Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Mike Weir Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

More than 40 tax avoidance schemes or loopholes have been closed. Of course, we have also introduced an anti-avoidance and anti-abuse rule, which the Labour Government had 13 years to introduce. Now Labour Members are saying that we should be stiffening the penalties under that anti-abuse rule, but—[Interruption.] I will tell Members who was in charge. The shadow Chancellor was in charge for 13 years and did absolutely nothing. We came in, closed the loopholes, introduced the anti-abuse rule, got rid of the abuse of partnerships by hedge funds, got rid of the abuse of stamp duty by the richest in our society and started collecting the tax that should have been collected long ago.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The revelations about HSBC are just the latest in a long line of misdeeds by our banks, which are undermining confidence in the system throughout. Too often, HMRC seems to be on the back foot. The Chancellor said that if it required more resources it would be given them. Will he commit those resources to a proactive investigation of the role of banks, and some of the larger accountancy firms, in both tax avoidance and tax evasion?

[Mr Osborne]

The amount collected by HMRC as a result of abuse of this kind has risen from £17 billion to £26 billion. That is partly because we have put additional resources into tackling tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. We have done a great deal. However, I am the first to say that there is more to be done, and, as I said in my statement, more will be done in the Budget.

Offshore Wind Developments

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for recommending it.

Developing the United Kingdom’s offshore wind resource would provide a significant supply of clean, secure energy. Scotland, of course, has huge potential to provide a large proportion of energy from this source. There are proposals for a number of wind farms around our coastline, including three off the coast of my Angus constituency. Between them, the projects off the coast of Angus alone could supply more than 2 GW of electricity.

In addition, developing this resource could create a significant domestic manufacturing and export industry. RenewableUK has estimated that employment in the offshore renewable industry can grow from the current 13,000 jobs to over 44,000 by 2023. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has found that investment in offshore wind will deliver £8.4 billion of gross annual value added to the UK economy by 2020 and that the sector could boost exports by £18 billion a year by 2030.

This is not purely projection. As part of electricity market reform, the Department of Energy and Climate Change established a final investment decision enabling process—a bit of a mouthful, but never mind—which enabled a number of projects to move forward with investment decisions, having been awarded early contracts for difference. This enabled five offshore projects totalling nearly 3.2 GW of capacity to come forward. On the back of this, there was a significant boost to the offshore supply chain when Siemens, the dominant supplier of offshore turbines in Europe, confirmed that it would proceed with a major manufacturing facility in Hull for its new offshore turbines. This was a clear demonstration of the direct link between visibility of deployment at scale and securing wider investment in the supply chain, and it demonstrates that this is not just a Scottish issue; it applies also to the north of England.

If we are serious about the re-industrialisation of the UK, the “march of the makers”, or whatever slogan one wants to use, we need to ensure that we actually invest to get these industrial developments built and producing.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland, there was an application to explore having offshore wind farms on the County Down coast, but that fell foul of electricity regulation rules and did not fulfil the time requirements? Does he agree that that was a lost opportunity for economic investment?

[Mr Weir]

I am not familiar with that case, but it sounds like it was. Offshore wind farms give the opportunity to provide not only clean energy, but employment. That is important for the hon. Lady’s area and mine, and for much of Scotland. That point was reinforced in a report from the think-tank Green Alliance, which found that CfDs form part of a strong new investment framework for offshore wind, but that a lack of clarity over post-2020 policy and funding

“is contributing to a shrinking of the offshore wind project pipeline”.

That seems to be the case in Northern Ireland, given what the hon. Lady said.

Clear decisions over future support for the sector will need to be taken in the early days of the next Parliament if the pipeline is to be sustained at levels necessary to support continued growth of the sector out to 2030. Specifically, the report finds that:

“The UK will need a minimum of 25GW of offshore wind by 2030, of which 10GW is projected to be in operation by 2020. Currently, 13GW of additional offshore wind projects are at an advanced stage of development, and a further 20GW have entered development.

Policy, regulation and funding challenges mean the pipeline is shrinking. 8.2GW of offshore wind projects were withdrawn in the 12 months to June 2014, with other projects since shelved. New projects must compete for government funding which will only be sufficient to deploy an additional 1.2GW in the five years up to 2020.

However greater policy stability could result in capital investment worth in the region of £1.8 billion a year between 2015-30 into the UK offshore wind supply chain, over three quarters of which is made up of small and medium sized UK companies.”

That shows the potential; at this stage, much of it is just potential.

Previously, of course, these developments were funded through the renewables obligation, under which developers built projects, gained accreditation and received a fixed sum on top of the market price. However, under the new system of contracts for difference introduced under the Energy Act 2013, projects must be developed to a point at which they have planning consent and a grid connection offer; then they can bid into a competitive allocation round to secure a contract for difference, which tops up the market price to a specified strike price.

I stress that this debate is not an attack on the change in the system. It is fair to say that most, if not all, parties in the House supported the change to contracts for difference.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Although I support the hon. Gentleman’s message on this subject, a number of businesses and others in my constituency are concerned about the cost of green energy, and believe that it is not properly regulated. Does he agree that we need proper regulation to make it more efficient, and so that more companies can use it?

[Mr Weir]

Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between the interests of the bill payer and the interests of creating renewable energy. We all have to take that into account. My point is that as well as being clean, renewable energy also produces investment in industrial development and creates jobs. I agree that there is a balance to be struck. We must always bear in mind the impact on the bill payer of all these projects, and we must always seek value for money. The point that strikes that balance will vary over time.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is much better value for money for the taxpayer in subsidising nuclear power than offshore wind?

[Mr Weir]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be gobsmacked to know that I do not agree. I will mention that later. No doubt, he will make his own points on that subject.

When I served on the Energy Bill Committee, I raised concerns about the changeover process from renewable obligations to the contract for difference regime. That seems to be part of the problem that we are experiencing. The renewables obligation comes to an end in 2017. The difficulty arises because of the way that the CfD process is being introduced, particularly in respect of whether and at what level funds will be available in future years.

Two developments off the shores of my constituency have a combined total of 1,234 MW and both are bidding in the first round of contracts for difference. The Government are currently considering that first round of CfDs, which are due to be allocated, I understand, around the end of March. Therein lies part of the difficulty. New projects have to bid for contracts for difference through a competitive auction process, and offshore wind projects will compete not only with each other for the budget, but against other renewable energy projects. Offshore wind has been grouped with wave, tidal, biomass, combined heat and power and Scottish island wind. There is a total budget for all these technologies of £235 million, which is split between £155 million for 2016-17 and £80 million from 2017-18.

RenewableUK has estimated that this would be enough to bring forward around 700 MW of capacity—just over half of what could be produced by the two developments off Angus alone, never mind any others that might be in the pipeline. RenewableUK has estimated that up to 3.5 GW of capacity could have entered into the current allocation round, and by the time of the second allocation round, expected towards the end of this year, the number could rise to over 9 GW.

I am told that the amount of money allocated to the first round, which is under way, is significantly less than the industry expected, and that is causing considerable unease in the industry. It can be seen from the figures I have quoted that there is no way all three Scottish entrants could achieve a CfD. Indeed, given that there will certainly be bids from other parts of the UK, there is no guarantee that any of them will get a contract at all. That leaves the industry facing a dilemma. As Gordon Edge, director of policy at RenewableUK, put it:

“There is enough money on the table for 700-800MW in this allocation round if all the money in the ‘less established’ pot goes to offshore wind”,

which he considered likely. He said:

“There are a number of large offshore wind projects coming forward that are significantly larger than this. Developers of those projects are left with the choice of carving out a piece of their development to fit—which is likely to make the economics more challenging—or sitting it out in the hope of a better opportunity later. If the budget for the next allocation round is the same as the first round, then less than 10 per cent of capacity we project will be eligible to bid can secure a CfD. It can take hundreds of millions of pounds to get offshore wind projects through consent, which is why the industry is getting very hot under the collar.”

There is a real danger that some developers will begin to consider whether they are prepared to continue to pump large sums of money into projects if there is not at least a real chance that they will secure a contract for difference.

I raised that issue with the Secretary of State at the last Department of Energy and Climate Change questions. I said:

“Many offshore wind developers have expressed concern that owing to the structure of the current contracts for difference allocation round, only one development will be given a CfD, imperilling many of the others. Can the Secretary of State give them any reassurance that there will be greater consideration of offshore wind in future CfD allocations?”

