Jobs and Growth

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tyrie]

I broadly agree with that. There is always a problem with measuring inflation—there is always a dispute about exactly how to capture it best—and we will never get it exactly right. I will not go into any further details now, but I agree with the core of what my hon. Friend has said.

Work on both the deficit reduction plan and the recovery plan have been firefighting to deal with our inheritance—less from the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West than from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Let me now deal with the third aspect of the growth strategy, which consists of policies to improve the long-run growth rate and long-run economic performance: what the policy wonks call supply-side reform. The coalition's inheritance needed attention in that regard as well.

A few days ago I made a number of proposals for supply-side reform in a pamphlet, and they seemed to make everyone very excited. The Government growth agenda set out in the spring was a start, but, as the Chancellor said in his party conference speech,

“We need to do more”.

In that pamphlet, in a personal capacity, I made a few suggestions. In a nutshell, we need to work much harder to produce a comprehensive strategy embracing tax, reform of the labour markets, financial regulation, energy policy, transport and competition policy. We have been firefighting so far, but now is the time to start developing that longer-term strategy.

It is worth bearing in mind that it took the Thatcher Administration the best part of four years to get round to doing much of this, and I realise that this type of policy is easy to talk about but difficult to deliver. What matters most is that the creative energies of small businesses in our constituencies are released to increase the long-run growth potential of the economy. That is a big reform job. We have to bear in mind all the time that it involves millions of people—small traders and people working in small businesses—and that it is they who will restore the economy to health, not Governments and not Parliament. We need to make it much easier for them. Let us consider just one area: taxation. The Treasury Committee has flagged up some of the—largely inherited—contradictions and inconsistencies in the tax system, and argues that further tax reforms should be based on a few simple and coherent principles: certainty, simplicity, stability and fairness. We are a long way from achieving that in our tax system and there is a lot still to do. Encouragingly, the Chancellor said he strongly supported tax simplification; he has made that point on a number of occasions and he has created the Office of Tax Simplification.

The Chancellor announced in his speech at last week’s Conservative party conference that he would push ahead with further labour market reforms, and he has mentioned that again today. Of even greater significance could be the Chancellor’s commitment not to push ahead of other European countries on carbon reduction targets. I and many other people have been arguing for that for a long time, all the way back to our deliberations on the Climate Change Act 2008. The rapid pace of carbon reduction will push up business costs and also provoke great controversy, for example in respect of wind farms. Therefore, the Government are right to think again about that policy. It is now crucial that the coming autumn statement gives a decisive push to measures for improving long-run economic performance. It is equally important that that is seen not as a programme for a year, but as a remorseless project for the long term.

For much of the last decade, politicians of both major parties talked as if the economy need no longer be the top priority. For it was an age of abundance: it seemed that we could concentrate on how to spend it and quality-of-life issues. We forgot that most politics is hot air unless the economy can afford to deliver on the promises made by politicians. The complacency about growth that infected both parties encouraged the irresponsible lending and borrowing of the last decade. The electorate have noticed that they were led up the garden path, most notably by the absurd claim that Governments could put an end to boom and bust—so my final point is a presentational one. Politicians and Parliament must demonstrate that the public’s No. 1 priority is also their own No. 1 priority. The electorate’s No. 1 priority at present is to protect their living standards and their children’s prospects.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to tribunals and inquiries. The Ayes were 309 and the Noes were 20, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I am delighted to see the Chancellor still in his place. Oh, he is just going. I have that effect on him. I think he has heard enough in the previous four speeches, three of which were by members of the Treasury Committee—its best members; the rest are coming now. The last four speeches were very thoughtful, in contrast with what happened when the two Front Benchers had a go at one another. The public must see that as the Chamber at its worst; it was described as vaudeville. That is not the fault of the individuals concerned; it is the way this place is.

Following on from the speeches of the Front Benchers were speeches from the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling); the Chairman of the Select Committee; the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who represents the seat in which I was born; and my good friend from the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). They were very good speeches, but that contrasts with what we heard before them, which is sad, in a way.

Two kinds of people watch the parliamentary channel during the day. There are people who will find the Front-Bench speeches lovely, because they are party animals of either party, and they like the cut and thrust, but there are also 100,000-odd additional people who are, or could be, looking at that channel: those who, in the last year—in the last quarter or month—have lost their job. Almost a million youngsters between 16 and 24 are out of work; they could be watching that channel, hoping that they will see that action will be taken to get them a job. They will have been despairing, until the last four speeches.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that he saw some common ground. I think that there is some, inasmuch as whatever the bluster, something is clear after 15 months: cutting the deficit at the speed first suggested, backed up by a lack of a coherent growth policy—there was no growth policy; a document was hatched and brought forward six months later as an autumn statement—meant that the people watching knew that we were going to have a hard time. This debate will be an achievement if there is any acceptance in the Chamber that we cannot do what we have been doing for the past 15 months, but must do something additional—something different—because what we have been doing is not working. There are signs of that. The fact that the Chancellor went to the Bank of England and asked for credit easing to be done through the Bank, which was refused, and the fact that he is now taking the steps to do it himself, is good—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please make his comments through the Chair?

[Mr Mudie]

Shall I start again, Mr Deputy Speaker? You have put me off. Can you remind me where I was?

The Chancellor was turned by the Governor, but he was treated very well by the House because he had spent half an hour saying that he would not spend money. He now has the job for the next two months, until the autumn statement, of making a reality of credit easing, which means that because the Governor will not do it from the Bank of England, it will have to be done by the Government through public expenditure. And that, from a man who was saying that there is too much public expenditure and the only way is to cut, is a major achievement and a major philosophical breakthrough.

There are clear signs that the Chancellor realises that he boxed himself in. It was described three or four months ago on a radio programme as flexibility—“I have flexibility in my programmes”. That would give him the ability to move off plan A, but it is now clear that he is moving off with a vengeance because he sees the danger. When we in the House speak about growth, that means a lot to politicians, but the ordinary person does not realise that it means their job, the security of their home and their income. If the Chancellor is moving on that, it is very good.

I shall put three suggestions on the table for the Chancellor. First, he could reconsider the disastrous decision to abolish regional development agencies and the disgraceful decision to give the local enterprise partnerships that he set up in their place less money, no staff, no powers, no authority and no influence. They have pulled together in every area in the country schemes that have been presented to Lord Heseltine to filter out and put forward for funding. As only one scheme has come from each area, there is a whole list of good schemes sitting on the table that could be put into operation.

Secondly, when we speak about infrastructure, we invariably go to roads. The key, however, is housing because it triggers so many additional jobs and so much additional expenditure. There is one thing the Chancellor could do without spending any money. I know there is a balance. An average two-bedroom house costs £160,000. To get a mortgage requires a deposit of £32,000. Need we look any further to understand why youngsters are not buying houses? I know we have to protect people from being irresponsible, but such a value-to-loan ratio has knocked house purchase off the table. As we are not building social housing, it is a real block. Perhaps the Chancellor could speak to the Financial Services Authority and to the banks and say, “Ease off and look at each case on its merits.”

Finally, during the 1980s recession we had some very good community programmes—youth training schemes and so on. They were sometimes derided but they kept youngsters at work and gave them some self-belief and purpose. Youngsters got up and turned up on time. The schemes prepared them for work and kept them intact as individuals. In Leeds we had 2,500 places and we did enormous work across the city with unemployed people who, to this day, pay tribute to the fact that such schemes kept them going when they would have disintegrated as personalities if they had not had that discipline and chance. I should like the Chancellor to think about those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This debate is very popular and I want to accommodate as many Members as I possibly can, so the time limit is being reduced to six minutes, with the usual injury time for two interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

I am not going to give way to anybody because it takes up time from everybody else’s speeches.

VAT has been increased, and that hits the worst-off most. There has also been what is, in effect, a tax increase on everybody who has to commute to work: the massive fare increases that have been pushed through, which are far above the rate of inflation. We have certainly seen inflation. One of the reasons why Governments quite like inflation is that if they borrow £1 and there is 5% inflation, they pay back 95p instead of £1. That is why the Government have not taken any notice of the problems caused by the rate of inflation, but it certainly hits people’s pensions and wages.

As for growth, there simply isn’t any. Growth is needed both in this country and worldwide. Growth was the theme of the London G20 summit. I know that it is very unfashionable to praise the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, but the fact is that at that summit, and in the run-up to it, he did more than anybody in the world to convince all the Governments that they had to start investing more in the world economy. I have heard from someone else that it is Sarkozy’s private view that Gordon Brown’s intellect and drive—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should refer to the former Prime Minister by his constituency.

