taxes only for the wealthiest. However, if taxes were cut, as the Secretary of State has said he wants to do, for taxpayers in Wales, would that not be a potential disbenefit to the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world, should people move in order to avail themselves of those lower tax rates in Wales?

[Mr Harper]

No. That would create pressure on the Chancellor to make sure that tax rates were lowered. I am grateful to note that the hon. Gentleman appears to have become a convert to lower taxes and that will lead to an interesting conversation with members of his shadow team, who appear to be wedded to higher taxes. Creating an incentive to put downward pressure on taxation not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom would be welcome. There are many pressures from interest groups and from individuals campaigning for Government to spend more money. We all know that there is no such thing as Government money; there is only money belonging to taxpayers. It is either money belonging to taxpayers today that we relieve them of or, if we borrow money, we relieve future taxpayers of money. Lower taxes mean that people keep more of their own money. I am very content with that. I just want to make sure that it works properly.

On the point about higher rate tax, I had an entire debate in Westminster Hall on this to make it clear that I thought the priority for the Treasury when cutting taxes was to focus on those on median incomes—those in the middle. That is why I welcomed the changes to the personal allowance in the Budget, which in the context of the changes that we have made over the past four years deliver more of the benefit to those on middle and lower incomes than those at the higher end. My priority is focusing on those on middle incomes.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a logical case to give the Assembly powers over taxes, but is not the reality that the Assembly will not behave in a logical fashion? Rather than cutting taxes, as he presumes and as even the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) seems to be suggesting, the Assembly will ratchet up taxes at all levels, and my hon. Friend will benefit enormously because many talented and wealthy people in Wales will cross the border, go and live in his constituency and pay their taxes there, leaving us bereft of the money that we could be spending on public services.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend, who chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee. He has put me in two minds. I am not sure whether to welcome his pessimism about the way he thinks the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly will behave, and look forward to the incredible opportunities that he sets out. If the Welsh Government do not learn from history and if they think it sensible to raise taxes, whether landfill taxes, stamp duty land tax or income tax, the flipside of the proposal from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is that rather than attracting people to go and work and live in Wales, the effect may be the one that my hon. Friend suggests.

If any businesses currently located in Wales want to relocate to the Forest of Dean, they will be made incredibly welcome. I will personally talk to the local council to smooth their way, and if residents want to come and live in the Forest of Dean, they will find a very good quality of life. If they want to pay their taxes in England, I certainly will not stop them. It seems that I can have it both ways. If the Welsh Assembly behaves in the way my hon. Friend fears, it will be good for my constituency. But to be serious for a moment, he puts his finger on it: he worries about the impact on Wales. I trust to some extent the good sense of voters in Wales.

By not devolving the tax powers that are set out clearly in the clauses that we are debating today, one of the problems is that the Welsh Assembly Government have to worry only about spending money, not about raising it, which leads to the consequences that my hon. Friend sets out. The Welsh Assembly Government do not have to think carefully about the price to be paid. If politicians’ minds are focused on the price to be paid, whether it is individuals choosing to leave Wales or entrepreneurs choosing either not to set up their businesses in Wales or to move existing businesses to more hospitable parts of the United Kingdom, that will concentrate minds well, even if the Government there are not of that mind to start off with. It may also create political opportunities for parties that do behave in such a way to make inroads in the Welsh Assembly elections and in parliamentary elections to this House.

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, even if he is slightly misrepresenting what I said earlier. The proposal to cut taxes in Wales rested on the prospect of a Conservative Government, led by his Front-Bench spokesmen’s colleagues in Wales. As he is talking about inward investment and business investment, would he like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Welsh Government on a 244% increase in foreign direct investment into Wales, higher than in any other part of Britain?

[Mr Harper]

I always congratulate people on bringing investment into the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Welsh Government work hard to do that. But I am also sure that those businesses are mindful of the competitive corporation tax regime created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which has provided a good base in the United Kingdom from which to do business. That competitive corporation tax regime does not just benefit companies in England; it also benefits companies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That competitive tax regime is one that we want to see go further.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I cannot let the shadow Secretary of State for Wales get away with championing the success of inward investment and talking in percentage terms. We need to recognise the low base and the Welsh Government’s poor performance in recent years in attracting inward investment. Clearly, any growth needs to be recognised, but we also need to recognise the failure over the last decade, which compares significantly with the previous record.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are now going just a touch wide of the amendments, which are specifically about new powers and the process for them. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is also ranging quite widely, so I would be grateful if he addressed the amendments.

[Mr Harper]

I will not dwell at any length on my hon. Friend’s point, but it is always interesting to get that perception of the facts on the record, which is slightly different from that set out by the shadow Secretary of State.

The Minister will doubtless talk about new clause 20 —this probably comes back to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon—which limits the ability that otherwise might be there for the Welsh Government to interfere with how HMRC operates, and how they use their powers, unless it is specifically for devolved taxes. I am pleased that it contains the condition that the Treasury has to consent to the provision. I think that this is the response to the concern I raised in my question to the hon. Gentleman on amendment 33, which is that even if the tax falls directly on Welsh taxpayers, there may be effects that range more widely, either on businesses located in England, or businesses that hire people from Wales. The Treasury having to consent to that enables a UK-wide perspective to be applied, allowing Members of this House who represent English constituencies that will be impacted by the tax to have a democratically accountable mechanism for speaking to Treasury Ministers, raising those concerns on behalf of their constituents, and allowing the Treasury to take them into account. I am pleased that that Treasury backstop provision remains there and I would not want to see it removed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The hon. Gentleman might be worrying too much about something that is fairly straightforward. In fact, just outside Chester there is a pub that has one bar in Wales and one in England, and it seems to be doing rather well.