The Secretary of State responded:

“First, it is worth putting it on the record…that Britain leads the world in offshore wind”—

that is perhaps true, and is welcome—

“with more offshore wind farms installed than in the rest of the world combined. In the current round of CfD allocations—of course, it has not been completed yet, so I cannot talk about the details—we have ensured that we have sufficient allocation for offshore wind, but we have also ensured that the levy control framework includes further allocations for it, so that the consumer can benefit from dropping prices.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1551-1552.]

The difficulty with that is that the allocations for future rounds are not clear, and that is causing a great deal of concern in the industry.

What the Secretary of State said is all very well, but there is no certainty about the future budget, because the Government are giving no market signals about what the budgets are likely to be in future allocation rounds, and in future years, and there is no visibility beyond the current delivery plan, which extends to 2018-19. That uncertainty will almost certainly lead to developers looking again at developments. Without the confidence that budgets will be available, it is impossible for them to assess the allocation risk, and that will act as a deterrent to investors. Uncertainty could increase the cost of development, rather than create the savings that the Government are looking for.

For those projects that are not successful in the current round or whose capacity is too large to be supported within the available budget—the only definite figures that are available are under the current budget—lack of foresight could increase uncertainty yet further. The industry has suggested that it needs clarity on the frequency of allocation rounds and foresight of at least two allocation budgets at any time. Will the Minister say whether the Department is considering or is prepared to consider that in the near future?

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Given that there are some technologies for which the Government are prepared to agree contracts for many decades into the future, does he agree that the Minister should indicate whether they will take a similar approach to renewables?

[Mr Weir]

I should perhaps introduce the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who mentioned nuclear energy, and they could have a small debate on that point, which I will come to shortly.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Perhaps to answer that point, the strike price at Hinkley Point was 50% lower than the strike price we are talking about with the offshore industry. Until that strike price comes down, the issue will remain.

[Mr Weir]

We are in danger of having a debate within a debate. I will return to the points I was making on offshore wind, although nuclear power does come into this to some extent. If we are serious about the long-term development of offshore wind, we need clear targets and commitments for developers and we need to ensure that we give certainty to support supply chain investment and development. That would undoubtedly also involve providing the necessary conditions for competition, innovation and cost reduction, all of which are supposed to be the Government’s aims. Instead, there are mixed messages on energy policy and continuing uncertainty. Strike prices are set only to 2018-19 and the levy control framework is set only to 2020. There is no real commitment to a decarbonisation target. RenewableUK described the 2020 deadline as being like a cliff edge, because of the uncertainty on what comes after.

Those points were also raised in the Green Alliance report I mentioned, which concluded:

“The research has identified five actions the next government should take to realise the industrial and decarbonisation potential of offshore wind:

1. Set a 2030 carbon intensity target for the electricity sector of 50gCO2/kWh”—

given the Government’s previous response to that, I am not holding my breath—

“2. Confirm the scale of funding available to support delivery of low carbon energy infrastructure during the 2020s under the Levy Control Framework.

3. Provide more certainty for low carbon generators by confirming the timing of funding allocation rounds for the rest of this decade.

4. Stabilise the supply chain by committing to minimum levels of offshore wind deployment in the 2020s (dependent on generators meeting cost targets).

5. Draw on international experience to derisk UK offshore wind development and ensure a robust pipeline during the 2020s.”

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) made a point about the impact on the bill payer, which we also have to take into account. We cannot say that we will just pump money into any sort of development, irrespective of the impact on bill payers. It is not necessarily about putting more money into offshore wind. As I have said, by investing in offshore wind, we get more than just clean energy; we get industrial investment, jobs and the economic regeneration that many of us are looking for in our areas. It is about certainty and giving the industry a clear signal that the huge amounts of money it is putting into developing these projects will not be wasted and that there is a plan beyond 2020 to ensure that these developments will come on stream, produce energy and increase industrial investment.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is another big issue not the cost to projects of connecting to the national grid? Many of these offshore wind developments need new infrastructure and the grid. The grid has a long-term forward plan. If we have short-term CfDs, short-term investment needed for consent and no guarantees of grid connection, the whole situation is even more uncertain than he is outlining.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have spoken on many occasions about the difficulties that grid connections pose for many renewable generators, particularly in more remote areas such as the north of Scotland. There are a huge number of issues in relation to that. To be fair, efforts are being made to address some of those problems with the proposals for new lines down the east and west coast of Scotland and various other connections, but those are long-term projects. They will not be done quickly. The point is also that although many of these offshore wind projects are looking for consents now, it will be several years before they come on stream. I understand that from getting a CfD, it can be up to three years before the first turbines are operating or in place. There is a long-term aspect, but it is not beyond the wit of regulators to bring the two together.

[Albert Owen]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the point I am trying to make is that each of the individual projects will have to meet the cost of grid connection. It would be better to have the national infrastructure of the National Grid acting in the national interest by ensuring that the cost is spread across the country and not met just by the individual projects. A new grid connection costs hundreds of millions of pounds, which can in many cases make a bid uneconomic. That is my point.

[Mr Weir]

Again, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He tempts me into a discussion about the postage stamp model of transmission charges, which is a similar issue, but I shall not go there because I am coming to a close and other people want to speak.

The industry also raised concerns about the levy control framework and called on the Government to address the political uncertainty about whether 2020 is a budgetary cliff edge. Offshore projects have a four to five-year horizon from being awarded a contract for difference to the commissioning of the first turbines. The industry is concerned that there is no clear indication about what will be available post 2020.

The Minister may say that it is difficult to give a clear indication about the future—indeed, we cannot be certain about what the Government will look like in six months, never mind six years—but giving some indication of the projected budgets and the intended direction of travel would go some way to addressing the industry’s concerns. Ministers have not been so reticent about nuclear energy. They have, in principle, agreed with EDF a contract for difference at Hinkley Point at a strike price of almost double the current wholesale price of electricity. That contract will last for 35 years—more than double the length for renewables. There seems to be a willingness to do more for nuclear than for offshore renewables, which provide a much better platform for clean energy and for the industrial regeneration that is required in many areas of our country.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) for playing a key role in securing it.

The offshore wind industry is an interest to me mainly due to the key role it can play in bringing jobs and prosperity to costal communities such as Lowestoft and Waveney, which I represent. With deference to my Scottish colleagues, the southern North sea is, in many respects, the best location for developing large-scale offshore wind farms. It has relatively shallow waters, the weather is more appropriate and it has the right environmental and geological conditions, so it is well suited for such developments. East Anglian companies have already played a key role in delivering the rounds 1 and 2 wind farms, such as Scroby Sands, Greater Gabbard, Thanet and Sheringham Shoal. Local businesses will be able to do even more if we fully realise the opportunities in round 3.

[Mr Weir]

I do not dispute the fact that the southern North sea is excellent for wind, but I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to set it against other development locations. There is huge potential in Scotland, which has a rather windy climate, although there are great challenges in some of the surrounding deep water. We must look at all potential locations and not just concentrate on one.

[Peter Aldous]

I fully agree, but we East Anglians tend to hide our light under a bushel. The full potential of the southern North sea has not been fully realised, so we need to raise our heads above the parapet. I do not want to be divisive as I compare different areas and energy technologies. I believe in a mixed economy.

There is the potential to do even more in round 3. Offshore wind can play a vital role in providing a low-carbon, secure energy supply. It can also create jobs regionally, as we regenerate coastal communities such as the one I represent, nationally—as the hon. Gentleman said, there is the potential to increase significantly the number of jobs from the current 13,000 to more than 44,000 by 2023—and internationally by boosting exports. People working in the oil and gas sector anywhere in the world will hear Suffolk and Norfolk accents, as well as Scottish accents. That is something we must repeat with the offshore wind industry.

A lot has been done since 2010 to deliver that success. The Government put in place a framework to give the industry a long-term, sustainable future. Siemens will be manufacturing turbines at Humberside, the green investment bank is playing an important role in leveraging in private sector capital and the Catapult in Glasgow is doing important work with the industry to drive down costs. The Government have placed the right emphasis on maximising the UK content in contracts to ensure that jobs are not exported. A planning regime for offshore wind has been put in place, which works efficiently and fairly, provided that developers are proactive and engage with local communities. Finally, the Government are pursuing local supply chain initiatives that will help local communities, such as the one I represent, to get the most from these opportunities. Lowestoft and Yarmouth now has an enterprise zone and assisted area status, and the two ports have been designated centres for offshore renewable engineering. That designation is applied around the country; it is a national strategy.