[Frank Dobson]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is Sarkozy’s view that it was the intellect and drive of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) that virtually saved the world from a total disastrous slump.

Since then, the new UK Government have joined the backsliders; they are not going for growth, either here or worldwide. They have let the bankers and speculators back in charge, blaming public spending everywhere in the world and blaming public services for what has gone wrong. This Government have been delighted to wheel on witnesses defending their policy, but I ask people to look at who these famous witnesses are. They are the bankers, the financiers and the speculators—the people who caused the worldwide problem in the first place.

About two days before its recent unfortunate fraud case, a very distinguished person from UBS said that we needed austerity for all and then everything would be okay. Unfortunately, the interviewer did not ask, “Are you one of the people who lost £44 billion in the crash?” A couple of days later, someone from Citigroup was advocating austerity for all. Unfortunately, the interviewer did not say, “You are from the company that lost £60 billion in the crash. Why should we take a shred of notice of someone with your track record?” Then, my favourite, Ernst and Young, said that we needed austerity for all, but never mentioned being the auditors of Lehman Brothers. One would think that a period of silence—a decade of silence—would have been appropriate.

Frankly, we have seen that the bankers, financiers and speculators have far too much power in this world. We have the Alice in Wonderland situation where the banks cause a recession; the Greek economy declines; the banks in effect charge the Greeks exorbitant rates of interest; the banks, who created the crisis, then threaten the ability of the Greeks to pay them back, meaning that the Greeks might default; and, if the Greeks default, the banks default. The banks start it off, and in the end might default—and what happens? They do not rely on the private sector or market forces. They come grovelling to taxpayers all over Europe to ask them to bail them out of their stupidity—for that is what their policies are. We hear about social security scroungers, but the worst social security scrounger in the world does not compare to the scrounging banks when they get things wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To assist in enabling a greater number of Members to take part in the debate, the time limit is reduced to five minutes.

Eurozone

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am going to ask for very short questions as we will move on at 5.45 pm, irrespective of whether Members are still standing.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

For five centuries, British policy has been to oppose any hegemon on Europe, whether a single religion, a single state, a single economic model or a single ideology. Why is the Chancellor so keen on creating a fiscal and monetary union that would dictate terms of commerce, trade and banking rules to this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, a number of eurozone countries have seen their credit rating suffer, and have seen it downgraded. That has impacted on the cost of borrowing for their Government and their citizens. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we maintain a credible fiscal policy—something to which the Governor of the Bank alluded last week, and to which all business organisations have alluded. As far as I can see, only the shadow Chancellor now opposes that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the House for its co-operation. We managed to get everyone in, within time.

Summer Adjournment

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Approximately 7.5 million to 8 million tonnes of waste wood is produced every year. It is mostly construction waste, and the greater part—some 80%—is landfilled, which is a far higher proportion than for other waste items. About 1.2 million tonnes is recycled and reused for animal bedding, plywood, fibreboard and so on, but energy is recovered from only about 0.3 million tonnes or 4% of the total. However, according to Eunomia Research & Consulting, a net estimated saving of 1,400 kg of CO₂ per tonne of wood can be made where waste wood is used as fuel for biomass energy. If waste food in landfill was sent to digestion with wood to energy recovery, the joint product would be about 42 TW of energy a year, or getting on for a fifth of our renewable energy target, by 2020.

The benefits of diverting wood and indeed other categories of waste from landfill are clear and straightforward. Despite the strides that have been taken to reduce landfill as a destination for our waste, we still have a long way to go, and for some waste streams, as I have illustrated, almost the whole distance. So how might we get moving on this diversion? There have been suggestions that such wastes should simply be banned from landfill. That is what a number of countries do, and that in itself stimulates substantially the sort of use that I have outlined. That appears to be the Government’s intention, because in the waste review 2011 they stated:

“As a starting point, in 2012 we will consult on whether to introduce a restriction on the landfilling of wood waste…Building on this we will review the case for restrictions on sending other materials to landfill over the course of the Parliament”.

That is encouraging until we recognise that that is exactly where we were in 2009. The 2009 renewable energy strategy stated that the Government would consult later that year on banning certain kinds of material from landfill. In March 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did indeed produce such a consultation with a view to banning a number of wastes from landfill. That consultation set out an EU target that by 2020 a minimum of 70% by weight of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste should be prepared for reuse, or should be recycled or recovered. We have a long way to go on that target.

The results of the consultation were “published”—I say that advisedly—in September of last year. Hon. Members will have to work very hard to find them because, astonishingly, they were published straight to DEFRA’s archive, and I am not sure that that counts as publication at all. Fortunately, the Welsh Assembly Government published the responses to their part of the consultation on their website, and hon. Members can access the results there. I suppose that it is not surprising that the consultation responses were smuggled out and filed away so abruptly, because a landfill ban was supported by over two thirds of consultees. However, the Government’s response was that they were

“not minded to introduce landfill bans in England at the present time”

but would reach a view on the best way to ensure waste was dealt with in the most appropriate way as part of the waste policy review that was announced by Secretary of State earlier this year.

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, that waste review was under way at the same time as the consultation, following which the Government decided to consult on a landfill ban of wood followed by other waste, with a view to banning them between 2012 and 2015.

If a consultation had taken place, why have another one? And why did the Government say that they were not minded to introduce a landfill ban if they might do so just a few months later? Why hide the results of such a consultation from public view at a time when they were consulting on something very similar? If we really wanted to make progress on such a ban—and I think the case for doing so is overwhelming—would it not be easier to note the consultation results and get on with it? I fear that I am missing something, but I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will be able to put me right. At the very least, I hope that he can restore the results of the consultation to the DEFRA website so that we can all see what has transpired, then perhaps get on with it substantially before 2015.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Chris Kelly—as long as you do not call me Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I want to talk about the innovative and excellent work done by Fortalice house in my constituency. Before I explain why I believe that its work should interest Back Benchers as well as Ministers, let me give some statistics for domestic violence.

Domestic abuse accounts for almost 25% of recorded violent crime. An average of two women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner, 30% of domestic violence starts during pregnancy, women are assaulted an average of 35 times before seeking help, and every six seconds a woman is assaulted in her home. Those are staggering statistics in a modern, advanced, civilised society such as ours.

Fortalice house, which has existed for three years, accommodates up to 22 women and up to 70 children in fully furnished, self-contained flats with 24-hour supervision. Its ethos involves not just providing physical shelter, but re-educating women and children so that they can change their own patterns of behaviour. Its staff work with women to deal with issues such as alcohol, drugs, living skills, relationships, money and physical health, and to motivate them to take responsibility for their own mental and emotional health. The skills that they teach include managing money and using IT, sewing, and cooking healthy food. As a result of their work, in the last year only 5% of women who went into Fortalice house went back to the perpetrators of violence: it had a 95% success rate. Staff also provide practical help, filling in forms and liaising with different agencies to ensure that the ladies receive the benefits to which they are entitled, which helps them to look after themselves and their children.

The work of Fortalice house is, by nature, people-intensive, and funding cuts of more than 18% will have a severe impact on its ability to deliver the excellent services that it currently provides. Domestic violence is an issue in Bolton, where, between April 2010 and March 2011, there were 8,160 incidents of domestic violence, more than in any other area in Greater Manchester. Twenty per cent. of recorded crime in Bolton is domestic violence, and 50% is alcohol-related. I know that there are budgetary constraints, but I urge Home Office Ministers to recognise that some of the work that is being done is so vital and crucial that it must be supported. I ask the Home Office to consider not just funding Fortalice house so that it can continue its work, but enabling that work to be extended to other domestic violence refuge centres throughout the country. Ultimately more money will be saved, because prevention is always better than cure.

Finally, I invite Ministers to come and see for themselves the excellent work being done at Fortalice house, and ask them again to consider providing resources so that domestic violence refuges—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The final debate is the general debate and, as Members can see, it is well over-subscribed and we will finish at 7 pm. Although there is a four-minute limit, if Members have only one point and can make it within those four minutes, they will help other colleagues.



general matters

Sovereign Grant Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. I wonder whether you would rule on the correct way of referring to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think that respect for members of the royal family is warranted and it would therefore be appropriate to show proper respect in referring to them in the House.

[Paul Flynn]

I shall ask the question again. Is it an example of people with financial limits skimping when the heir to the throne and his wife take a journey that costs £29,000 without any public engagements being involved—the journey was a private one—and send that bill to the taxpayers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Is the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) giving way, or has he sat down?

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is desperate to get in, so I give way to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As Members can see, there are at least six people trying to get in on the debate on this clause; we are incredibly time-limited, and I ask people to respect that.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The aim of the Bill is right: to provide the sovereign with the funds that she and other members of the royal family require to do their public duties. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that at all.