[Mr Harper]

I do not doubt that businesses can operate in that way. What I do not want to see is businesses that today are operating perfectly happily, attracting customers from both sides of the border, finding that the Government’s intervention will impose a complicated regime. We all know the refrain, “I’m from Whitehall and I’m here to help you”—I assume that “I’m from Cardiff Bay and I’m here to help you” is greeted with the same warm delight in Wales. If they happen to have land on both sides of what is currently not a border, as far as they are concerned, I do not want them suddenly to be faced with a complicated taxation regime that will require them to hire expensive accountants to deal with it.

My plea to the Minister is therefore this: recognising that we would have to deal with that land in different ways, can we ensure that whatever administrative system is put in place is as straightforward as possible, and not just for HMRC, but for my constituents and those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) who might operate on both sides of the border?

Notwithstanding my concerns about some of the amendments that have been tabled, I generally welcome the devolution of these taxation powers to the Welsh Assembly, because I think that democratic institutions that spend money also ought to raise it.

[Owen Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo. I rise to speak to amendment 40 to clause 6, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith); amendments 7 and 8 to clauses 14 and 17 respectively, which deal with minor taxes; and amendment 43 to clause 28, which relates to reserved powers. It is also worth bearing in mind the amendment to clause 28 that we tabled last week, on what we described as the fair funding lock, which is relevant to that part of my remarks today.

All these amendments relate to the theme of stability and symmetry. Our contention is that although devolution has, for all sorts of reasons—historical, political appetite and timing—developed in an asymmetrical fashion across the UK, which has often been desirable and necessary, on both sides of the House we recognise that it is potentially undesirable for that degree of asymmetry to continue in future. It is undesirable because with it has come a certain instability in our devolution settlement. It is not a pressing problem of instability that has in any way threatened the existence of the UK, until recent months and years, but it is increasingly problematic. That instability and asymmetry has traditionally been exploited by nationalists in Wales and Scotland in good faith and with good intentions, from their perspective, but has led them to ratchet up demands for new and varied powers in Wales and Scotland, setting one part of Britain against another in seeking to extract benefit from their objectives of independence for Wales and Scotland through asymmetry of the settlement.

In recent months, another party has joined them in seeking to divide some parts of Britain from others and to separate people in one country of Britain from those in another for party political gain and ideology. That is the Conservative party, which has recently become a zealous if late convert to the cause of tax devolution and competition, and sees an ideological and legitimate benefit for a party that believes in low taxation, the Laffer curve and the logic behind the comments by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). It thinks that, from a relatively low political base in Wales, it has the potential to expand its presence by arguing that it is a low-taxation party in Wales.

I was intrigued to hear how sanguine the hon. Member for Forest of Dean is about the prospect of his constituents enjoying higher tax rates than those on the Welsh side of the border in the unlikely event of a Conservative Government in Wales. I am not sure that his constituents would be as sanguine as he is about the difference of a few yards making a 10% difference, potentially, in the tax rate enjoyed by them, compared with their neighbours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I am not sure I was rabble-rousing. I would never describe the representatives of the Welsh Labour party as a rabble, although they may have been roused by my speech, and I trust they were. It is fair to say that they were reported as having been roused by my speech and I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to the Committee’s attention. I am happy to repeat the view I expressed in that speech: that our worry is that the Conservative party has an established track record of cutting taxes for the wealthiest people, not just in Wales but throughout the UK, and is increasingly happy to support them and to act on their behalf. In the event of the Labour party winning the trust of people across Britain and winning the next election, we would like a Welsh Government to give the Welsh people, through their Assembly, the ability to deliver a progressive rate of taxation in Wales in keeping with the progressive values of the Welsh people. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Mr Harper]

I want to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point about whether I would be relaxed about delivering a lower rate of tax. Depending on whether there would then be a reduction in revenues, and that had some consequences, I would have no problem with a lower rate of tax. One of the things my constituents find annoying about the current settlement is that they see money being spent without there being any connection with its having to be raised; it all just comes from the centre. I think that if the taxing and the spending are connected, constituents will be relaxed about it. Given what the hon. Gentleman said, if a Labour Government remain in Wales there is clearly no prospect of lower taxes in any event.

[Owen Smith]

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Taxpayers in Wales elect a National Assembly that has a democratic mandate to exercise its powers in respect of taxation, just as his Government do currently. I have never accepted the argument that the only way to give accountability to the National Assembly is through its having powers to raise taxes as well as spend them. I accept that intellectually there is a clear line to be drawn between taxation and representation, and that an increased level of financial accountability is afforded if taxes are being raised as well as spent. That is why we do not oppose that aspect of the Bill. Let me be clear, though, that Labour does not favour—as do, clearly, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—tax competition within Britain. We are believers in the Union and in the ability to pool risk and share rewards across Britain. That fundamental belief is undermined, in my view and that of the Opposition, by tax competition that would see lower rates set in Wales compared with those in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

We are sanguine about supporting these tax powers, given the correlation the Government have drawn with borrowing, which we think absolutely vital. We are equally sanguine about the fact that Wales—given that Scotland has already moved on to this perspective as a result of the Scotland Act 2012, passed by this Government—ought to enjoy similar powers. However, we will not go on to say that we need to cut taxes in Wales to undercut England, because we do not believe in Wales undercutting the English.

[Mr Harper]

Is there not a point about symmetry? The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the three parts of the UK with devolved Administrations need to move together in terms of the powers they have and the decisions they make. Surely the logic of devolution, particularly in the way that his party delivered it, was that there was a different settlement in those three parts of the UK. I accept that avoiding asymmetry might be a desirable outcome, but is it not a bit late for him to take that view, given the three different types of devolution that his party delivered in government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

No, I am not recommending tax competition. If the hon. Gentleman would like a further tutorial later, I will happily give him one on tax policy or anything else he likes.