As a result of those initiatives, the UK remains on track to being the most important market in the global offshore wind sector, with more capacity installed than any other country and with the largest volumes projected by 2020. We are moving in the right direction.

Electricity market reform and the contracts for difference regime are at the centre of the framework. The Government are right to apply a budget to ensure that policy and energy costs are affordable. The CfD regime has three benefits. First, it de-risks investment in asset ownership. Secondly, the competitive allocation will drive cost reduction. Thirdly, it recognises the need to cap costs through the levy control framework.

The transition to contracts for difference has not been straightforward. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that things should have been handled differently. First, too large a budget was given to the Final Investment Decision Enabling for Renewables contracts without ensuring competition or price reduction. Too many of the FIDER contracts were placed with the same developer, which created risk for the entire sector. Secondly, the budget for the first competitive CfD allocation was too low, although I welcome the increase in round 2 from £155 million to £235 million. That low budget surprised investors and supply chain companies and led to projects becoming less competitive. Unfortunately, it sent out the wrong signal to the market. Thirdly, the three-month delay in the 2014 allocation round was unhelpful in achieving the stable, predictable regulatory environment that we all seek. Fourthly, money appears to have been held back for future allocation rounds, which has caused the worry that the levy control framework budget may not be fully utilised. Finally, I am concerned that by not giving indications of the less established 2015 budget, further uncertainty has been created.

Those are the problems we face, but I make those comments with the benefit of hindsight. However, we must move on, and the Government must have regard to two issues. First, they must have consistent policies so investors, industrialists and developers know where they stand. Secondly, they must articulate a long-term vision for the industry beyond 2020. As the hon. Member for Angus said, the industry currently views 2020 as a budgetary cliff edge.

I have four suggestions on how we can provide certainty and a long-term vision. First, the current allocation round should be concluded as soon as possible. Secondly, details of the timing and budget for the 2015 and 2016 allocation rounds should be published as soon as possible. Thirdly, details of the levy control framework in the second delivery period post 2020 should likewise be published as soon as possible. Finally, the industry must be provided with a clearer picture of its potential long-term size and where the Government see it going. That could be achieved by setting a clear-cut tariff reduction trajectory for offshore wind post-2020 and moving to a narrower carbon intensity range.

Since 2010 a great deal has been achieved in laying down a framework that gives offshore wind a long-term future. The move to CfDs is the most challenging part of the framework. Things have gone wrong in the past, but if we get it right now the industry can realise its full potential and play a full role in bringing jobs and prosperity to coastal communities such as the ones that I represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Well, Mr Gray, certainty is important to the issue of contracts for difference, and to whether investors are willing to invest in the British energy generation market. That certainty is obviously undermined by the potential to break the market in two and deny Scots access to some of the contracts for difference funding based on the fact that the subsidisers—the bill payers of the United Kingdom—are spread throughout the whole population. It is important to make the point that we are all looking for certainty, and I venture to say that separation is not the way to encourage that.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I really would rather not go down this track.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

I will be brief, Mr Gray. I merely make the point that we are dealing with things as they are, and not how we wish they were. If the Minister is talking about certainty, he might care to comment on the effect of a proposed EU referendum.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I would very much rather the Minister did not. I think he should focus his remarks on the effect of the CfD allocation process on offshore wind developments.

Finance Bill

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question. I hope that the Minister addresses it in his response. I will come on to that issue.

In May, a Reuters report on these measures suggested that HMRC had

“allowed an industry with annual revenues of 2 billion pounds to pay almost no corporation tax for two decades”.

It also suggested that such arrangements have allowed drilling operators in the North sea

“to operate almost tax free for 20 years or more”.

It would be useful to know why the Government are acting now on those arrangements. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that.

The Chancellor made an announcement in last year’s autumn statement that appears to have come as a surprise to many. He proposed the introduction of a cap on the deduction that is available to UK service companies on bareboat charters from connected companies. He also announced plans to ring-fence profits from other business activities so that the taxable profit could not be reduced by other tax losses. It appears that, because of the considerable lack of consultation before those announcements were made, the Government have significantly altered the plans to take account of the views of the industry.

The final proposals that are before us today will introduce a cap on the amount that service companies can deduct from their taxable profits through such leasing arrangements. The leasing deduction will be limited broadly by reference to a cap of 7.5% on the original cost of the asset or equipment. The cap was originally set at 6.5% but has been changed following the extensive consultation with the industry. Again as a result of the consultation, the cap will apply only to drilling rigs and accommodation vessels, which are otherwise known as “flotels”.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that, although the cap applies only to drilling rigs and accommodation vessels, drilling rigs are the crucial matter? There is a worldwide shortage of drilling rigs, so the cap might mean that they are used elsewhere, rather than in the North sea.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister addressed that concern in his response. I will come on to that matter a little later.

New schedule 1 introduces a new form of ring fence that is similar to that imposed in respect of ring fence corporation tax for companies that operate on the continental shelf. The ring fence will be applicable to the composite activity that is the subject of this measure. That means that, although profits within the ring fence will only be taxed at the standard corporation tax rates and not the higher rates that apply to oil and gas producers, it will no longer be possible to reduce those profits through other tax reliefs that are derived from activity outside the UK continental shelf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Given that the Government have so recently and so enthusiastically embraced the Wood review, does he not think that it is an odd measure to introduce, as it will hit the maximisation of the recovery of our oil and gas reserves?

[Stewart Hosie]

That is an extremely good point. It is not just the International Association of Drilling Contractors that has welcomed the Government’s approach to accepting the full recommendations of the Wood review, but the overall trade body, Oil and Gas UK. Indeed, the Scottish National party thinks that it is a good thing, too. Both the industry and the SNP have also welcomed some of the field allowances that the Government were forced to introduce, particularly the ultra-high-temperature, high-pressure field allowance for mixed gas and oil fields. That kind of measure is incredibly sensible, but as my hon. Friend says, and as Oil and Gas UK points out, there is huge disappointment that the Government are continuing with the bareboat charter measure. They believe that it is ill-conceived and should have been dropped in its entirety. The backdrop to its introduction is a period in which operating costs have increased sharply. Last year’s cost increases of more than 15% led to an all-time record high of almost £9 billion in costs. I understand that new developments in the North sea are facing similar cost pressures, so it is illogical to introduce this measure at this point, especially as drilling rigs and accommodation vessels alone are included in the scope of the legislation.

We are looking at a part of the sector where the return on capital is only 8% or 9%, and the cash break-even on a drilling rig or an accommodation platform is typically 15 years. These are large investments, with investors taking substantial long-term risks, and we cannot understand why the Government want to put that at risk at this particular point.

[Mr Weir]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Does he also recognise that there is a shortage of rigs? By applying this measure specifically to drilling rigs, we are adding another disincentive for investment in the North sea that would maximise our oil and gas recovery.

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed; I recognise all those points, and the pressures that are being applied to finite and very mobile resources, such as rigs and accommodation vessels, but I will come back to some of that later.

This measure not only penalises the drilling and accommodation vessel sector, but potentially impacts on the entire £35 billion upstream oil and gas supply chain. Derek Henderson from Deloitte UK said:

“While it doesn’t affect operators directly, many expect that the costs will be passed on to them and could discourage drilling.”

That would impact on the entire support and supply chain that is dependent on drilling activities.

Consumer Rights Bill

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I am not familiar with Emmaus, but I am sure that it is an admirable organisation. I can mention Furniture Helpline in my constituency, and there are many others throughout the country.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Affordability is at the root of this issue. It is not only companies such as BrightHouse that concern us—for years, when interest rates were rising, supposedly reputable companies simply extended the time that people had to pay, so that the weekly payments stayed relatively low. That is the real issue at the heart of this.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who is sitting next to me, mentions catalogues: catalogue credit has worked on that basis for a long time, stressing the weekly repayment amount. There is also an ability to shift the amount that is apparently the cost of the product and how much is paid for the financing—in the case of catalogues, that is often zero, but the base price is inflated to allow for that.

My worry about the approach in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield is that I do not know how we would make the price comparator work. She made an important point about product numbers. As electronic comparison capability increases, it will be important to be able to make a direct like-for-like comparison, and adding an extra letter to a product number to make such comparison impossible should certainly be cracked down on.