On the point about how we arrived at 15%, I welcome the Chancellor’s acceptance of some of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but there are a few questions still to be answered. I understand why the amount is set at 15%—to get to the figure of £34 million in future years—but my concern is that if we are to have a proper look at what the sovereign costs, we should include all costs, and then determine that the Government or state should provide the money to the sovereign for carrying out those duties.

I accept that there is greater transparency under the Bill, which is welcome, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) seems to think that we will somehow be intruding into areas into which we should not go. I am sorry, but if we are talking about public money, its spending has to be scrutinised, as does the spending of public money by any Government Department. My concern is that we arrived at the £34 million figure, based on 15%, without taking into account the moneys that go from Government Departments to the royal household to support the royal family in their duties. I shall talk about defence, an area that I know more about, as a former Defence Minister.

A large number of individuals in the armed forces—I have asked how many—have a role supporting the royal household. Some people might question whether that is necessary, but I think that it is, because they play an important role in supporting the monarch and other members of the royal family. However, I do not think that the costs involved should come out of the defence budget, as they currently do. The costs should be taken from the moneys we pay to support the sovereign’s work, because those men and women of the armed forces clearly do an important job in supporting the sovereign in her duties as Head of State, but we do not know what those costs amount to.

Similarly, is it legitimate for Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family to use private aircraft for state duties? I fully support that, not just from a security point of view, but because of the status that we wish to give members of the royal family when they represent this country on royal duties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested. However, I do not think that the defence budget should be used to subsidise that expenditure. For example, if it costs a set amount for the RAF to fly Her Majesty or any other member of the royal family somewhere, that amount should rightly be met by the taxpayer if it is an official duty.

--- Later in debate ---

Mr Evans, God save the Queen.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Follow that, Mr Davidson!

[Mr Davidson]

It is difficult to follow a speech like that because in many ways, it took the biscuit.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Question is proposed that the amendment be made.

[Hon. Members]

No.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. I do not wish to move the amendment at this stage. Having made my statement, I do not wish to delay the Committee, as there are more important amendments to consider.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Review by Royal Trustees of Sovereign Grant

Manuscript amendment proposed: A, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘7’ and insert ‘4’.—(Mr George Osborne.)

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘3 years’.

Government manuscript amendment B.

Amendment 7, page 6, line 8, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘5 years’.

Amendment 8, page 6, line 8, at end add—

‘(6) The Trustees shall also review the percentage for the time being specified in Step 1 of section 6(1) as soon as practicable if, over the financial year immediately preceding the base year, the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate increased by more than the trend rate of GDP growth.

(7) In subsection (6), “the trend rate of GDP growth” means the estimate of the trend rate of GDP growth most recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility which is applicable to that year.

(8) Subsections (2) to (4) shall also apply to a review carried out under subsection (6).’.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I wish to speak briefly to amendment 8. This would introduce a check on potential future rises in income from the Crown Estate. At a time when Departments and the public generally are having to take very difficult decisions to make their limited budgets cover the essentials, we should at least apply careful analysis to what sort of income the 15% figure would bring in for the royal household over future years. I would appreciate any information Ministers have on forecasts for the sovereign grant over the coming years, particularly regarding this spending review period.

We are very short of time, but I shall press on with the issue of meeting the royal household’s needs. When I met the Economic Secretary yesterday—I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her and the Bill team—we had a discussion about the fact that the civil list has not adequately reflected the needs of the royal family in the past. At one point, it was being paid too much money and amassed significant reserves; then, it was not paid enough to meet its needs and had to draw down on the reserves. I appreciate that the current formula may not be appropriate, but a formula fixed to income on the basis of something like the Crown Estate is not necessarily any more likely to meet royal spending needs.

In 2010-11, the Crown Estate profits were £230.9 million. If the new mechanism were already in use, that would mean a grant in two years’ time of £34.7 million. Instead, the 2012-13 grant has been set at £31 million in recognition that 15% would not be appropriate or proportionate. This is why we are asking the Government to consider a more flexible mechanism in future.

When the Chancellor spoke in the preliminary debate the other week, he said that the grant to the royal family should reflect generally how well the economy is doing. The particular concern we have—it has been touched on already—is that the Crown Estate includes investment in offshore wind, particularly the new wind-power projects that are coming on board. I think the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association said that the carbon capture and storage industry is likely to be very big in the future, probably measured in trillions of dollars. We think that could have an impact on the accounts, too.

We were grateful for the Chancellor’s assurances during the debate on the funding resolution that we will not allow revenues from offshore wind to lead to a disproportionate rise in revenues for the royal household. I would be grateful for any further information about what safeguards could be put in place.

Amendment 8 would help. It would limit disproportionate increases to the royal household. I welcome the fact that the Government have tabled manuscript amendments in response to our amendments which would provide an earlier review period. As the Bill was originally drafted, the first review of the new arrangement would not have taken place for seven years and there would then have been a review every seven years after that. We thought that the first review should take place within three years and that subsequent reviews should take place every five years. We have listened to what the Government had to say about three years being unfortunate in that it would coincide with the next general election. We are happy to accept the Government manuscript amendments that the first review should be four years and subsequent reviews every five years. We do think, however, that there should be another mechanism to address the fact that no cap is in force. There is a cap on the reserves, but there is no cap on the potential increases that the 15% figure, linked to the income of the Crown Estate, could generate.

I shall skim over much of what else I was going to say, but we think it important to have some upward cap. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister or the Chancellor have to say in response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you remind me whether it is appropriate for an hon. Member to make remarks that appear to be disparaging about a member of the royal household?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have already had to remind Mr Flynn that when he is referring to the royal family, he should do so with dignity, as their status in this country behoves. I hope that he will refrain from disparaging remarks in the future.

[Paul Flynn]

That is a splendid illustration of the fact that we are infantilised and incapable of the freedom of expression that I would have if I was writing a blog, speaking on the radio or writing in a newspaper. This House and our role is diminished because of that. As an elected representative who has long been regarded by my constituents as a republican, I am denied the opportunity of speaking the truth as I see it.

[Paul Flynn]

I think that many advances have been very beneficial. One of the most important was the decision we took in 2003 to vote on whether we go to war. Some 230 Members voted against. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not agree with many of the attributes that give us our national status in the world of being “wider still and wider”. Many people praise us for that because it means that we can punch above our weight. It also means that our soldiers have to die beyond our responsibilities. We have taken on an unreasonable share of the dying in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the elevated view we have of our status, which is a damaging view.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going far wide of what we are here to speak on, which is the Third Reading of the Bill. Other Members wish to speak, so keep to the Bill, Mr Flynn.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made a point about the Bill and about whether those at Buckingham palace listen to our debates. I assure him that they do. The last time I spoke on these issues, I had a call from Buckingham palace within an hour telling me that the information I had given about the heir to the throne’s income increasing by 50% in a year and his spending of taxpayers’ money increasing by 18% was absolutely accurate but could be misleading. So we are under that surveillance, I am happy to say.

I believe it is a complete myth to think that the Crown Estate is the property of the royal family, and it is a disingenuous view. In the Bill there is an attempt to refresh and replace that idea. I saw an interesting quote in the Financial Times from a Government source, who said:

“There is a major constitutional issue with appearing to say that”

the Queen

“owns all this stuff when she doesn’t”.

It is quite clear that the Crown Estate is the property of the country, and that the revenue should go to health, social security and the other issues before us.

I cannot understand why Members, particularly our own Front Benchers, having seen that the Bill was coming up—we have one every 250 years—are maximising the understandable current popularity of the royal family to ensure that it gets through and that there is a settlement that could be very expensive in future. If the Bill had been presented to the House at the time of Diana’s death, or another time when the royal family were very unpopular, the House would have given a very different view. Clearly this is a honeymoon time in which to introduce it.

I believe that, as has been suggested, a simple mechanism should have been adopted. As is the case for other taxpayers, such as recipients of income support and housing benefit, there could be a mechanism linked to inflation. I suggest again that it should be the same mechanism that decides on pensioners’ increases, which have sadly been reduced because of the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. If that measure were introduced and the funding were divorced from the Crown Estate, it would work and it would seem fair. Would it not be marvellous if we demanded from the royal family the same freedom of information that is demanded of all the rest of us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

First, I want to apologise for not being here in the earlier part of the day. I was at the hospital all day having some nuclear medicine, they called it. It is a new-fangled thing, and I would warn anybody, if you have got a chance to avoid it, avoid it. They stick a drug in you, and you feel like you are dying. What they are trying to do is put your heart under so much pressure that they can see whether you can stand the anaesthetic for a hip replacement in the near future. That is where I have been, and I missed all these wonderful contributions on the Queen’s new allowance—her winter heating allowance, or whatever it is.