None of the changes would of course come into effect unless what Labour has referred to as the triple lock is met. First, as the Bill lays out, we would need certainty that Wales was not worse off. We still have serious questions about whether Wales would be worse off—versus the Barnett formula and the block grant that we currently enjoy—if tax powers are taken. Secondly, we would need to be absolutely certain that there was fair funding for Wales, hence our fair funding lock. We are not talking about it today, but we did so briefly during the first day in Committee. For the changes to apply, Welsh Ministers would need to be satisfied that funding arrangements were fair before they triggered a referendum on exercising the powers. Thirdly, we would of course need such a referendum. As I said earlier, if the powers were exercised, they would be designed to mitigate the dangers of further Tory tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Amendments 7 and 8 on minor taxes and their volatility are probing amendments, unlike amendment 40, which we will push to a vote. Fundamentally, we broadly support the provisions—we certainly support the borrowing associated with the devolution of such powers and taxes to Wales—but we have significant concerns about how the powers will work, about the volume of these taxes and about how the Government have drawn a causal link between the devolution of these taxes and borrowing powers. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean raised other questions about the workability of the taxes and the manner in which they would be deployed.

On the connection drawn between powers and borrowing, I said on Second Reading and on previous occasions that the Government have yet to explain why they arrived at a rationale for associating powers with borrowing that is different from the one used in the Scotland Act. The Exchequer Secretary will know that the Scotland Act drew a connection between the capital budget for Scotland in respect of borrowing and the amount of borrowing allowed each year. The overall capital budget for Scotland is £2.3 billion, so borrowing of £220 million per year is allowed up to that ceiling. Why this Bill draws a different line between these taxes and the amount of borrowing has never been explained, and we remain convinced that the figure was just plucked out of thin air. If the Minister wanted to explain where the figure of £500 million came from and the basis from which it was derived, we would be very grateful.

As an indication of how the amount of money is significant—we support it—but perhaps not enough, Jane Hutt, the Minister for Finance, has announced only today an important package of funding on infrastructure, including £220 million for a new specialist cancer hospital at Velindre. I am sure all hon. Members welcome that, but it is a measure of how little £500 million buys these days. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to explain how they arrived at that figure.

We understand that the Government have made provision in the Bill such that the amount of money will not go down, even in the event of a reduction in the amount of taxes taken by the Welsh Assembly—that is guarded against—but the Minister will know that stamp duty and landfill taxes are especially volatile. In particular, stamp duty land tax is extraordinarily volatile year on year. For example, in Wales during the past five years it has been between £55 million and £130 million. Indeed, that difference of 60% occurred in just one year.

[Mr Harper]

On the capital borrowing level of £500 million—I think the hon. Gentleman was asking how the Government had arrived at that figure—I may be wrong, but I believe I touched on this on Second Reading. In the “Wales Bill: Financial Empowerment and Accountability” document, there is a quite extensive section on how the Government arrived at that figure. It was partly through allowing the Welsh Assembly Government to proceed with improvements to the M4. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking further details on that, because I thought the document was quite comprehensive?

--- Later in debate ---

Our point is that there has been a party political attempt by the Secretary of State to stop the Welsh Government taking forward legislation that they feel would be in the interests of people in Wales and, in particular, working people in Wales. An example is the action that he took in respect of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Conservatives were so determined to cut wages for low-paid agricultural workers that he took the Welsh Assembly to the Supreme Court. We await the ruling. We are fearful that it could deal a further significant blow to some of the lowest paid agricultural workers in Wales.

[Mr Harper]

The Secretary of State will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that all he is doing in referring matters to the Supreme Court is ensuring that the legislative balance between this place and the Welsh Assembly is upheld, and that the legislation that sets out that balance is not trespassed upon. To follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic, he is presumably saying that if, God forbid, he were ever Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly Government tried to move the devolution settlement unilaterally, he would simply acquiesce and not defend the rights of this place or the primary legislation that it has passed.

[Owen Smith]

That was the justification that the Secretary of State used at the time and he would no doubt use it again today. Our view and the view of many people in Wales is that what he did in respect of the Agricultural Wages Board was a party political attempt to tie the hands of the Welsh Assembly by arguing that it was employment legislation and not legislation that related to agriculture, which is devolved to Wales. Many of the learned counsel who offered their opinions on the matter backed the view of the National Assembly for Wales. We will wait to see what the ruling is. My point is simply that a shift from the conferred powers model to a reserved powers model would militate against such apparent confusion on the part of the Secretary of State and ensure that we had greater clarity about where the line lies between the powers of this House and the powers of the National Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Amendments 36 and 37 would enable the National Assembly to change the way that money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including the issuing of bonds, without the need for the consent of the Treasury or a resolution of the House of Commons. Amendment 35 seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds. Amendment 34 would ensure that when the Secretary of State raises the borrowing for investment limit, it cannot subsequently be reduced.

First, on the issuance of bonds, subsection 32(5) of the Scotland Act 2012 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to change the manner in which Scottish Ministers can borrow money for capital purposes—for example, to permit borrowing by the issue of bonds. Subsection (5) of the Wales Bill contains the same provisions. This amendment seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds.

Following the Scotland Act 2012, the legislation left the door open for the Secretary of State to enable the Scottish Government to issue bonds in future. The UK Government later launched a consultation on bond issuance and announced in February of this year that Scotland is to get the power to issue bonds. There is only one problem: it will have that power only in 2015. In the meantime, the small matter of the independence referendum in September might intrude.

Scotland aside, I refer Members to the cross-party Commission on Devolution in Wales. Recommendation 19 ends with the words:

“We also believe that the Welsh Government should be able to issue its own bonds.”

Given that local government throughout the British Isles can issue bonds, it is an anomaly that the devolved nation Governments cannot also do so.

The Silk Commission’s first report stated that

“while bonds may be more expensive at present, a possible future scenario where they may be cheaper or more attractive to the Welsh Government cannot be ruled out. We therefore see no reason in principle for preventing the Welsh Government from being able to issue its own bonds in addition to borrowing from the National Loans Fund and other sources such as commercial banks.”