Tourism (VAT)

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing it.

I have pursued this issue over the years. In fact, I first asked a question about it in 2004. To my last question on the subject, in October, the Exchequer Secretary, who will respond to this debate, replied:

“I have written to the Chairman of the Campaign for Reduced Tourism VAT explaining that while there is no prospect of a VAT cut for tourism, the Government is committed to a wide range of measures to support tourism.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 161W.]

That does not give me a great deal of confidence that he will change his mind today, but, never being one to give up, I will give it a try.

In 24 of the current 28 European Union states, including Germany, France and Spain, there is a lower rate of VAT for tourist accommodation. In fact, the UK has the second highest rate of VAT on hotel accommodation, exceeded only by Denmark and Lithuania. The rate in Luxembourg is 3%, and in Portugal, which is, of course, a major tourist destination, it is only 6%. At a time when tourist businesses are fighting hard to retain their business against cheaper destinations, these lower rates give many continental destinations a considerable advantage over businesses within the UK. This is an important issue for Scotland, where tourism contributes 4.9% to our GDP. Indeed, almost 10% of my constituents work in tourism or tourism-related businesses.

Even the UK Government have not been averse to cutting VAT on selected tourism-related operations. In the 2012 Budget, they cut the VAT chargeable on small cable-suspended transport systems—ski lifts, to you and me, Mr Hollobone—which was a welcome change, especially for ski-lift businesses. I am sure that it is entirely coincidental that most of those businesses are in the constituency of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. However, that illustrates what can be done and that the UK Government have done it in other areas.

The Irish 9% rate specifically applies to facilities used by those taking part in sporting activities and extends to green fees charged for golf and subscriptions charged by non-member-owned golf clubs. Again, that puts them at an advantage in a competitive market against the wonderful golf clubs in Scotland and other parts of the UK. In addition to the 9% rate, Ireland has for some time had a 13.5% rate on other services, including short-term car hire and tour guide services.

When the present UK Government published their tourism strategy in 2011, they stated that they aimed to generate 4 million extra visitors up to 2015 and that,

“The increase in overseas visitors would bring an extra £2 billion worth of visitor spend and help to create 50,000 new jobs across the country over that period, securing tourism’s place as one of Britain’s”

greatest

“industries.”

I struggle to see how the GREAT campaign and simplifying visa applications for Chinese visitors, as mentioned in documents, could do that. A VAT cut would go a long way to helping hard-pressed tourism operators.

Hon. Members have talked about Professor Blake’s research and the amount of jobs and income that would be created. I will not go over that again, but whatever research says, a cut of VAT to tourism-related businesses would lead to increased employment and give a significant boost to the rural economy in all parts of the UK.

We need to give our tourism industries a boost and a chance to fight back, rather than asking them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs because we refuse to match the change in VAT in the EU.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order.

Fairness and Inequality

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

My constituency is largely off the gas grid, despite being in a mining valley and containing some large urban areas. The coal miners campaigned against having the gas grid there, because they wanted to use coal. The impacts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are clear. I can speak from personal experience, having moved from an area where gas was my main form of heating and gone back to live in my home community, which is off the gas grid. The difference is staggering, and quite eye-watering. The policies that have been put forward by the other parties completely neglect this huge problem affecting rural areas.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Given the interest of the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) in areas that are off the gas grid, does the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) think he should support our initiatives on giving pensioners their winter fuel allowance at an earlier date and ensuring that the energy company obligation extends to off-grid gas boilers, which is not the case currently?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done on this issue. He has twice presented Bills to pursue that common-sense proposal, and when it comes before the House again I intend to be here to support him—I hope that the hon. Member for Wealden will be, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

The number of food banks has been increasing for a great many years, as has the number of people using them, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to pretend that 2010 was somehow year zero. The food bank that I was a trustee of was set up in 2007, under the previous Labour Government. We should not forget that one of the reasons people are driven to use food banks is household debt. The Labour party, as well as being intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, was also far too relaxed about people being pushed into excessive household debt.

[Mr Weir]

I accept that 2010 was not year zero for food banks, but the reality is that they are increasing exponentially, mostly because of the benefit changes introduced by this Government, who are clobbering many low-paid families, and often the people using them are in work.

[Stephen Crabb]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the reasons that drive people to use food banks are complex and it is a mistake to try to single out any one cause. When I speak with food banks in Wales, they do not tell me that it is the benefit changes that are responsible in most cases. Household debt is a far more important factor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: the Scottish Government can do so, but they have to balance the budget. In fact, although John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, balances it every year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not. If the hon. Gentleman wants extra expenditure, he knows full well that, under the devolution settlement, he must explain what he will cut. It is, “Want, want, want,” but he has not made any suggestions about what he will cut.

[Mr Weir]

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that although funds for fuel poverty programmes have all been slashed down here, they have continued to be invested in Scotland; that child poverty in Scotland is now lower than in the UK as a whole; and that, worst of all from the Scottish Parliament’s point of view, one of the drivers of poverty is the welfare changes controlled by this Parliament, not by the Scottish Parliament?

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We can see that again in the philosophy behind the bedroom tax, which is not one that I subscribe to in any way. Last night, I stumbled across a Channel 4 programme on Walsall and Glasgow housing authorities. It talked about having to demolish houses in Walsall, due to their being left empty: people cannot stay in them because of their cost and what people have lost in welfare. Glasgow housing authority has demand for 1,500 more one-bedroom properties—people want them so that they will not be penalised—but it does not have them. It is, inefficiently, trying to build them so that people can avoid the bedroom tax, but the costs are colossal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party’s manifesto for the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections stated:

“Scotland can never be considered truly successful until all of its citizens consider themselves to be equally valued members of society. We are determined that Scotland will constantly strive to be a more equal society.”

We said that because we believe in Scotland.

Within the UK, Scotland is unfortunately part of an increasingly unequal society, with too many trapped in poverty and prevented from reaching their full potential. As has been said, the UK ranks 28th out of 34 nations on the measure of overall inequality. OECD analysis shows that since 1975 income inequality among working-age people has increased faster in the UK than in any other country in the organisation. Academic analysis also suggests that the UK is the fourth most unequal nation of the world’s richest nations.

In a rich nation such as Scotland, it is ridiculous that in 2011-12, 710,000 people—14% of our population—lived in relative poverty. That includes 420,000 people of working age, 150,000 children and 140,000 pensioners. Despite periods of time when overall poverty has reduced, in-work poverty has remained high. Two thirds of children who live in poverty in the whole UK have at least one parent in paid work. We believe that it is absolutely unacceptable that in a nation with the wealth and resources of Scotland one in seven of our population live in poverty.

Since devolution, Scottish Administrations have sought to promote social inclusion and cohesion. Since devolution, child poverty levels in Scotland have fallen substantially, from 28% in 1999-2000 to 15% today, compared with a UK rate of 17%. That is a tremendous achievement by the Scottish Parliament. However, 200,000 more children across the UK will be pushed into relative poverty by 2016 as a result of the 1% cap on increases in benefit payments. That equates to around 15,000 children in Scotland. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that Scotland’s child poverty rate will increase by between 50,000 and 100,000 by 2020 as a result of the UK Government’s tax and benefits policy. That is a terrible indictment of what is happening in our country. That is why we seek independence: to tackle these problems.

With devolution, the Scottish Parliament has used its limited powers to tackle inequality. Our continuing commitment to a social wage will deliver benefits to everyone in Scotland in tough financial times. We have maintained the council tax freeze, saving the average band D taxpayer about £1,682 by 2016-17. We have kept higher education fee-free and we are keeping student debt levels the lowest in the UK. To me, that is vital. I was the first of my generation to go to university, and I was able to do so only because there were no tuition fees and I got a grant. My daughter has recently gone through university and, even with no tuition fees, it is now a very expensive process. I dread to think about what debt has been piled up on kids who are going through university now and how they are ever going to start in life, buy a house, buy a car or get married. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said, there is an increasing trend for children to stay at home much longer and to live in flat-shares well into their 40s, in some cases, because they simply cannot afford the price of property.