I remember well, way back in 1971, being joined by a lot of people in the House who were on the left wing at the time in voting against the Queen’s money. Quite a number of them are now in the House of Lords—[Laughter.] [Hon. Members: “Name them!] I can’t name all of them because I ain’t got time. They are all there. I remember that occasion very well because they were dining and wining on the fact that they had just voted against the Queen’s money, or the royal money.

I am here today—I just managed to get back in time for Third Reading. My view about the monarchy has been pretty much the same all my life. I remember in the pit village of Clay Cross, when I was a bit of kid during the second world war—or maybe just a bit before—kids on the street saying that the royal family had blue blood, but I just could not buy that. My inquiring mind prevented me from being like the rest of the lads on the street.

There is no doubt about it: the royal family were very popular in those days, notwithstanding King George VI not being able to speak properly on the radio. I heard all that, but notwithstanding, they were popular then, but there have been phases since when their popularity has waned, especially when Murdoch was the toast of the town—which he now ain’t. We have been slagging off Murdoch all week and telling him to sling his hook back to America and all the rest of it, but his papers had an influence. I am sure that there were times when Murdoch newspapers made a reasonable contribution to the talk about the dysfunctional royal family and all the rest of it, but I also believe that Charles himself made a contribution, because quite frankly, he is not liked. Those hon. Members who are royalists know in their hearts that they do not really want to see him be the king. When I take people from the women’s institute round the House of Commons and the House of Lords and show them the throne, they say, “Who sits in that other seat? I say, “Well, perhaps it’s Charles, but eventually, he’s gonna sit in the big seat.” They say, “Who will be in the other one?” and I say, “Camilla,” and they say, “No! We don’t want her!”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am speaking now from this big seat. It would be very good, first, if the hon. Gentleman could at least refer to the royal family in a dignified manner, as has happened almost throughout the debate, and secondly, if we could get back to Third Reading. I know that for unavoidable reasons, the hon. Gentleman was unable to be here earlier, but I am sure he knows what the Bill says. Could he get back to it?

[Mr Skinner]

I know that the Bill is all about £35 million in the time of a recession. The truth is that people out there, notwithstanding what anybody else tells them and irrespective of this debate, will be saying, “Here we are. We’ve got a pay freeze, inflation’s going through the roof and energy prices are going up. Because of welfare reform, they’re cutting disability allowance. Three thousand blind and disabled people have marched through London for their money, and yet, on one given day, they are able to find the money for the royal family.”

So, to go back chronologically to my story about the royal family, I was a bit of a kid, but then I got elected to Clay Cross council. I do not know what happened, but when I became chairman of the council, I got a big package, which turned out to be an invite to the royal garden party. I looked at it, and found they had included a little diagonal cross to put in the car—of course, I hadn’t a car, a bank account or a telephone. I said to a mate of mine, “You’d never believe the bumf that they’ve sent—all these different things for the royal garden party.” He said, “What did you do with it?” and I said, “I chucked it in t’dustbin.” I said, “There were even a thing to put in your car.” He says, “What colour were it?”—[Interruption.] No! He was asking what colour the pass was, not the car. He had seen one before, because he had been to the races to Cheltenham and Ascot and seen it. He says, “Get that pass!” I said, “Well, it’s in the dustbin,” and he says, “We’ve not emptied Wheatcroft close yet.” So I got the pass out. I saw him after he had retired, and I said, “Ay up, Joe, did you ever use that pass?” “Use it?” he says, “It’s here in t’glove compartment. I’ve used it every year. I go straight into Royal Ascot, not just the royal enclosure.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I let the hon. Gentleman finish the story because I wanted to hear the end, but it still has nothing to do with the Bill. May we please get back to the Bill?

[Mr Skinner]

I am trying to explain that there are people out there who do not give a hoot about the royal family. The truth is that my old mate Joe, who has now passed on, wanted the pass, and that is how he felt about it. He wanted to be in the royal enclosure, unlike me. Obviously I did not go to the garden party—I have never been to one, although they tell me that Willie Hamilton did. I don’t know about that. I’ll tell you one thing though. Despite all the security, they are still using the same car passes now. So we have had the IRA, Islamic fundamentalism, 9/11, bombs on the underground and buses, and they are still using the same passes on the Mall—so they tell me.

Anyway, to get back to the Bill—[Hon. Members: “Yeah!”] I know they didn’t really like those stories anyway and we have only got a couple of minutes left. What I wanted to say is that I have always taken the view that the royal family cannot be regal and common at the same time. I thought when television came in they wanted to appear regal on the one hand but also to be like “Coronation Street” people on the other. So they got on the telly and they were playing those games and all the rest of it. I think that the Queen was badly advised. She should have kept control of them. If I had been on the advisers list, I would have told her that. But I wasn’t. I know that Charles wanted to meet me one day, and that Nicholas—well, whatever seat he stands for, he sits over there—who was a friend of Charles, said to me, “Charles wants to speak to you”. I said, “Why?” He said, “He thinks you’re very interesting.” I said, “Why, has he stopped talking to plants?” [Interruption.] It’s a friendly remark!

Anyway, I believe that at that time support waned quite remarkably. I think it is a bit higher now, but I still believe it is not the 90-odd per cent. that some people imagine it. It is more like 60:40. I do not accept either that the Queen does not have powers. I was here in 1974, during the strike and the “miners’ election”, when Heath said, “You either vote for me or you vote for the miners.” The truth is that Labour won a marginal victory. We had a tiny number of seats more than the Tories.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is going to come as a great disappointment to you, Mr Skinner, but you cannot talk this Bill out because at 6 o’clock, I am going to put the question. If you could now refer specifically to the Bill, we would be grateful.

[Mr Skinner]

I know I have talked out several Bills in the past, but I did it by moving a debate on the writ for the Brecon and Radnor by-election and the Richmond by-election and all the rest of it. But now you have stopped me doing it, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I have to say is that here we are at a time of welfare reform, inflation and all the rest of it, and suddenly, in one day, the House of Commons changes its whole attitude and says, “We’ve got enough money. The royal family need more to live on.” And what does it do? It votes for it. Well, if I can find another teller, I’ll be voting against. Thank you very much.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 48, line 16, leave out subsection (4).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 8.

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 87 and schedule 25 give effect to the new mutual assistance recovery directive, which comes into effect on 1 January 2012. The directive will improve the current mutual assistance provisions, which permit member states to recover and enforce tax debts and to exchange information across the European Union. This will improve tax compliance and make the tax system fairer. The directive extends mutual assistance to all national and local taxes. Local taxes are devolved, so consent is required from the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on their behalf. These consents could not be secured before those Administrations dissolved ahead of the May elections, so a number of exclusions were included in the Bill published on 31 March 2011. Agreement has now been received from Scotland and Northern Ireland that Westminster can legislate for these matters.

The amendments remove the exclusions included in the Bill in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland. They also make an addition to the explanation of “relevant UK authority” in order to include a claim from another member state to recover an agricultural levy in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move amendment 22, page 166, leave out line 18 and insert

‘day specified in the election as the day on which it takes effect (which must be later than the day on which the election is made).’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 23 to 29.

[Mr Gauke]

The amendments will ensure that clauses 34 and 48 operate as intended when companies make retrospective changes to the dates to which their accounts are drawn up.

Schedule 7 allows companies to elect prospectively to change the currency in which they prepare their accounts for tax purposes. That is often referred to as their functional currency. That change must be prospective to prevent companies from changing their functional currency with the benefit of hindsight to realise a foreign exchange loss for tax purposes. Following the Public Bill Committee debate on clause 34, a major accountancy firm disclosed an avoidance scheme that retrospectively creates a short accounting period to circumvent the new rules. The amendments will ensure that clause 34 operates as intended when a company retrospectively changes the date to which its accounts are drawn up.

Clause 48 and schedule 13 implement an optional branch exemption regime. Companies must elect into branch exemption in advance of an accounting period to prevent them from leaving known losses outside of exemption in order to retain loss relief. Retrospective accounting period changes create problems similar to those that arise in connection with clause 34, whereby decisions on election into branch exemption may be made with the benefit of hindsight. The amendments will ensure that clause 48 operates as intended when a company changes its accounting periods. In each case, the date on which an election comes into force will be fixed in advance at the time when the election is made.

The amendments that relate to clause 34 will protect the £60 million yield in the original measure, and together the amendments will protect an estimated £200 million that would otherwise be likely to be lost due to avoidance schemes. They will ensure that clauses 34 and 48 operate as intended when a company uses hindsight to alter its accounting periods. I therefore urge the House to accept them.