Our amendment calls for greater clarification and seeks to expedite the ability of the Welsh Government to issue bonds. We need movement on this issue to enable the Government of Wales, should they choose to do so, to drive investment in infrastructure, and so improve our economy.

[Mr Harper]

If, under the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, the Welsh Government were to issue their own bonds, would the Treasury stand behind guaranteeing the repayment of those bonds, or would that fall to the Welsh Assembly Government?

[Hywel Williams]

My understanding is that the Treasury would be expected to stand behind those bonds. I readily admit that I am not an expert on this matter, but I understand that that is the case for local government as well.

As I have said, we need movement on this matter to enable the Government of Wales to drive investment in infrastructure, and so improve the economy. Wales should have the same powers as Scotland. The Government parties should be held to their word: they agreed, through their representatives on the Commission on Devolution in Wales, that the Welsh Government should be able to issue bonds.

Amendment 5 is both simple and highly effective and would inflation-proof the borrowing limit in the Bill. We are unsure whether the Government have considered this matter, or whether they intend to put in place any safeguards to protect the amount of borrowing written into the Bill. The £500 million borrowing for investment limit is of course welcome. If the money is used wisely and for targeted investment in infrastructure throughout Wales, it would enable job creation, provide a welcome boost to the Welsh economy and drive up Welsh gross value added so that the economy no longer sits at the bottom of the economic league table of UK nations and regions. However, we are concerned that the value of the £500 million limit, written as it is in the Bill, might be substantially reduced in a relatively short time by inflation. We have tabled amendment 5 to inflation-proof the value of that amount. I hope that this was a simple oversight by the Government, rather than any calculated move to undermine over time the Welsh Government’s ability to make full use of the powers proposed.

Inflation at present is fairly low by recent standards, but in the space of a few short months it could jump. Some of us here can recall the ferocious problems faced by ordinary people when mortgage rates rose to 15%. As a dire warning, I have safeguarded my own copy of the Mansion House speech by the former Chancellor and Prime Minister when he praised the banking industry to the heavens—just before the heavens fell in. Inflation could jump as a result of international problems and recessions elsewhere in the world, and the value of the amount available through this Bill should not be diminished as a result of such inflation.

The powers available to the Welsh Government as a result of this Bill will not come on stream until 2017 and 2018—after the 2016 Welsh general election. If the past five years have taught us anything, it is that it is foolhardy to predict how the economy will look at the end of that time.

The borrowing for investment limit available in this Bill is the amount recommended by the Silk Commission. It is the integrity of the cross-party commission’s recommendation that this amendment seeks to preserve and safeguard, as well as to ensure that Wales has the full resources available to it to maximise the number of jobs and the prosperity created.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 36 and 37 would allow the National Assembly to change how money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including through issuing bonds, without the need for the consent of the Treasury or a resolution of the House of Commons. I argued this point in the previous debate and our concerns about delay are very clear.

[Mr Harper]

I want to say a few words about clauses 19 and 20 and the overall powers for current and capital borrowing, but let me first touch on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). His answer to my question was my reading of the situation, too: the Treasury would, in effect, stand behind any bonds or other such borrowing. That is why, if he were to press the amendments to a vote, I could not support them. If the Treasury is going to stand behind such borrowing, it must have some control over the level of borrowing entered into.

We talked earlier about linking spending and accountability. If Welsh Ministers are to be able to borrow money, they must be accountable for repaying it from a revenue stream, and must be able to persuade the markets, based on the rate of interest they are paying, that they can do so. Alternatively, if the Treasury is going to stand behind such borrowing, Treasury Ministers and this House of Commons must have some control over the level of it. It might be possible to set a framework, and not every individual piece of borrowing might have to be sanctioned, but the Treasury must be in control of the overall level because otherwise, it is a one-way bet: people can just borrow the money and not have to worry about the rates they are paying if they know that the Treasury will pay it back. I can see why a Treasury Minister could not sign up to a blank cheque such as that, but frankly, I do not see why any Member of this House should, either.

In the previous debate, the shadow Secretary of State said that he was not sure how Ministers had come up with the borrowing figures. I briefly alluded to that issue in my intervention, and it was raised by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on Second Reading. Clause 19 amends existing borrowing powers, and clause 20 repeals such powers. Changes are made to current borrowing powers and a new section is inserted that deals with the capital requirements.

I hope you will forgive me, Sir Roger, if I mention an excellent document that is, I suspect, on the Table: the “Wales Bill: Financial Empowerment and Accountability”, published by the Government in March. People often criticise Ministers for not showing their workings—the phrase we used in the previous debate—and although I am financially qualified, I do not think that one has to be to be able to follow the document’s rather sensible reasoning. It deals with the borrowing powers amended in clause 19 and makes it clear that Welsh Ministers have the power to borrow £500 million—the limit previously set in the Government of Wales Act.

Effectively, that is the limit inherited from the previous Government, and within it, the Treasury has agreed that the Welsh Government can borrow up to £200 million each year. As the document says, the Welsh Government’s powers are being extended to comprise both in-year and “across years” current borrowing. As I read it, that extends the Welsh Government’s flexibility to borrow to deal with their current expenditure. The Bill enables Welsh Ministers to borrow money from the national loans fund, to which the hon. Member for Arfon referred, and to deal with differences in the outturn of taxes and receipts for the devolved taxes by borrowing across a number of years. Such “across years” borrowing must be repaid within four years. The overall limit can be varied both upwards and downwards—but not below the initial £500 million limit—through secondary legislation. The £500 million limit inherited from the previous regime is therefore kept in place.

That seems clear, as are the capital borrowing powers. The two taxes we discussed when considering the previous group of amendments—stamp duty land tax and landfill tax—are being devolved. The Government estimate that the revenue stream, which will support the borrowing, will be about £200 million a year. The capital borrowing powers will come in at the same time as the new devolved taxes: in April 2018.