The Scottish Parliament has abolished prescription charges, making the NHS truly free at the point of need, and we are supporting concessionary bus travel for over 1.2 million of our people—over-60s, people with disabilities, and injured veterans. We have provided NHS eye examinations free for all, and we have committed to free personal nursing care, benefiting more than 77,000 older people. Labour attacked many of these things in its cuts commission. The Labour leader said they were just wee things it is not in favour of—unless, of course, it is fighting by-elections, when it tries to take credit for them.

[Mr Russell Brown]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned free prescriptions. Why am I now coming across pensioners in my constituency who are visiting their doctor and instead of being given a prescription for painkillers are told to go to the chemist and buy them over the counter?

[Mr Weir]

I have never heard of that one; perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask the doctors why they are doing that. We have made it clear that free prescriptions are an important policy for pensioners throughout Scotland. Too often, pensioners and those with multiple prescriptions had to choose whether to buy their prescription or eat, and they do not have to make that choice any more. This is a really progressive policy, despite what his leader may say.

We are investing in skills, training and education for our young people to make sure that they all have an opportunity in life. I recently visited the Angus training group in my constituency, where tremendous work is being done to train youngsters who are leaving school and have got apprenticeships in engineering. While the Chancellor may talk about the march of the makers, we are making sure that that actually happens and there is power behind it. We are protecting the education maintenance allowance for 16 and 19-year-olds while the Westminster Government have scrapped it. These are just a few of the things that we have already done.

We are committed to ensuring, where we can, that people get paid a decent wage. Since 2011-12, the SNP Government have paid all staff covered by Scottish Government pay policy a living wage, and that includes NHS staff. No compulsory redundancy policy has been in place since 2007, helping to protect about 10,000 jobs a year. We are funding the Poverty Alliance to deliver the living wage accreditation scheme to promote the living wage and increase the number of private companies that pay it.

We have done a lot to deal with inequality in Scotland, but what holds us back so much is the fact that the Scottish Parliament has to depend on and fit within a block grant determined by Westminster that has been steadily cut in the past few years. The Chancellor has said that another £25 billion of cuts is coming round the corner, so we can only imagine what will happen to the Scottish block grant in that event.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of issues such as free personal care. Does he not accept that there are still major problems in Scotland, and if we do not address them but simply say, “We’ve cracked it, we’ve solved it”, we are not helping the people who give and who need care? When care workers have very poor conditions and people are getting 15-minute visits, if that, we have not really solved the problems. Should we not be talking about them instead of being so complacent about somehow having solved them all?

[Mr Weir]

I cannot believe what I am hearing from the hon. Lady. What I said is that the Scottish Government have taken action on and invested money in those matters. We have not claimed that we have solved every problem under the sun—we cannot possibly do that—but what we have said is that we have done all we can with the powers we have and that with the powers of independence we will be able to do so much more.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he share my great concerns about the cuts commission? Labour has said that everything is on the table and has set out a whole list of things, including tuition fees, free bus passes, prescription charges and free personal care. Is my hon. Friend as worried as I am that if Labour gets its hands on the levers of power, those things will be under threat?

[Mr Weir]

I do indeed have great fears about what will happen to our country if we do not get a yes vote in September, because either this lot will continue in power with the cuts already promised by the Chancellor, or we will have the Labour cuts commission and heaven knows what it might come up with.

We have a different vision for our country. We will be able to do many things with independence that we cannot do under devolution. The problem of child care, for example, is not just about improving the early education of our children and helping families, important as those things are; it is also an important economic policy. If we can raise female participation in the labour market to the levels achieved in, for example, Sweden, we will not only boost general economic performance, but raise an extra £700 million a year in tax revenue.

Under devolution, the Scottish Parliament has been able to increase the amount of child care available and it has recently announced a further extension, but with independence we could go beyond that and deliver our ambitious plan for the provision of free universal child care for all children aged one to five—a policy that, when fully implemented, would save families up to £4,600 per child per year.

Why do we need independence to deliver that? Because at the moment, as I have said, Scotland receives a fixed budget from Westminster. We would not receive the increased tax revenues resulting from having more women in the workforce unless Westminster decided that we should, so under devolution the costs of providing increased child care would have to be met from within a fixed budget, which would inevitably mean cuts in other services. Those who are making that argument need to tell us where they want to see the cuts. That social and economic transformation can be achieved only when we have access to all of Scotland’s resources, and that is why we need independence delivered to the full.

We could also take action to ensure that most people are treated fairly and that work is genuinely a route out of poverty. We should not accept this as a given, but the fact is that many women work in low-paid jobs, so what we do with the minimum wage really matters to the living standards of women and their children. With independence, we will able to guarantee that the minimum wage will rise at least in line with inflation every year and not leave it to the whim of the Government of the day.

It is interesting to note that, if the minimum wage had increased in line with inflation over the past five years, the lowest paid would be £600 a year better off than they are now. That has been the cost to the lowest paid of not being able to take such decisions ourselves and of not being able to make the impact we want on the inequality that stalks our nation.

With independence, we and not Westminster will be responsible for implementing the Equal Pay Act 1970, closing the scandalous 32% gap that still exists between the pay of men and women. Why is it that 44 years after that Act was passed there is still such a huge gap between their pay?

Decisions being made down here about the retirement age are also a problem. Just a few years ago, women could expect to retire at 60. By 2020 the retirement age for women will be 66—an increase of six years in just a decade. As things stand, young women entering the work force today will probably have to work until they are about 70. Of course, we all have to accept that people are living longer and that things cannot stand absolutely still—we accepted the first rise in the retirement age—but the rapid increases being imposed by Westminster are not right for Scotland, because we have different demographics. We have serious problems in some of our communities and we are working hard to deal with them. The fact is that life expectancy is often much lower in some of those communities than in the general population. It is, therefore, surely better that decisions about the retirement age are taken in Scotland, where such distinctive circumstances will be properly taken into account.

I have often spoken in the House on energy, and it will be no surprise that I want to say a few words about it. In its recent campaign, Energy Bill Revolution made the point that fuel poverty has increased across the UK by 13%, but one gain from devolution is that that is not the case in Scotland. Under the latest Scottish house condition survey, which was revealed at the end of last year, the number of those in fuel poverty in Scotland has decreased by 3.4% at a time when energy prices are rocketing. That is a tremendous achievement by successive Scottish Administrations, who have made real efforts to tackle fuel poverty. However, there is so much more we could do.

[Mr McKenzie]

On fuel poverty, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the SNP Scottish Government have changed the criteria for boiler replacements for the elderly, which Labour set up? None of them can get boiler replacements.

[Mr Weir]

The Scottish Government have invested much more in fuel poverty measures: more is now being spent than was spent in the last year in which Labour was in power, and much more is being spent there than is spent down here. As I have said, we have reduced fuel poverty at a time when it is rising in the UK as a whole, but we need to do more. We need to transfer fuel poverty measures from energy bills, which need to be reduced, and put money into a direct programme to increase the fuel efficiency of many houses in Scotland—particularly hard-to-heat houses of solid wall construction—which will help people.

[Mr Bain]

Perhaps there is surprising consensus between us on energy bills, because I support an energy price freeze. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he and his party do so?

[Mr Weir]

I am getting a bit tired of hearing that from the Labour party. I have explained our position on the energy price freeze time and again. The freeze will not work. There has already been a massive increase in bills prior to its coming in, and there is likely to be another after it comes in. We had a debate in the Chamber last week about inequalities in the system of billing by energy companies. Those inequalities will be frozen in place by an energy freeze, making things even worse for Scottish consumers. A freeze will also hit the investment needed to ensure that we have jobs for the future and can bring down energy prices through moving to renewables.

[Gregg McClymont]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Weir]

No, I have given way enough for the moment.

The present UK Government have repeatedly said that they took powers in the latest energy legislation to implement the Prime Minister’s promise to put everyone on the lowest tariff. I have pointed out before, and I will do so again, that the measures in the Energy Act 2013 will not have that effect. The relevant sections do not require energy companies to do that, but only to make an offer, which may well be lost in the mass of paper that people receive from them.

Even if those changes work, they will do nothing to help some of the poorest in our society—those who have to rely on prepayment meters. It may be fine for someone on a direct debit tariff, but those on prepayment meters will be stuck on a higher tariff. Such tariffs are generally higher than those available to someone paying by direct debit, as would happen under Labour’s price freeze. That locks in price inequality. It seems to me that if the Government are truly intent on ensuring that everyone has the lowest possible bill, they need to ensure that that does not apply only within the type of contract people already have, but allows them to move to a cheaper type of contract.