Civil List

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I gave you a bit of latitude there, Mr Horwood. I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Finance Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Heald]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for somebody to come into the Chamber towards the very end of a debate and then to start criticising how it has been conducted?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a matter for me. I have just come into the Chair myself, as I am sure you observed, Mr Heald, so I am the last one to criticise anyone for just coming in and talking.

[Michael Connarty]

You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is amazing technology in this place. Members can sit in their offices and, if they wish, not watch the tennis but follow the debate in detail, and come down to the Chamber when they think it might be useful to add something. I recommend it to Members: turn off the tennis, turn on the Chamber.

The point I was making is that the logic used by the right hon. Member for Wokingham was possibly deliberately to convince the public that the proposal is an effort to add extra resources to the health services by encouraging people to put money into private health insurance. The logic, of course, is that such private health insurance is available to some people when they are in employment, but is denied them when they retire. If that is the kind of employer that people have, it is a shame that they are deluded into thinking that insurance is a substitute for taxation-based health services.

The right hon. Gentleman stated that resources are not finite, and that somehow this money would bring new resources rushing into the health service. Everyone who has studied the health service over the time I have been in elected politics, which is since 1977, knows what happens. The consultant and the surgeon choose whether to work in the private sector or in the public sector. Sometimes they choose to work in a mixture of those. I commend those who decide to work entirely in the public sector, because they give the best value to our constituents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said when, in an intervention, he cited the number of operations for cataracts.

However, the reality is that only a limited number of people get to the top of the elitist profession that is the medical profession, particularly to consultant level, because we do not train enough people to do the work that is required in the health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I can scarcely believe that the hon. Gentleman is making that case, given that the previous Labour Government paid consultants and general practitioners respectively 27% and 44% more for doing less work, hid billions of pounds off balance sheets with dodgy private finance initiative schemes, which have reduced taxpayers to penury, and foisted independent sector training on primary care trusts, meaning that they could not plan for patient numbers or the money needed to run those centres.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions must be brief; otherwise we might find ourselves sitting until the early hours of the morning.

[Michael Connarty]

If the hon. Gentleman proposed a motion suggesting that all those things should not have happened, I would vote for it. I am a socialist. I did not like the Labour Government overpaying people and changing their hours in such a way that my constituents got less of a service. It seems that even some Conservatives realise that paying people huge amounts of money and asking them to work fewer hours in this elitist organisation—I am very critical of the consultancy-led health service in our country—is something we should be looking at seriously. Our constituents need value for money, which many of the schemes the hon. Gentleman mentioned did not provide. However, it is interesting that this Government have done nothing to change the tax laws, despite 23% of PFIs now being owned by foreign companies that are still getting the tax breaks in this country. Part of the idea of PFIs was that they would bring in tax money, yet 23% of the companies are abroad and put nothing into this country’s economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

It is traditional to say that we have had a good debate, but we really have had a good one today; it has been stunning in a way. Most importantly, I do not think there is any Member who does not support the national health service. We are very much behind the national health service, and it is true of me even more than most Members of all parties, because I have worked in it, as well as working in the private sector and in a combination of the two. I am emphatically behind it, and I back the hospitals in my constituency.

The approach has, of course, been different. If the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) had not joined the debate, I would have felt that I had failed because we would otherwise not have heard a good red-blooded, left-wing socialist viewpoint. The difference, of course, is that Conservative Members support the national health service, but we also support the possibility of looking for alternatives or different ways of helping the NHS. That was my aim tonight.

I question the figures that the Minister provided, as we need to recognise that over a seven-year period from 1990, with the over-60s—not just the over-65s—having a full swathe of tax deducted, not just the basic rate, the relief was costing about £80 million. If the proposal in the new clause went through, there would be a progressive growth in the number of people claiming as time went on. I do not think it would be logarithmic, but it would certainly make a difference to hospitals in my constituency and others, particularly those down south. There would be a relief of the strain on those hospitals and an opportunity to redistribute the money.

I was putting my toe in the water this evening, trying to get some thinking going on the proposal, and that has happened. I will discuss the issues further with the Minister before the Budget and next year’s Bill, but in the meantime, I wish to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to new clause 5. Fiona Bruce. Not moved?

New Clause 5

Transfer of personal allowances between spouses

‘After section 37 of the Income Tax Act 2007, insert—

“37A Transfer of personal allowances between spouses

(1) This section applies to an individual who is entitled to a personal allowance under sections 35 to 37 for a tax year if—

(a) the individual is a person whose spouse who is living with the individual for the whole or any part of the tax year, and

(b) the spouse meets the requirements of section 56 (residence, etc).

(2) If—

(a) the allowance exceeds the individual’s remaining relievable income;

(b) the individual makes an election, and

(c) the individual’s spouse makes a claim,

the individual’s spouse is entitled to an allowance for the tax year equal to the amount of the excess.

(3) The individual’s remaining relievable income is found by—

(a) taking the amount of the individual’s net income, and

(b) subtracting any personal allowance to which the individual is entitled for the tax year.”’.—(Mr Leigh.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Leigh]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In the last Parliament the Prime Minister and other senior Conservatives repeatedly expressed their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system. There were some very strong statements, particularly by the Prime Minister. For instance, in Glasgow, in July 2008, he said:

“And when it comes perhaps to the most important area of all, families, we will take action not just to support marriage and family stability”,

because he wanted to say

“to parents, your responsibility and your commitment matters, so we will give a tax break for marriage and end the couple penalty.”

That was the leader of our party speaking during the last Parliament. This was the key policy response to the challenge of social breakdown, or the “broken Britain” phenomenon, and it became an important manifesto pledge at the 2010 election—a manifesto pledge on which every Conservative MP was elected. It was a sacred bond, as it were, with the electorate to support marriage, which was considered to be an absolutely key part of dealing with broken Britain. We put that in our manifesto.

I know that our party did not win an outright majority, but the commitment, most importantly, got into the coalition agreement with a provision for our Lib-Dem friends to abstain. I am not asking them to do anything, but I am asking our Front-Bench team to fulfil the pledge that they solemnly made in the manifesto and put in the coalition agreement. We are still waiting for it, which is why new clause 5 is so important and why I believe that, whatever else has been going on in the background this afternoon—I need not go into that—it was my duty to move it. If it had not been moved, many people involved in the Christian community or in the Christian Institute or in churches would have wondered why this new clause—clearly on the agenda this afternoon, and a vital part of what we are trying to achieve for Britain—had suddenly been withdrawn. I was not prepared to let that happen. I have therefore moved it to allow a debate, to which the Government should be made to respond.

Since the election the Prime Minister has reiterated his commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system on a number of occasions, including at his second Prime Minister’s Question Time—but no action has yet been taken. Given that the manifesto pledge is backed by the coalition agreement and pertains to the period between 2010 and 2015, the fact that the Government have not yet acted to recognise marriage in the tax system is, I hope, no cause for alarm. This debate is important: the Minister will have to respond to it later, when he can assure us that although it has not been possible to do this yet, it is definitely going to happen in this Parliament because it was in our manifesto and in the coalition agreement. At the very least, I want the Minister to say that.

Since the commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system was made last year, there have been some significant changes, which in my personal view greatly increase the need for swift action. In this context, the tabling of new clause 5 on Report to recognise marriage in the tax system is an important step. It provides an opportunity to put on the record the standard arguments for recognising marriage in the tax system and, more importantly, to set out the changes over the last 12 months that have greatly increased the urgency of taking action in this area. As I have said, the Government are obliged to respond and engage with the implications of the changes as they relate to the importance of recognising marriage in the tax system.

Let us go into a bit more detail. Apart from married couples with at least one spouse born before 1935—a number that will clearly reduce over the years—and couples in which at least one partner is blind, everyone in the United Kingdom is taxed on an individual basis. Unused tax allowances cannot be transferred from a non-earning spouse to an earning spouse.

Under the system of transferable allowances, which we have constantly promoted as a party for several years and as is envisaged in our coalition agreement, a non-earning spouse would be able to transfer the whole or part of the basic income tax personal allowance to their earning spouse. Depending on how it was introduced, the whole allowance or part of it could be transferable, and it could be limited to couples with children under a specified age, or limited to tax at the basic rate. The Government can decide what they can afford and they can bring it in gradually; there need not be dead-weight costs or the other problems that were aired in the previous debate. Moreover, I am not at all sure that it is appropriate to talk about dead-weight costs in this context at all. For 2011-12 the personal allowance is £7,475; if the whole allowance were transferable it would be worth up to £1,495, so we are not talking about huge sums of money.