The statutory capital borrowing limit is also set at £500 million—higher, interestingly, than if it had been set solely with reference to the tax-to-borrowing ratio that applies in Scotland. As I said on Second Reading, this is a more generous regime than the one applying to Scotland. The shadow Secretary of State referred in an earlier debate to keeping a symmetrical arrangement between Wales and Scotland. If we did that, using the same tax-to-borrowing ratio, the Welsh Government would be able to borrow only some £100 million. In Scotland, the capital borrowing limit is just over £2 billion, with about £5 billion of tax revenue. The Government have allowed the Welsh Government to borrow £500 million in advance—I think this information was elicited on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee—to enable them to proceed with improvements to the M4, should they choose to do so.

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will know, as he has obviously read all these documents extensively, that the documents on the Scotland Act made no reference to the line drawn between the ratio of funds and taxes to be devolved, and the quantum of borrowing. Instead, a direct line was drawn between the capital budget for Scotland and the amount of borrowing. That was the point I was making, so I presume that he, like me, does not understand why a different rationale is being applied in the Wales Bill from that applied in the Scotland Act.

[Mr Harper]

I was listening carefully to the shadow Secretary of State but I did not quite follow him. I set out the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing limit, which is £2.2 billion, and they take responsibility for tax revenues of about £5 billion. The ratio between the two is slightly less than 1:2. If we used the same ratio in Wales, the Welsh Government would have a limit of about £100 million. I accept that the Secretary of State for Wales and colleagues in the Treasury have adopted a more generous approach, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency and as shadow Welsh Secretary, would welcome this asymmetry rather than—if I am following his argument—being critical of it.

[Owen Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if a similar rationale were employed in this Bill to that which was employed in Scotland, the borrowing limit would be nearer £1.3 billion in total—£130 million a year—reflecting the £1.3 billion capital budget in Wales, which, as I say for the fourth time, was the rationale that was employed in respect of the Scotland Act, not the ratio between the borrowing and the amount of devolved taxation, as has been post hoc used as a justification in this Bill?

[Mr Harper]

I do not follow that argument at all. If I may pick up the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Arfon, the point we were debating on bonds was about repaying the money. If Ministers are going to devolve borrowing power to Welsh Ministers, it must reflect the revenue that Welsh Ministers have some influence over; otherwise, it would amount to enabling Welsh Ministers to borrow money, effectively, against taxes raised by central Government, and there is no accountability there. We then get back to the problem that we started with: Ministers could borrow to spend, no doubt on projects that they would deem to be popular, but there would be no accountability because the money would be largely repaid not through the taxes that had been devolved to Welsh Ministers, but through taxes controlled by Treasury Ministers, and that would set up perverse incentives.

If the Welsh Government are to be given borrowing powers, they should reflect the revenue stream that those Ministers are in control of. If the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is arguing for more borrowing powers, therefore, he would obviously want to devolve some more taxes to go along with them; otherwise, it is just Welsh Ministers writing cheques on UK taxpayers, which ultimately the Treasury has to stand behind.

As I was saying before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, my understanding was that the increase in the capital borrowing limit was intended specifically to allow the Welsh Government, in advance of the devolution of an element of income tax, to proceed with improvements to the M4, which I remember from Second Reading would be welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). I am sure that although the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) is being very inscrutable, she would welcome such improvements. Oh no, she is shaking her head—she does not welcome improvements to the M4. That will be news to her constituents; I thought she did.

The Bill also contains a power that enables the UK Government to vary—have I provoked the hon. Lady? No, I have not. It enables the UK Government to vary the overall limit both upwards and downwards. A joint process is in place between the two Governments to ensure a level of convergence. That seems sensible. That limit will be set at a level that the UK Government consider appropriate, based on an assessment of economic and fiscal circumstances and the impact of inflation. Amendment 5 has been tabled by Plaid Cymru. Paragraph 91 of the note that the Government have produced states that among the things the two Governments will consider when looking at the borrowing limit will be the impact of inflation on the real value of the limit. Given that both Governments will be participating in this collaborative process, that should mean that the limit can be kept at a real-terms level. I hope the hon. Member for Arfon will welcome that.

The final area is the independent revenue stream over which the Government have control. I argued earlier that borrowing must be related to the level of income.

The Government’s note explains comprehensively how the current borrowing and capital borrowing powers, which are set out clearly in clauses 19 and 20, were arrived at. I think I have set out clearly why I would not support the amendments tabled by Plaid Cymru on the ability to issue bonds, and the ability to keep borrowing levels at real-terms levels is covered in the Government document. I am happy to support clauses 19 and 20 but not the amendments in the group.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We very much welcome borrowing powers for the Welsh Government, as they will help them progress with investment in vital infrastructure projects and foster growth in the Welsh economy. Borrowing powers may also prove useful in enabling match funding to take advantage of European funds.

The Silk commission argued strongly that the Welsh Government should have

“the capacity to borrow for capital investment on a prudent basis subject to limits agreed with HM Treasury”.

These powers are all the more badly needed as the capital budget for Wales has been cut by one third by the current Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I want to sound a note of caution. I support the intentions of the Bill and I respect the case that has been made for the amendments, but those amendments could be seen as seeking almost limitless borrowing powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) observed, borrowing powers need to be related to the amount of money that can be raised and to repayment. As we learned from the financial crisis of 2008-09, even when financial matters seem to be positive, changes can occur. Limits must therefore be set and a sensible approach adopted to borrowing across the whole of the United Kingdom, and particularly in respect of any institution that has a relatively limited capacity to raise its own funds, given that some of the Opposition parties do not seek to develop innovative and effective ways of using the extended powers granted by the Bill to raise funds by tax competition.

The £500 million capital borrowing limit set in the Bill, supported and approved by the Treasury, is sensible, amounting to £125 million a year. I want to bring an element of reality to the debate. Much of the focus has been on the need to improve the M4 motorway around Newport.