I have already mentioned the particular problems with prepayment meters. As I have always said, they seem to me to be slightly perverse: it is one of the few examples of consumers ending up paying much more by paying cash in advance. It was interesting to see the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) introduce his ten-minute rule Bill earlier this afternoon. I very much hope that it is successful, but given how many Bills are to be debated on 28 February, I somehow doubt it.

Citizens Advice Scotland recently issued a report on energy that shows the true difficulties people face. It states that

“the cases highlighted by bureaux regarding difficulty paying are most commonly with regards to prepayment meters recouping an unaffordable amount for arrears every time the consumer tops up.”

Citizens Advice Scotland quotes an example that sticks in my mind of a single parent with two children who has to lose £7 towards arrears every time she puts £10 in the meter; the £3 remaining is entirely insufficient to heat her home. That is totally unacceptable and is a clear example of the inequalities facing many of our fellow citizens. In those circumstances, she has no chance of getting out of the cycle of debt—the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made that point—or even keeping her home warm.

Many of our people are being forced into household debt by the difficulties they find themselves in. The rise of the payday lenders is one of the horrible side effects. We heard last week about the difficulty for those who cannot pay for their energy by direct debit and who have to pay higher prices. It was pointed out that some £2 billion sits with the energy companies, making money for them rather than for consumers—another inequality that afflicts our society.

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous. He is talking about the profits made by energy companies. Is he aware that anyone in Scotland listening to this debate will be surprised that he and his party do not support a price freeze, but instead are in the same position as the energy fat cats?

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman is like a broken record. I have explained already, and have done so on numerous occasions, our objections to the energy price freeze. It is easy for Labour to say, “Let’s have an energy price freeze.” It sounds great and I am sure many people love to hear it; unfortunately, it simply will not happen. It will not lead to lower bills, it will freeze in the inequalities already in the system, and it will leave people with higher bills, while his party leader flails about trying to find some flesh to put on the bones of that policy.

[Mr MacNeil]

When Labour Members talk about an energy price freeze, are they not basically saying to the people, “Do you want your energy bills to go up before we announce the freeze and to go up again afterwards?” It is a total con, and they know that full well. It was done one weekend for a headline in a Sunday newspaper and they are sticking with it now. That is the long and the short of it.

[Mr Weir]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Alun Cairns]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy for Labour Members to call for an energy price freeze when it involves other people’s money or other companies’ money, but it is different when it comes to council tax rates? They have the power to freeze council tax rates in Wales, but in the past three years we have seen a 9% increase in council tax. Would they not do better to channel their efforts into an area of policy where they have control and could deliver lower bills?

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I just point out that in Scotland we have frozen council tax for several years. We have also taken action to pay extra money from our already constrained budget to get rid of the effects of the bedroom tax in Scotland. We cannot get rid of the tax itself because that is controlled by the Westminster Government; we can only mitigate the effects.

Another issue I have talked about in the past is the inequality between rural and urban areas and between different sections of society, particularly in relation to energy and the problems of those who are off the gas grid. Far too often when energy is discussed, we focus on the evils of the big six. It may be good to give them a kicking in passing, but there are also serious problems in the off-grid market. All of us who are off grid will have found that prices have rocketed, much higher than the price of energy from the big six companies and from the grid. Pensioners in particular face serious difficulties in paying their winter bills.

I have twice introduced Bills in this House and on two occasions, I think, I have tried to amend energy legislation to tackle the problem by suggesting that the winter fuel allowance should be paid earlier. I do not think it would be terribly difficult, but this Government, like the previous Government, seem to have a horror of doing that and making a real difference to the people affected by the problem.

[Nia Griffith]

I give credit to the hon. Gentleman for the introduction of those Bills, but does he not recognise that it is now the policy of the Labour party to pay the winter fuel payment in the summer so that customers can benefit from cheaper prices? Will he also support Labour’s policy of having a tougher regulator that can look at off-grid issues?

[Mr Weir]

I am glad that Labour has finally adopted that policy—better late than never. In the last Parliament, I had numerous discussions with Labour Ministers who would not adopt it. I would be interested in what powers a stronger regulator would have. I have often argued that the regulator should have powers over the off-grid sector. When I sat on the Business and Enterprise Committee, before the Department of Energy and Climate Change was formed, we produced a report that asked for that to happen. I have raised that issue repeatedly.

After an intervention by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) earlier in this debate, I raised the way in which the energy company obligation discriminates against off-grid gas consumers. The ECO is controlled by the big six energy companies and none of them include off-grid gas boilers in their schemes. I wrote to all of them and received various letters back that tried to obscure that fact, but there was no getting around it at the end of the day. I raised the matter at DECC questions last month. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) replied that he was meeting the suppliers to tackle the issue. If the Under-Secretary of State for Wales takes nothing else away from this debate, perhaps he could ask DECC Ministers whether any action has been taken. I am sure that it is a huge issue in his constituency, as it is in mine. Such action would not solve these problems completely, but it would help many off-grid customers.

I will end by saying a little about the Scottish Government’s energy assistance package, which has helped 150,000 people on low incomes to reduce their energy bills. It has been extended for two years, which should help a further 300,000 people. Originally, it was targeted at pensioners, but it has been extended to help other vulnerable people in these difficult times, such as the disabled—including those with severe disabilities—families with young or disabled children, the terminally ill and people who are on carer’s allowance. It is now a much greater scheme than the one that was introduced originally. The number of homes installing loft insulation has more than doubled from 40,000 in 2008-09 to 104,000 in 2011-12. That was praised by the Committee on Climate Change in its report, “Reducing emissions in Scotland”, which was published in March.

While the UK Government have slashed their schemes, the Scottish Government have continued to invest. We have invested £220 million since 2009, which has resulted in an estimated return in household income of more than £1 billion. A further £250 million will be invested over a three-year period to tackle fuel poverty. That is a great record. As I said earlier, the number of people in fuel poverty is falling in Scotland, unlike in the rest of the UK. Those are significant improvements, but we still have much to do.

We could achieve further improvements much more easily if we had the full powers afforded by independence. We would really get to grips with inequality if we did not have the dead hand of Westminster holding us back. It is interesting that the Labour party is quite happy to let the Tories stay in power, rather than have Scotland tackle its own problems.

Post Office Services

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

I thank the speakers in the previous debate for giving me some extra time for this important debate. We have had many debates on post office services, and there will continue to be more unless we manage to solve the problems of the Post Office.

Post offices play a significant role in all our communities—80% of people in Scotland say that post offices play an important role in the local community. They act as a vital service and should be seen as community hubs. Sadly, rather than nurturing those community beacons, the Government have done a lot to undermine the network and decrease the services that it provides.

There are about 11,800 post offices in the UK and customers rely heavily on them, especially the most vulnerable in our society—the elderly, those on low incomes and the disabled. The universal service obligation and other services are so ingrained in our society that I fear the loss of them. For example, 43% of elderly people use a post office to access cash. People take it for granted that they can walk into a post office and deliver items within the UK and across the world. We need to act now to keep the Post Office thriving, otherwise we might be at risk of losing that vital institution.

The announcement by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) in November that additional funding had been allocated to complete the network transformation programme was a vote of no confidence. If the Government had delivered on the front office for Government work that had been promised, which I shall speak more about later, that £640 million would not be needed.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the transformation programme is working against many small post offices? In particular, the Post Office appears to be targeting some offices and persuading the postmaster to retire so that it can move into a local shop and downgrade the service.

[John Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall come on to some of those points as we move on. There is no doubt that larger post offices—and even sub-post offices, for that matter—are shutting. When I spoke at a conference for sub-postmasters from Glasgow and Ayrshire, they let me know exactly how they felt about the Government’s position, and, for that matter, that of the previous Government. At least they were there to help and they offered some examples that I will mention later.

Although the Government will have spent around £2 billion on network transformation, we still will not have an attractive model for current or future operators. The money will have been used to subsidise exit from the network, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said, rather than to make the network sustainable in the long term. That is of great concern to the many people who rely on post offices. We should be looking at making the Post Office better, rather than, as I suspect, making it ready for privatisation.