Let us look at what other countries are doing, because it is important to nail the untruth that this idea comes just from the right wing of the British Tory party, or from the Christian community, when it is very common throughout the world. In fact, Britain is unusual among developed countries in failing to recognise marriage in the tax system. This is something that we did as a country, with cross-party agreement, as it was considered absolutely the right thing to do, right up to 1999-2000. Only 24% of citizens of OECD states live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system in one way or another, and most of those live in just three countries—Mexico, Turkey and the UK. We are very much in the minority in not recognising marriage through our tax system. Why should we not recognise marriage when most countries and tax administrations in the world think that marriage is a force for stability? It is not unusual to want to recognise that. Other developed countries such as France, Germany, Italy and America all recognise marriage. In that context it was hardly surprising to learn that, according to the latest figures—published in May 2010—the resulting tax burden on single-earner married families in the United Kingdom was one third greater than the OECD average.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Let us consider Georgian and Victorian England. It might have been fashionable for someone with £5,000 a year in Georgian England to be married, but in many post-industrial cities of northern—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I fear that we are straying a little far from the point. Any chance of getting back to the 21st century?

[Mr Jones]

I think this is an important point, Mr Deputy Speaker. The main thrust of the argument that has been made is that marriage, and taxation in marriage, has been consistent throughout history, but it has not. Like a lot of things in this country, it has been looked at through a Victorian prism that seems to bend the reality of what took place way back then. However, I will move on to my next point.

[Helen Goodman]

I should like to back up what my hon. Friend says. In the major study of marriage in England from 1550 to 1750, Lawrence Stone demonstrated that in a commercial society with a commercial attitude—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We seem to be going even further back. Keep to the 21st century, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish in any way to dispute the hon. Lady’s version of events, but I am quite sure that I distinctly heard her—maybe the official record will show this—say “not moved” when she was asked about new clause 5. Am I wrong in my recollection of that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read Hansard and work it out for himself tomorrow. As a matter of record, as he knows, it is open to any Member to move a new clause, despite the fact that the Member who tabled it has decided not to move it.

[Fiona Bruce]

Is it fair that when incomes are equivalised, one-earner married couples with children—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I heard the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) say “not moved”. I think that I saw one of the Tory Whips at her beforehand, so I do not know whether they tried to persuade her not to have this debate, but I think we need to clarify this point before we move on.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The position has been made absolutely clear. Now can we please continue with the speech that is being made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Why, because you’re not up to it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Fiona Bruce]

If I may, I will move on.

On the subject of young people’s aspirations, it is striking that surveys demonstrate that approximately 90% of young people aspire to marry, yet that is not reflected in the marriage figures. I am not suggesting for a minute that fiscal considerations are the only factor, but the Government should at least ensure that it is not more financially detrimental to marry in this country than in other developed OECD countries, if we are to be true to our determination to become the most family-friendly country in Europe.

As a Government, we should send out a clear and credible signal to young people that we value marriage and encourage their aspirations in that respect, particularly as marriage acts as a stabiliser not just for the individuals within it but for the wider community. The prevalence, for example, of the isolation and exclusion of the elderly is influenced by the wider breakdown of family and community networks, as the Centre for Social Justice stated in its “Fractured Families” report.

On social well-being, the current problems in our local communities resulting from our failure to recognise marriage are pressing. As we have already heard, in December 2006 the CSJ’s report “Breakdown Britain” clearly resonated with the public. One of the key drivers of social challenges is family breakdown.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

No. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I will not. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Lady should carry on.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Fiona Bruce has made it absolutely clear that she has no intention of giving way at this stage. I am sure that she will make it clear if she changes her mind.

[Fiona Bruce]

I fully accept that the Government’s priority has been to clean up the terrible financial mess left by the previous Administration, which has necessarily involved difficult decisions, and I want to put on record today my support for the Government, who have not been afraid to grasp the nettle and make the difficult decisions that the previous Administration were incapable of making. Britain is on a much sounder footing today than was ever the case under the previous Administration, and I pay tribute to the Government’s hard work in this respect. However, even in the current economic environment, I believe that new clause 5 would, as I have outlined, be an investment well worth making both fiscally and socially. The Government have said that they will recognise marriage in the tax system at the appropriate time. I suggest that that time is now, particularly given that it would still take Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs some considerable time to implement a transferable tax allowance, because of the IT and other implications.

Does the Minister agree that the increased tax burden on one-earner married couples on an average wage—it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average burden on such families—commends the early introduction of the transferable allowance if we are to be, as we aspire to be, the most family-friendly country in Europe? What assessment has he made of the time it will take to make the necessary IT and other changes to give effect to the Government’s commitment to introduce the transferable allowance? If he has not made such an assessment, will he do so? I ask the Government to bring forward this legislation not when they are ready, but sufficiently in advance of that, so that all IT and planning changes can be made first, and when the money is available, transferable allowances can become operational quickly, not one or more years later.

The transferable personal allowance was a key election commitment from many of us in the House and an important reason why people voted for the Conservative party. They are now looking for action. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say, and I will conclude with a quotation from a speech given by the Chief Rabbi in another place earlier this year:

“If the Jewish experience has anything to say to Britain today it is: recognise marriage, not just cohabitation, as in the best interests of the child. Do so in the tax system. Do so in the educational system. Do so in relationship support. Otherwise, our children will pay the price—financial, educational, medical and psychological—for generations to come. Without stable marriages we will not have strong families, and without strong families we will not have a big society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 366-7.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being extremely generous. I am delighted that he believes that this should not be about incentivising—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please could the hon. Gentleman direct his comments through the Chair? That will also mean that I can hear what he is saying.

[Barry Gardiner]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has said that this measure is not about incentivising marriage, or about penalising people. Can he therefore explain why, under the proposals, a woman with children who has recently been widowed would suffer a financial loss at precisely the time when the family needed the money the most? That seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We cannot have any shouting. We want to listen to Catherine McKinnell.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to one of my friends from the north-east, who I am sure has something relevant to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Is the hon. Member giving way, or has he finished?

[John Hemming]

I thought I had finished.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is good enough for me.

[Nia Griffith]

I am delighted to be given this opportunity to speak, perhaps a little sooner than anticipated. I shall speak to new clause 10 and I specifically remind Members that it is about having an assessment of the impact of the VAT rate on UK economic growth. That is the area on which I shall focus; it is what we need to talk about if we want to get this country back on its feet.

We are not asking for a knee-jerk reaction. We recognise that there is a complex relationship between the various different fiscal measures that can be taken—between VAT and all the other types of fiscal measures. We also recognise the importance of a changing environment, as events elsewhere might affect our ability to export, for example, and economic events in different countries will impact on our economy in all sorts of ways.

Let us look at what has happened recently. We have massive inflation and businesses are having real difficulty. They are being badly squeezed. They are experiencing rising costs, rising costs and more rising costs, and they are having to make difficult judgments about how many of those costs they can pass on to consumers before they begin losing sales. Their difficulties have been compounded by the fact that they have had to contend with a higher VAT rate since January. They are making calculations daily. The costs of their raw materials are changing constantly. They must keep asking themselves, “What must we do in order to keep afloat?”, but the problem is, of course, that many of them are going under.

The Economy

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Birtwistle, just to save your legs, I do not think that Mr Blenkinsop is keen on allowing you an intervention.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Figures published on 10 June show that the seasonally adjusted index of production in April 2011 fell by 1.2% when compared with April 2010. In addition, the seasonally adjusted manufacturing figures saw output fall by 1.5%, and in my area, again, Teesside beam mill has shut down, the Ensus biofuels plant is on a four-month shutdown and the former Enron-run Teesside power station has been half mothballed. That has all happened during the tenure of this Government. We heard from the Chancellor how he believes that the economic ramifications of his policies occur within weeks, so it would be quite refreshing to hear Ministers take responsibility for the manufacturing downturn in my area.

Prospective packages from INEOS have been blocked, because it is looking for certainty, and a Government who rely on a weak pound for exports to lead their economic recovery are living in a fantasy land, given the constant credit squeeze from the Asian growth markets. The governing parties are quite willing to take the credit for manufacturing output increases, but they are still below 2008 levels and also match other manufacturing increases across the globe. They have nothing to do with the Government’s policies; they are about manufacturing at this moment in time across the globe.

The British Chambers of Commerce described the latest trade figures as “mediocre”, adding that

“the monthly underlying fall in the volume of exports is a matter for concern.”