[Mr Harper]

Given that the £500 million capital limit is in the Bill, and given the strong case made by the official Opposition, it perplexes me that they have not tabled any amendments to change that capital limit, which they spoke so strongly against.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is obvious where Plaid Cymru stands on the matter. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) made his case. I disagreed with it, but it is a respectable case which stands with the party’s politics in general. It seems inconsistent to make strong criticisms of an element of the Bill but not to table amendments seeking to improve the Bill or to make it more relevant, according to the Opposition’s argument.

The priority that has given rise to much of the debate about the need for greater capital spend in Wales is the need for improvement of the M4 around Newport. I pay tribute to the Chancellor and his efforts to encourage the Welsh Government to look positively at the need to improve that link. Many Members have spoken of the need for better infrastructure in and out of south Wales.

I remind the Committee that there was a commitment to such improvement pre-1997, by the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). That was to be funded entirely out of the Barnett block. The Barnett block at that time was £7 billion. It has now grown to about £15 billion. The shadow Welsh Secretary argues that Welsh projects cannot be funded without a significant increase in capital borrowing for such projects. Pre-devolution, without borrowing powers, those projects were to be funded out of the Barnett block as it was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I still direct the independent observer, from wherever he or she may come, to the beginning of his speech where he spoke about the benefits of dealing with these things, which the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) dealt with before the 1997 general election, out of revenue. That is impossible given the strain on the revenue budget these days in Wales. The capital budget has to come out of a separate pot.

I want to emphasise the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and others about the calculation of the £500 million.

[Mr Harper]

I would not have intervened but for the right hon. Gentleman’s accusation that I was lukewarm. I made it quite clear that I very much support clauses 19 and 20 and capital borrowing powers being devolved. I was objecting to the idea that they could be unlimited. That is why I argued against the amendments tabled by Plaid Cymru Members. I argued that there should be a role for the Treasury and this House in making sure that those measures were limited, but I absolutely welcome them and I will support them in the event of a Division this evening.

[Paul Murphy]

That is good to hear.

I come back to the issue of how this has been calculated. I was Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, where there is a stream of income from the rates. The household and the business rates go to the Northern Ireland Executive. But I do not believe that the way in which the borrowing powers were calculated for the Northern Ireland Executive were based on the fact that they had an income from rates. I certainly do not believe that the Scotland Act, which allowed Scottish Ministers to borrow 10% of the Scottish capital budget in order to fund additional capital projects, had anything at all to do with funding streams. I am not saying that funding streams are unimportant, but why should Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate calculations in order to determine what they can have, while Wales has to go by a different methodology? That is wrong. It is unfair. There should be fairness and equality in determining the capital budgets for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The reason is probably that these things were done over a period of years in different ways. But it is not done with any consistency based on revenue streams. I wish that the Government could rethink that. Amendments have not been tabled because the Opposition support the issue of borrowing. The First Minister and other Ministers in Wales have been saying for at least two to three years now that to have borrowing and to increase their capital spending was the single most important thing they wanted. We welcome that, but we question the method by which the £500 million has been arrived at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and not only Plaid Cymru is saying that. In a recent article, Professor Richard Wyn Jones of the Wales governance centre at Cardiff university said that because of the difference of view between Labour colleagues in the National Assembly and those at Westminster, and between Scottish Labour and Scottish Labour Members at Westminster,

“Scottish Labour seem to have no compunction about throwing Wales, one of the poorest parts of the Union, under the bus to shore up their own position… For Wales it is, sadly, a very different story. Yet despite this, the Barnett formula—used to calculate funding for the Scottish and Welsh Governments—operates in a way that ensures per capita levels of public spending is far higher for Scotland than for Wales.”

He develops that theme, referring to the Holtham commission, and continues:

“But what of Welsh Labour? It is surely inconceivable that the Shadow Secretary of State…will have been unaware of the contents of Powers for a Purpose, and its pledge to retain Barnett while rejecting a needs-based replacement. Yet, thus far at least, he has remained resolutely silent in the face of this assault on the long-term interests of Wales.”

And so it goes on: it is a pretty harrowing read, but it underlines the fact that unaligned expert commentators believe that denial of the need to get on with reforming Barnett as soon as possible is undermining the democratic process in Wales and its future.

In our party, at least, we are quite clear. We believe that Wales should be fairly funded on the basis of need, and that the Barnett formula should be recalculated to ensure that Wales does not lose out, potentially on billions of pounds, over the coming decade. We have always maintained that position. However, the thrust of what the Bill offers is, on the whole, a good thing, with greater financial and fiscal powers, despite our disagreement about some of the restrictions and conditions that the Westminster Government have placed on the powers. We are disappointed that they have failed yet again to take the opportunity to address the serious injustice of the lack of fair funding, but the Bill is a means of getting on with the important job of improving the Welsh economy—boosting it and, I hope, creating many jobs in the process through careful investment in infrastructure—because we know that a lot needs to be done.

We know that the Conservative and Lib Dem Government will not commit to reform of the Barnett formula. They have always said that it works, despite the fact that many of their senior figures in Wales have acknowledged that it does not work, but needs reform. This Government can never be trusted to put Wales’s interests first.

[Mr Harper]

Just to be clear, it is not right that the Government have said they will never amend the Barnett formula. They have said that the work on dealing with the deficit has to be the priority, before the Barnett formula can be looked at. They do not have a closed mind on that—they have another priority, which is the right one of dealing with the deficit—as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

[Mr Llwyd]

I appreciate the pressures on the Government caused by the large deficit—that is fairly obvious—but it is not as though the Barnett problem has suddenly come out of the ether. It is a case of jam tomorrow, is it not? We have argued our case for 30 or 35 years, but others who are politically unaligned have now said that we are right. It has been on the table for eight or nine years, with very little movement in any direction and no initiative whatever. However, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the deficit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, many of my constituents, who would be the first to criticise if something were wrong with the national health service, were shocked by those comments and deeply outraged at the insult to the many hard-working staff. I am glad that Conservative Members in the Committee have recognised the hard work done by many of our doctors and nurses in Wales, but there has clearly been an unmitigated and quite unnecessary attack. As has been pointed out, if he looked at some of the statistics, the hon. Member for Monmouth would find that waiting times for certain cancer treatments are shorter in his patch than over the border in the Wye valley. It is absurd to state that everybody is hopping across to England. Likewise, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean has tabled one of the amendments, but Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust treats only 82% of its cancer patients within the 62-day limit, whereas in Wales the figure is 91%. Every Welsh trust is outperforming the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust.