The sale of Royal Mail was of course resisted by the Opposition. Last week’s news that its share price was £5.67—£2.37 above the Government’s offer price, which raised just £3.3 billion—was disappointing. It was an ideological move, not a financially sensible or thought-through one. The separation of the Post Office and Royal Mail has added millions of pounds in costs to the Post Office owing to loss of synergies. No other postal administration in a developed economy has separate letters and retail businesses.

The sale has now been done, but we must still consider Royal Mail in our strategy for the future of the Post Office. Just under 40% of Post Office revenues come from mail, so it is a significant part of the business. I was glad that, in January 2012, the Government caved into pressure and signed the 10-year inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and the Post Office, but there is no guarantee beyond 2022. The position is also not secure for the next 10 years, as the Minister’s own Department has said that the contract allows for changes in commercial circumstances and contains provision for a review of the agreement terms after five years. The 10-year agreement would therefore appear to be for only five years, but hopefully the next Government will be of a different colour and will put right some of these short-term ideological decisions.

It is a real concern that Royal Mail might not continue to support the post office network. The loss of that contract would seriously undermine the Post Office’s integrity as a mail delivery service. Were that to happen, people would lose confidence in the institution and the future of many post offices would be at risk, especially the largely loss-making ones in rural areas, such as the one represented by the hon. Member for Angus. Privatisation is a risk to Post Office services and we need more guarantees for the decades to come.

A post office is a place where people can go to fill in government forms or to pay for government services. It is important for both customers and employees that the Government continue to give the Post Office sufficient work. This Government announced in 2010 that post offices would become the “Front Office for Government”, but actions speak louder than words. They promised to give post offices £466 million of Government work, but post offices are currently gaining only £130 million from Government business.

I am sure that the Minister will say that the Post Office has won all the government contracts it has bid for, but those were contracts it already had, not new ones. No new major services have been awarded to post offices, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters has stated that the few that have been introduced are for one-off transactions that are available in only a small number of post offices. Dangerous precedents have been set by not awarding government contracts, and the future of the Post Office is in jeopardy as a result.

Linked to that, we need to ensure that post offices are not disadvantaged compared with other methods of using government services. For example, if I wanted to pay my road tax online, I could bring up all the details—whether my car had its MOT and insurance, for example—via an online portal. I would not need to go looking for documents, as the information would already be on the system. However, until very recently, post offices could check only a car’s MOT, so people would have to bring in their insurance documents. It is clear that those who could choose to use the internet over having that inconvenience would do so. After all, who wants to have to carry around their documentation to ensure that they get their road tax? Thankfully, in this case, somebody has seen sense, so post offices can now check insurance as well, but the internet was well ahead on that, and that should be a lesson for future online services. Post offices do not need to have an advantage—in fact, sub-postmasters tell me that they do not want it—but they should have at least a level playing field. People should be able to use the post office to access Government services with the same ease as on the internet. The decision not to award the green giro contract to the Post Office was another example of how the future of the institution—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having not been allowed to speak in this Chamber for two years as a Government Whip, it is a little surreal to be at the Dispatch Box.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing this debate on an important subject. Despite the lack of Members present, the issue comes up regularly, and on most occasions a significant number of Members want to discuss the critical role that post offices play in all our local communities. The post office is much more than just a commercial entity. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important to hundreds of thousands of small businesses, which rely on it every day, as well as to the millions of customers who use the network for a range of services. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that post offices are particularly crucial to elderly residents, those on low incomes and the disabled, who make particularly good use of them in our communities.

In November 2010, we announced a funding package of the historic amount of £1.34 billion to guarantee the size of the network until 2015 and to end the closure programmes run by the hon. Gentleman’s Government, which led to the closure of 7,000 branches under the previous Administration. In November 2013, we announced our continued support of the network with a further £640 million to secure and continue its modernisation until 2018. That makes clear the Government’s commitment to the post office and its future success. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, that recent investment is a vote of confidence in the post office network and it is helping to move it to a more sustainable and secure long-term future.

[Mr Weir]

I understand what the Minister is saying and I think we all appreciate the money going into the transformation programme, but many small sub-postmasters in my constituency are concerned because they feel that they are being pressurised by the Post Office to give up their businesses, take extra redundancy or move to a local model that they feel is unsustainable. That does not seem to be a sensible way to pressurise people who have run post offices successfully for many years.

[Jenny Willott]

I cannot comment on the operational procedures of the Post Office, which is a separate entity, but the Government are very clear that we want to maintain 11,500 branches in the post office network across the country. That means ensuring that we maintain a branch in all communities that currently have branches, and the level of knowledge and expertise that exist among many sub-postmasters, who are extremely well embedded in their communities and extremely well known and trusted by members of their local community. That is one of the elements that make the post office so important in many of our communities, especially in rural or more deprived areas, where many people depend heavily on the local sub-postmaster and the post office branch.

[Mr Weir]

I do not want to labour the point, but experienced postmasters are being encouraged to give up and businesses are going to a local shop, on the post office local model, that generally offers fewer services than existing post offices. I appreciate that the Minister has said that the Post Office is independent, but Government money—taxpayers’ money—is being used to achieve the changes.

[Jenny Willott]

We are trying to ensure that the post office network is sustainable into the future. We cannot subsidise at historical levels. The previous Government’s way to tackle the problem was just to close post office branches, with significant losses. There were many losses in my constituency, as I am sure there were in those of other hon. Members in the Chamber.

This Government have taken a different decision, which is to look at different models to ensure that we can maintain post office services in all communities across the country. Services delivered in particular communities may have to change to ensure that they are viable, but it is incredibly important that we have post office outreach in communities across the country, and that we do not see any repetition of the previous Labour Government’s closure programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I have met the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I represent Cardiff Central, and I have spoken to my local sub-postmasters. I appreciate that this is clearly a period of change that will be very unnerving for many sub-postmasters, particularly for those who have to change how they operate their business, but a significant amount of investment is available for those who want to carry on and to sign contracts to change to a new form of business. They are getting a lot of support from the Government. Others might want to leave the network or to retire, including those who have run businesses for a long time, and there is support for them as well, but it is important to recognise that many sub-postmasters are happy to alter their properties and to change to the new model.

Customers are getting significant benefits from the new models. Across the network, there are an additional 34,000 opening hours a week, which is equivalent to 700 more traditional post offices. The programme of investment will see the modernisation and protection of all branches by 2018, ensuring that every community and customer that relies on access to a post office today will continue to have access to post office services in the future.

The Government have ensured that all sub-postmasters can benefit from the investment. For the first time, a dedicated fund has been set up for post office branches that are important to the communities they serve, but where one of the new models would not be viable. That is an issue in large, remote rural areas, such as those in Scotland, where the post office is often the last shop in the village, as it were. The community fund to ensure that those post offices are kept open is a real departure. It will protect those branches well into the future and ensure that people have access to post office services. That is particularly important in areas where the post office provides an important service to more vulnerable consumers.

[Mr Weir]

I thank the Minister for giving way yet again; I do not want to push my luck too far. I remember taking this matter up with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) when she announced the fund. The fund is for doing work on the post office to make it better, but that is not the difficulty in many of these very small post offices. The difficulty is that the postmaster’s income is simply insufficient. Postmasters want to keep going, but there is nothing in the fund to give them an uplift in their income to help the post office survive. The fund is for physical changes to the post office, which is not the issue at most of the post offices we are discussing.

[Jenny Willott]

I will come on to talk about income and the services that we are supporting in post offices to ensure that they are viable.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West spoke about Crown post offices. As he mentioned, the funding package that was set out in 2010 required the Post Office to eliminate its substantial losses. In 2012-13, £37 million of losses were incurred by the 373 branches that made up the Crown segment of the network. It is a key part of the Post Office’s strategy to make the network sustainable in the long term. The Government support the business in delivering that strategy. The current losses of the Crown network contribute a third of the losses incurred by the network as a whole. That is clearly unsustainable. No business, including the Post Office, can maintain a situation in which its high street branches cost substantially more to run than they bring in.

As part of its strategy to eliminate the unsustainable losses, the Post Office identified about 70 branches where there is no prospect of eliminating the losses at a local level under the current structure. In those locations, it is seeking a suitable retail partner to take on the operation of the branch under a franchise arrangement. The Post Office has made it clear that under each franchise proposal, the full range of current post office services, including the more complex transactions such as passport applications and identity services, will continue to be available in close proximity to the existing Crown branch. In the event that a suitable retail partner cannot be found, Post Office Ltd has given a commitment that a post office service will be retained in the area. I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Gentleman that communities will not lose these vital local services.