What concerns me is that a Government who laud the benefits of manufacturing are also imposing ahead of their EU competitors a carbon floor-pricing policy that will stifle the very industries on which they rely for their growth. How are the Government going to get tax revenues from those industries when they no longer exist or move abroad? That is the stark reality, and we have to wake up to the fact that the biggest sectoral exporter in the country is the chemical industry, which will also be the most affected industry as a result of that policy.

In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor chose to increase VAT to 20%, despite the Tories repeatedly denying in their election that they had any plans to do so. The Treasury’s own figures show the estimated impact of the rise in VAT. The 2.5 percentage point rise will cost an average couple with children £450 a year and a pensioner couple £275 a year.

The rise will also have an impact on growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the increase in VAT to 20% will have the effect of reducing GDP during this financial year by about 0.3%. If we had a temporary reduction in VAT across the board, we would provide a boost for consumers by putting more money directly into people’s pockets, and we would be able to maintain it until there were certain figures, proved empirically, to show that an economy recovery was beginning.

The fact that this Government are not prepared to give former regional development agency assets to local enterprise partnerships, which are supposed to be this country’s local economic drivers, is an absolute demonstration that the Chancellor has no confidence in his own economic plan. The LEPs will have no rights to those assets, and that means that the Chancellor has no confidence in those local businesses that are engaged with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the number of people looking for jobs in his constituency this year compared with last. What would he say to the Welsh Government about that, and what is their responsibility for it? They have contributed to the greatest decline in Welsh gross domestic product over the past 12 years, making Wales the poorest part of the UK, which it was not previously.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) answers that intervention, I ask hon. Members please to keep interventions very short, because a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.

[Owen Smith]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I completely reject that entirely false characterisation of the Welsh economy. Most importantly, the Labour Government in Wales understand that growth will deliver improvements to our economy, not austerity, cutting or increasing the viciousness of the circle. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) ought to read The Times from this morning, because it is not only Labour Members who are worried that they have got no economic plan for growth from the Chancellor, but the chief executive officers of this country. On page 2, a reflection on the CEO summit states:

“There is...a real fear that a long, slow, feel-bad recovery will leave Britain a helpless bystander as the new economies of Asia, Africa and Latin America storm ahead.”

What does the article go on to say? It says that we need a plan for growth, that plan A is not working, and that we need an industrial strategy that highlights growth sectors, just as the Labour Government in Wales have highlighted life sciences, digital economy and advanced manufacturing.

We need to target and invest in such sectors in a serious, intelligent and structured way, but we are not doing so. As the CEO of Vodafone, which is not exactly a Marxist-led workers’ co-operative, says in The Times today, we in Britain have a “faith” that

“the market will sort it out”—

a misplaced faith that the market is always the answer. That is another lesson that Conservative Members have not learned. The market alone cannot deliver growth in this country. The Government need to intervene and direct intelligently. That is what history teaches us.

Finally, I was not going to talk about banking reform, but the Chancellor ended his speech by saying that Opposition Front Benchers did not talk about it, which admittedly they did not. We will wait and judge Government Members and the Chancellor by what they do on banking reform, but we do not know exactly what will happen on that yet, do we?

We know that the Chancellor has cancelled the bonus tax, and we know that he is talking about looking at banks’ capital-to-asset ratios and trying to ensure that the leveraging they have on their debts is brought into line, but we will see whether the Government make good on those promises, whether they go beyond Basel III and whether they do what the OECD, which has been prayed in aid several times today, is telling them to do and split off high-risk investment banking from commercial banking. These are the tough decisions that have to be taken by a party that likes to listen to its erstwhile colleagues in the banking sector—there are probably a few Conservative Members who used to work there. These are the people who speak and whisper in the Chancellor’s ear. He is not listening to ordinary working people in this country. He needs to start doing that, understand the pain he is causing and move to plan B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

Returning to the point about manufacturing, is my hon. Friend aware that under the premiership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, we saw a sharp—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to another hon. Member by his constituency.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Does my hon. Friend agree that manufacturing declined more sharply under the previous Government than it did under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher? Under the Labour Government, we saw an unprecedented decline in manufacturing.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To enable more Members to contribute to the debate, the time limit for speeches is now being reduced to six minutes.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who enriched us by deploying such a rich lexicon in dissecting the motion. Indeed, this debate is, in part, about language. I began my working life as a teacher of English, and although I have moved on from that, I can still identify a good yarn when I read or hear one, and that is what the Conservatives have been spinning since the general election. They have been spinning a good yarn—a seductive fable—but in truth it is a Tory tale of woe, with brief Lib Dem notes in the appendices. Regardless of how seductive and engaging people have at times found this yarn, it is not an accurate account, because the reality is very different.

The truth is that the country is facing difficult times because there has been a global banking crisis that required strong and decisive action to avoid a global catastrophe. That action was partly led by the then Prime Minister of this country. The situation is still challenging for our economy and others across the western world, as we have heard in the debate, but we must tackle the challenge in a sensible way.

In the general election campaign, the people of this country had every opportunity to hear the different arguments about how best to tackle that challenge, and they mostly supported candidates who proposed addressing the deficit in a serious and sensible way by halving it over the lifetime of a Parliament. The electorate voted for more candidates who supported that than Conservative candidates who, quite fairly, proposed a different approach. This is in part a sorry tale, therefore, because there is no mandate for the Government position.

When Labour left office a year or so ago, the economy was starting to grow strongly: inflation had fallen, and unemployment was falling month by month. As a result, in 2009-10 the Government borrowed more than £21 billion less than had been expected. Yet a year ago today, the Chancellor announced in his Budget speech that instead of following Labour’s plan to halve the deficit over four years—the plan that had been backed by the British people through votes cast in ballot boxes only a month earlier—he would eliminate the structural deficit by the end of this Parliament. That was a reckless decision; it was a choice to go too far, too fast, and the country is now facing great difficulties as a result.

In our debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) has highlighted that figures for construction and retail sales have been falling, that the consumer prices index target rate is higher than hoped, and that VAT has stimulated inflationary pressures. We have also heard that we have flat growth and that seasonally adjusted trade figures also remain flat.

The European Commission has just published the full results of a survey that shows a high level of dissatisfaction with the Government’s laissez-faire approach to tackling unemployment. The survey’s 22,560 respondents were asked whether they agreed that the economic crisis means that we should increase public deficits to create jobs. Two third’s of the UK respondents agreed with the statement, which is a much higher proportion than in any other major western country. They agreed that there should be investment in infrastructure. The Government have pulled Building Schools for the Future and various other infrastructure programmes, which has had a devastating impact on the construction industry.

In the community I represent, which is still quite dependent on steel jobs, the collapse in demand for construction has led to Tata Steel’s announcement of 1,500 job losses in its long products business. It is not surprising that Karl-Ulrich Köhler, when he came to Scunthorpe to make that announcement, gave two reasons for the decision: the fall in demand for section steel, both globally and domestically; and the threat of carbon taxes rising in 2013.

The Government’s decisions are having an impact today and for tomorrow on British manufacturing. We need to get behind projects such as the high-speed rail endeavour, which we hope, if it goes ahead, will be built with British steel. The Government have failed to deliver on their promises to invest in the British people. They have brought severe medicine to the country, much severer than was needed. There is real danger that the country will be left in a very difficult situation, after the legacy of an improving economic situation that they were left, which should have been—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Dr Thérèse Coffey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify whether I could find out from Hansard whether a Member had actually turned up for their own debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is certainly something that you could find out from Hansard, but it is not something that you can find out from me.

[Richard Graham]

I am glad to see that Opposition Members are focused on the topic of today’s debate.

As I was saying, the manufacturing recovery has softened slightly over the last month or two, but it is still strongly up on where it was a year ago. There is a lot to be done, but I would like now to highlight a few things that this Government have done in my constituency, and on which I am working with my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Conservative Members seem to forget what the Prime Minister said. In speech to the CBI, he said that the Government were sticking to Labour’s spending totals. Just weeks before the collapse of Northern Rock and for several months after it, he said to the Institute of Directors that if it wanted lower taxation and less regulation, he would—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has got the point.

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend. After the debacle of the intervention by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), she proves that we have some sensible voices in Wales.

Let me comment on the blasé attitude that these policies are going to work. That is what Government Members say, but what if they do not? I suspect the Chancellor would say, “Not my fault, guv. It was the snow.” It could be hailstones next time or perhaps it will even be too sunny. I imagine that his plan B is quantitative easing. It is all very well printing money, but the key to it is spending. We have to prove to people—[Interruption.] I mean consumer spending—we will speak about the other issue tomorrow. We need to give people the confidence to spend in our shops and ensure that people are in jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. An hon. Member has been accused of misleading the House. I assume that the hon. Lady meant unintentionally misleading it. She should withdraw that comment.