When considering these figures it is easy to pick one number or specialty and to forget that for the vast majority of people in Wales treatment has improved rapidly over the past few years. It is certainly very different to how it was in the 1980s and ’90s, when people waited an extremely long time. The key point to remember is that England too has had a dreadful year for A and E.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady is attacking the NHS!

[Nia Griffith]

I am saying that in England it has been the worst year for decades for A and E, with almost 1 million people waiting more than four hours. It has been much harder to get to see a GP in England since the Government scrapped Labour’s 48-hour appointment guarantee. [Interruption.] I am stating the fact that some things have not gone well in the NHS in England, and I am pointing out the criticisms, including shortages of nurses. In Wales we have 60 nurses per 10,000 people; England has only 50, and shortages in certain departments have been causing particular problems. In Wales, delayed transfers of care and discharges are at an all-time low, whereas in England the number of hospital bed days lost to delayed discharges is at an all-time high. One might ask whether that has something to do with the cuts to local government expenditure that have been experienced in England under this Government.

All in all, the amendment on transferring block funding so that people can shift from England to Wales is, first, not very practical. Secondly, there are already opportunities for people to go across the border where that is the most appropriate treatment. Thirdly, the reform of the system in England will make it extremely difficult for GPs to provide even basic treatment for many of their patients, given the budgets they will be dealing with.

There have already been a number of exchanges on fair funding between the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and me, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party made it clear this week that we recognise that although the Barnett formula has served the UK well, there is a specific set of issues relating to Wales. As a result, an incoming UK Labour Government would address the issue for Wales without it impacting on Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman refers to not having a piecemeal approach, but I suggest that his amendment is just that and that a more comprehensive look at the issue would be more appropriate.

[Mr Harper]

I will try to be relatively brief although I will say one or two things that I had not intended to say because I have been provoked by the previous contribution. First, the double standards are breathtaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) gave a perfectly reasonable speech and made it very clear that he was not attacking doctors and nurses but speaking about senior NHS professionals, yet he was accused of attacking doctors and nurses. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) then proceeded to criticise standards of health care in England, yet somehow that is okay because she is just pointing out facts. Absolute nonsense. If we see things wrong in our constituencies it is our duty as elected Members to point them out. My hon. Friend was simply pointing out to the Committee problems in his constituency that had been raised by constituents. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that Labour Members do not want to hear this. The NHS is not performing well in Wales, and I will set out why my constituents in England are concerned about that.

I am happy with the confirmation from the hon. Member for Llanelli that if her party is elected to government it will sort out the Barnett formula for Wales and give it more money without that affecting funding for Scotland. As an English Member, it is quite clear to me which way the bill will be coming, so I will be pleased to tell my English constituents that another reason for not voting for the Labour party is that they will be facing a large bill to give more of their taxes to be spent by the Welsh Assembly Government, as well as the money they give to Scotland. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that campaigning opportunity.

Amendments 12, 13 and 14 have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—my constituency neighbour—and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). I listened carefully to their arguments and I am happy to support the amendments as I think the principles they outline are sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy spoke about the Welsh Assembly Government’s policy of voice not choice. That would be fine if, when patients said something with their voice, somebody actually listened to them. The problem is that nobody listens, which is a real issue for my constituents.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harper]

No, I will not give way; I will make some progress. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Oh, go on then.

[Paul Flynn]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think the Public Administration Committee, which has a Conservative Chair and majority, gave the health service ombudsman in Wales as the model and exemplar to follow? It said that that was the best service of the four countries, and it also recalled that Wales still has community health councils, which act splendidly as a source of receiving complaints and dealing with them.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Of course, the ombudsman service deals with the things that go wrong, and the points made by my hon. Friends were about the things that go wrong in the health service. It may or may not be true that the ombudsman service is a better system for clearing those things up, but we are trying to avoid them going wrong in the first place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about community health councils. We used to have them in England and they were abolished by the Labour Government, which was a very bad idea. I suspect that he voted for getting rid of them, and I wish that he had not done so.

On the performance of the NHS in Wales, I shall limit myself to what I said when we debated the issue on Second Reading—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State cannot help himself. All I want to do is point out that I referred to mortality statistics in that debate, and I made the point that they were worse in hospitals in Wales. The Hansard reporters then note an interruption, which was the barracking from Opposition Members claiming that I was smearing Wales—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) says it again. Actually, if he read the Hansard report for that debate, he would know that all I was doing was quoting the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who said:

“The second warning sign, said Francis, is the level of mortality statistics. In fact, they appear to be dangerously high in many hospitals in Wales.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 930.]

All I was doing was putting on the record a fact—the hon. Member for Llanelli said that we are allowed to do that—that was cited by a senior Labour Member, and I am accused of smearing the health service. If that is the level of debate we are going to have, we will not get very far.

[Owen Smith]

Has the hon. Gentleman reflected, in the period since he made those remarks, on the 10-year longitudinal study carried out by the Nuffield Trust? It looked at all the indicators applicable across all four health areas of the UK and concluded that no one country is steaming ahead and no one country is lagging behind.

[Mr Harper]

No, I have not, because all I did was quote a Labour Member. They were not my words, but I was accused of smearing the NHS in Wales, which I did not do.