Investing in Britain’s Future

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Publication of the strike price for renewables today is very welcome, but as yet we have had no mention of the strike price for nuclear. Indeed, the only mention of nuclear in the statement was a multi-billion pound guarantee to build Hinkley Point. How does that stand with the promise for no public subsidy for new nuclear?

[Danny Alexander]

It stands completely alongside that promise. First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s positive remarks about strike prices and he will see in the document we published today strike prices for all the other forms of renewable energy. Of course, in the case of nuclear, there is a detailed and ongoing commercial negotiation. I am sure that he would think it right for us to drive a hard bargain in those negotiations, because of course these prices will have to be paid by consumers for 50 years to come.

The Economy

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution and, hopefully, offer a Scottish perspective on the argument. It will come as no surprise to most in the Chamber that the Scottish National party does not support the general economic policy of the coalition Government, who have now announced that austerity will continue until at least 2018, and possibly well beyond. On Sunday, the ever-cheerful Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was warning of a triple-dip recession.

Whatever Labour might be saying now, we also remember that prior to the 2010 general election the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that the Labour Government, if re-elected, would impose cuts that would be deeper and tougher than those imposed by the Conservative Administration led by Mrs Thatcher. With that in mind, would the economic situation we find ourselves in be any different had Labour retained power? Somehow I doubt it, despite their sound and fury today.

We take a much more different tack on how to tackle the situation. History shows us that ever-deeper austerity will not lead us out of the current mess. We need to invest for the future and ensure that there is capital investment to create work for firms and for individuals and to put money back into local economies. The First Minister of Scotland was the first to advocate such a policy when the financial crisis hit us, and the Scottish Government have pursued that policy within the bounds of their powers under the devolution settlement.

Indeed, since 2008 the Scottish Government have written to the UK Government at least eight times to call for more capital investment, and there have been four joint calls for that with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. In November 2008, the First Minister announced that £100 million would be brought forward to invest in tackling the housing crisis, which had been caused by years of under-investment by previous Administrations. The Scottish Government have pursued that enlightened policy despite the fact that the capital budget available to them has been cut by 33% over the last few years.

The one piece of good news in the autumn statement was the Chancellor’s partial conversion to investment, as shown by the news of new capital investment. Scotland will receive around £330 million of that to allow the Scottish Government to proceed with some of the projects that are ready to go. It is not sufficient, but it is a start and I welcomed it when it was announced. However, had the Chancellor taken those steps earlier, we might have been able to avoid the double-dip recession that the UK has suffered.

The Scottish Government have been doing everything in their power to kick-start the Scottish economy. In February, they announced a capital spending package of £380 million until 2015 focused on housing, health, digital and maintenance programmes.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the capital housing budget has been increased or decreased under the Scottish Government?

[Mr Weir]

The Scottish Government have been putting more and more money into capital investment. [Interruption.] It has not been decreasing. They have been putting money into capital investments that matter, despite the overall budget from Westminster having been cut.

The Scottish Government have been taking the action that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), called for earlier. In June, they announced a £105 million package of investment for so-called shovel-ready projects. Conventional capital investment has been boosted by a £2.5 billion pipeline of infrastructure projects that is being delivered through the non-profit distributing model. The Scottish Government recognised long before the current Chancellor did that the model of private participation in infrastructure was fundamentally flawed, although Labour does not seem to have cottoned on to that yet. A total of £700 million has been switched from the resource to the capital budget to support capital investment. The Scottish Government are supporting a range of innovative finance initiatives such as the National Housing Trust.

It appears from what he said this afternoon that even the former Chancellor has changed his original views and now supports the increase in capital expenditure on infrastructure, although that has not prevented his Labour colleagues in Scotland from continually attacking it; such is the way of politics, I suppose. Indeed, their leader has announced a cuts commission—an initiative whose only backers appear to be their friends in the Better Together campaign, the Conservatives.

[Mr MacNeil]

Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the main cheerleaders for Labour in Scotland’s cuts are the Tories in Wales, who welcome them on board with the same ideological baggage?

[Mr Weir]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Conservatives in Scotland have also supported the cuts commission, so it appears that they are all cutters together rather than better together.

The SNP Government in Scotland have been very active in ensuring that we rebalance our economy with investment in new green initiatives. The Government down here often talk about that, but we have seen little evidence of it. Indeed, the proposals in the Energy Bill give cause for concern about the way in which this Government look at green investment and whether there is to be investment in new green energy or whether the Treasury is winning the battle and we are going down a different route.

This is important to Scotland because the renewables industries now support more than 11,000 jobs in Scotland, and that figure is growing. There have been significant investments in green energy. Gamesa chose Leith for its new UK offshore wind manufacturing plant, which will create up to 800 jobs. Burcote Wind has announced plans for a £l billion investment creating up to 600 new jobs. Global Energy Group has announced that Nigg skills academy will deliver training for up to 3,000 people over three years. Scottish Power has announced the creation of 300 skilled jobs as part of a £5 billion investment in Scotland’s grid, and it is also investing £6.5 million in grass-roots skills development.

[Anas Sarwar]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about all this fantastic new investment which is happening in Scotland within the United Kingdom. Would that still be the case if Scotland were an independent country? What would corporation tax be in an independent country—20%, 15%, or the current level?

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman cannot tell me what corporation tax will be here next year, never mind what it will be in Scotland in a few years’ time. This investment is taking place. He and his party keep saying that the referendum is causing uncertainty, but all this investment is coming in now. People are investing in Scotland despite the scaremongering from the Labour party. I ask him to consider this: the real barrier to investment in the UK is not uncertainty about a referendum in Scotland but uncertainty about the referendum on Europe that Government Members and increasingly people in his party are pushing for.

[Anas Sarwar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Weir]

No, I have already given way enough.

There is uncertainty in politics and uncertainty on Europe, but in Scotland we are pressing ahead. Despite all the scaremongering from Better Together, investment is still going on. Most recently, Areva announced a substantial investment in wind. Beyond renewables, Diageo has made significant investments in the whisky industry. A great deal of investment is going on. They are coming to Scotland because it is a good place to do business and because it has a Government who are pushing forward and taking the steps necessary to create an environment to build up an economy that makes sure that there is work, that puts money into local firms and local economies and that puts people back in work. Those are the important things that people care about and that is what the Scottish Government are doing—that is why they are so successful—rather than following the austerity model, which seems to be the only thing that this House can talk about.

That has all been done with the limited powers of devolution and without the key economic levers of power that would allow the Scottish Government to do even more. That will change when Scotland votes for independence in 2014 and we will unlock the real opportunities to build a better Scotland, rather than be locked into the austerity agenda of the UK parties.

Financial Services Bill

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. When the Government have an opportunity to return to the market state-owned assets that the Treasury took in the height of the financial crisis, they simply look for a return to the vanilla plc model. They take a business-as-usual approach rather than taking the opportunity to rethink how we might have diversity in the financial service sector and in business operations. Yes, we need some organisations run on a plc model, and we have plenty of those, but why not think about opportunities to promote the non-profit or mutual sector? Northern Rock was a classic case in point. No adequate consideration was given to that option. A member buy-out suggestion would have been entirely feasible, but it was not considered seriously enough.

At this point, I pay tribute to the all-party group on building societies and financial mutuals. It made a series of recommendations a year ago, urging the coalition to adopt

“a comprehensive policy strategy to implement its Coalition Agreement commitment to promote mutuals.”

It stated that the Treasury should be proactive in promoting the interests of financial mutuals within the Government. One of the first conclusions in the summary of its report was:

“HM Treasury appears to have taken a reactive stance to the mutual sector beginning to deal with important issues such as building society capital, but little else of substance.”

I do not want to labour that point, because time is short.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

For cross-party purposes, may I say that we will support the hon. Gentleman’s excellent amendment? It is important to push forward credit unions, in particular, as an alternative to high street lenders, which are currently not lending to many people. The Treasury needs to take a more proactive approach to building up existing credit unions as well as creating new ones.

[Chris Leslie]

The credit union sector deserves far more support and encouragement than it receives, and previous Governments of all parties have failed to do enough to promote it. The demutualisation agenda of the 1980s and early 1990s significantly reduced the size of the building society sector, and compared with other developed countries mutual providers have a very small market share, particularly in the financial services sector.