I was surprised to note that the hon. Member for Llanelli, after we had had our lengthy debate on day one of consideration of the Bill in Committee, tweeted that I was spending a lot of time on the Wales Bill and she wondered what my constituents would make of it. Well, the thousands of my constituents who are forced to be treated by the NHS in Wales against their wishes—that is not my view or assessment of the NHS in Wales—will, I suspect, be grateful that I am raising these concerns in the House on their behalf with Ministers, so that they can get better health care and a choice of where they are treated.

Amendments 17 and 18 are about improving the transparency of the agreements that govern cross-border services—the cross-border principles that were agreed by Ministers in the Department of Health and in the Welsh Assembly Government, together with the accompanying protocol that was sorted out by officials in NHS England and NHS Wales, supposedly based on those principles. The budgetary protocols will improve the transparency of the system.

New clause 3, also in my name, is an exact copy—with the appropriate changes—of the language that is in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It puts a legal duty on commissioners in England, when making commissioning decisions, to consider the impact of their decisions on the provision of services to people who reside in Wales—and we have heard several examples from Members of constituents who live in Wales and receive services in England. There is no such reciprocal duty, and new clause 3 would provide that Welsh commissioners had to have regard to the likely impact of their commissioning decisions. If my constituents were receiving services in Wales and Welsh commissioners were making decisions that would have an impact on those services, they would have a legal duty to consider how my constituents would be affected. All I am asking for is parity between commissioners.

[Owen Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one reason that provision was included in the Act was to mitigate the risk that commissioning groups in England would choose to decommission traditional services being provided by other parts of the NHS in England, such as tertiary care, and choose BUPA, Spire or some other private provider that might not be bound by the same protocols and memorandum of understanding to provide those services to Wales—a significant concern to those of us who looked at the Health and Social Care Bill? It remains a significant concern in a privatised NHS in England.

[Mr Harper]

I do not share that concern. The hon. Gentleman has all these scare stories about privatising the NHS, which are complete and utter nonsense. Since the provision exists, and commissioners in England have to have regard—rightly—to the impact of their decisions on Welsh residents, all I am asking for is a reciprocal duty on commissioners in Wales if they provide services to residents in England. That is nothing more than common fairness.

Hon. Members may be wondering why my constituents would care about the NHS in Wales. I shall set out briefly why it matters. I have some 6,000 constituents who reside in England in my constituency. The only GP surgeries that are conveniently located for them are branch surgeries whose main practices are located in Wales and registered with the NHS in Wales, so even though my constituents go to a GP surgery in England, they are being treated by GPs who are registered in Wales. Following decisions made by the Welsh Government and commissioners in Wales, my constituents find that their choices about where to have secondary care are increasingly limited. That is becoming a real problem. We have made some progress by liaising with the Aneurin Bevan health board, for example, but I am conscious that it could revert at any time to the previous situation. I want the issue to be sorted out permanently.

The cross-border principles that were agreed by Ministers of both Governments provide that cross-border commissioning should reflect the legal rights of patients in their country of residence. That is all I am asking for. What seems to have happened is that the protocol, the detailed arrangements agreed by NHS England and NHS Wales, did not quite reflect what Ministers in both Governments—to be fair—had agreed. My constituents are asking for nothing more than their legal rights under the NHS constitution and according to the Health and Social Care Act 2012. They want to be able to exercise the choice that my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy and for Monmouth set out.

My constituents have the option of being treated in Wales and, given what the shadow Secretary of State has said about the quality of services, they may want to be treated in Wales. But what they do not want is to be forced to be treated in Wales if they wish, for whatever reason—better treatment or any other preference—to be treated in England. They are English residents and they should have that right. That is all my amendments would achieve, and I hope that the Minister will address that.

[Owen Smith]

Much as we are enjoying the extended audition by the hon. Gentleman for the post of Secretary of State for Wales, can he point us to the evidence showing that thousands of his constituents are so concerned about treatment in Wales, or is this just an anecdote?

[Mr Harper]

I do not know where to start with that rather childish intervention. There is no vacancy, because my right hon. Friend is doing an outstandingly good job as Secretary of State for Wales, and I hope he continues in his post for a long time. He is doing an awful lot better than the shadow Secretary of State would do if, God forbid, he were ever to get the job.

I am concerned because my constituents are affected by the not very well thought-through devolution settlement—[Interruption.] The evidence is constituency correspondence, a very well attended public meeting with hundreds of local residents, and a very active local campaigning group. This is a real issue in my constituency and thousands of constituents are affected by it. I am doing my job as their Member of Parliament by setting out their views. I have been very reasonable in my argument and I look forward to the Secretary of State’s response. He is a Secretary of State who listens to and deals with issues brought to him by Members of Parliament—unlike the shadow Secretary of State—and I look forward to his response to the debate.

[Paul Flynn]

What is entirely novel in the debate on health, which I have never experienced in my 28 years in this House, is for Wales and the Welsh health service to be used as a political football to kick around to save the skins of Tory MPs and fulfil the ambitions of Lynton Crosby. He is the one who is using the issue not to make legitimate complaints—it is right that hon. Members raise legitimate complaints, as they always have—but for something entirely fresh. At every Prime Minister’s questions, when the attention of the whole nation is on this place, questions are distributed to Welsh Tory MPs, and to non-Welsh MPs who do not know the places they are talking about, that criticise the Welsh health service and create the impression that it is a poor, second-class service. This is a malicious deception: it is not true.

There is a lot wrong with the health service in every part of these islands. There are weaknesses and everyone can provide examples of particular cases, but what is the effect when the impression is given, week after week, example after example, that the Welsh health service is rubbish? What does that do to someone waiting for an operation or treatment to be told, again and again, that the service they are getting is second class? A big part of the healing process is confidence. If confidence is destroyed, that damages the health of the nation on a very deep level. What happens to the people working in the health service who do marvellous but thankless jobs—the jobs we turn up our noses at—when they come home and watch the television at night? There is a hallelujah chorus of Tory MPs saying that the service is bad, not good.