[Ms Eagle]

I am happy to withdraw it, but the hon. Gentleman is presenting the House with a narrative that is so partial that it is very difficult to understand what he meant.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

We are taking steps to support manufacturing and to make the UK more competitive with a stronger tax system. I therefore propose that the clause stand part of the Bill and ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Mr Hanson.

[Mr Hanson]

Good afternoon, Mr Evans. Can I welcome you to the Chair of this seemingly unending Committee, which has been going on for the past couple of days?

I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but I think that the amendment is very modest: we are asking for a report in 18 months’ time, in October 2012, on the impact of the changes. We ask for that, because my right hon. and hon. Friends retain an element of concern that the cut in manufacturing capital allowances will damage some manufacturing sectors. Based on those concerns, we wish to continue to reflect on those matters, and I therefore wish to put the amendment to a Division, so that we can place on the record our concerns about the capital allowance cuts and state that we wish to review the matter very clearly in 18 months’ time, in October 2012.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

If I may, Mr Evans, I shall try to touch briefly on the wider policies to which my hon. Friend refers. I am conscious that clause 35 is specific to higher-rate tax relief—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am delighted that Members mention clause 35 from time to time, but it is really quite specific. This is not a general debate on child care or indeed on other policies. Perhaps we could focus more on the provisions contained in clause 35.

[Mr Hanson]

We have known each other since our elections to the House on 9 April 1992, Mr Evans, and as ever, I shall try to keep to your strictures as the good Chairman that you are. You will note that amendment 8, which you did not select, would have prompted a wide-ranging discussion on the impact on child care. I am trying to focus on clause 35 and not to stray into amendment 8 or the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) touched on. However, those issues are important when we are looking at the impact of clause 35 on a particular group of people, because that same group of people will lose child benefit and a range of other child care support measures because of their income, and that will shatter the principle of universality that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned.

The Opposition will listen to the debate on clause 35, but we might oppose it. However, there are important points to be examined and answered in detail today. First, how do we use the resource? Secondly, how do we implement the policy? Thirdly, will the Minister answer the challenges made by external bodies about the operation of the clause in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend: that is a good point well made. There are a number of levels where the Government now have an opportunity to stop, reflect and listen to representations—to steal a phrase from the Health Secretary—about the impact of the policy on the economy. I am sure that that impact was never intended, but it should certainly be taken into account if people now have a perverse incentive not to engage actively in earning a living and making a contribution to society.

Child benefit is a key part of the welfare state, and one that applies the principle of universality to all families in recognition of society’s duty to support not just families, but future generations. I had always assumed that that was a cross-party commitment, irrespective of party political allegiance. However, by taking away £1,000 in child benefit and child tax credits from families earning just over £40,000, the coalition Government are damaging our system of welfare for the future. We know—or at least we suspect—that the measure is more to do with trying to undermine the strong support of middle England and the middle classes for the welfare state. We on the Opposition Benches suspect that the purpose of the measure is to move British politics in a new direction. My concern is that an Americanised system of low taxation with a basic safety net to catch those at the very bottom would be a move in the wrong direction.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is becoming more of a general debate about the welfare state, which is clearly not what is dealt with in clause 35, which is actually quite specific. I have given a lot of latitude up to now, but we must now focus on clause 35.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Evans. I shall try to ensure that we focus on the clause.

Let me quote some figures from the House of Commons Library that give some detail on the implications of the clause. The Library has calculated that some families will be £1,700 a year worse off owing to the Government’s proposed tax and benefit changes. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned of the

“considerable increase in the effective tax burden of those on incomes in the £40,000 to 50,000 bracket”,

which the clause deals with. The Chartered Institute of Taxation also said that

“increasing the tax burden on middle-income households while withdrawing tax credits and child benefit from them will result in their being squeezed proportionately more than those on higher incomes”.

In addition to families on more than £40,000 a year losing benefits, as set out in the clause, families will lose £450 a year on average because of the VAT increase. Added to that, child benefit has been frozen for three years, which equates to a real-terms cut of more than £75 this year for a family with three children, and the baby element of the child tax credit, which is worth £545 a year, has been scrapped. Added together, that all amounts to a quite astonishing attack.

The Chancellor’s answer to cutting the deficit has been to shrink growth and cut support for families and the most vulnerable. In my constituency, take-home pay is almost 20% lower than the national average. Young men and women have struggled to raise families in my area, which has been blighted by unemployment for more than three decades. The previous Government not only provided greater financial support for those struggling families; they also invested in schools and communities, and tried to revitalise and diversify the economy and create new jobs. The programme offered by this Government, and particularly the provisions in clause 35, will turn the clock back to the 1980s, not only for Easington and large parts of County Durham and the north-east but for many of the great cities in the north and for many people who aspire to raise themselves up and to progress.

My contention is that the clause breaks with the principle of universality and that that is likely to be followed up with tax cuts as a pre-election sweetener. In that way, the Government are beginning the process of undermining our welfare state, which they appear to have opposed in one form or another since its foundation 60 years ago. The last Labour Government significantly increased income-related support for families through tax credits, and they also systematically increased child benefit and maintained their commitment to progressive universalism. The Chancellor has frozen child benefit for three years, ditched progressive universalism and hiked up VAT—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going much wider than clause 35. Does he wish to resume?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Yes, I will try to bring my remarks back to the clause.

I am fully aware that the amendment that was tabled in the name of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench was not selected—[Interruption.] We shall not be able to talk about it in the debate. Getting back to clause 35, we would require the Government to look at how their policies of tax and spend are affecting families right across Britain—

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his advice, which I am not going to take. We are talking very narrowly about clause 35.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr Evans, that I shall conclude my remarks in a few moments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to place that excellent point on the record.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to take a breath and reflect further on clause 35 rather than digging into the position announced last October, as the provisions will not be implemented until two years from now. Why does the Chancellor not agree to look again at the effect of his taxation policies? He has an opportunity to do so before 2013. He needs to reflect on the impact of the removal of child care tax relief, child benefit and child tax credits, which, taken together, mark an attack not just on families but on the welfare state as a whole.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the Budget report and the UK’s convergence programme. The Ayes were 249 and the Noes were 139, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Andrew Gwynne]

It was not my intention to speak in the clause 35 stand part debate. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), however, I have decided that it is important for me to do so.

As has already been said, the clause introduces schedule 8, which introduces changes to the higher rate taxpayer relief for child care. That was first announced by the Government and, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, Labour does not oppose it, except for the important point—I bear in mind your earlier strictures on not extending the debate too widely, Mr Evans—that the measure has a wider impact on the Government’s child care policy and how it fits in with the Budget measures.

I have some sympathy with the notion of expanding child care places for two-year-olds. The previous Labour Government made greater provision for early years education, which has been incredibly beneficial to those children. I declare an interest in that all three of my children went through early years education under a Labour Government and, thanks to that Government’s investment, they are doing brilliantly at primary and secondary school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I entirely understand what my hon. Friend has said. There is a real inconsistency in the Government’s approach. While I think it commendable to raise additional money to target early years provision, particularly in constituencies such as mine, I also think that the Government’s so-called family-friendly approach is deeply questionable. As I said earlier in an intervention, when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition he made it clear that he would be proud to lead the most family-friendly Government in history. Whether the Government are family-friendly is, of course, a matter for debate and conjecture. I can only say that the constituents who regularly come to my advice bureau seem to have been clobbered time and again by the changes that the Government are implementing, many of which—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is much too wide of the mark again. If he cares to look at page 21 of the Bill, he will see that clause 35 is only 11 words long and is drafted quite precisely. Will he now please focus on the clause?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will do so, Mr Evans, and I take your point precisely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

As I mentioned in my speech—it is further confirmed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—the provision in clause 35 is based on an estimate of whether the employer will have earnings that exceed the higher rate limit on a particular payday. That causes some difficulties with fairness because there will be people who work part time, who change circumstances or who are on maternity leave for part of the year and the implementation of this is as potentially worrying as the policy—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The shadow Minister is talking about the schedule, which, as he knows, will be discussed in the Public Bill Committee.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Having heard your ruling, Mr Evans, I would not wish to stray on to the issue of the schedule. Suffice it to say that HMRC is often very good at making a complicated system far worse, as we have seen in the past with tax credits. That is straying quite wide of clause 35, however.

Let me bring my comments to a close. The Government’s intentions are good—they want to invest more in early years—but I think they are going about it in the wrong way. Their wider family-oriented policies are deeply flawed and clause 35 fails the fairness test. We need the Government seriously to rethink the range of family policies that they have introduced in the Budget, of which clause 35 plays an important part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

Did my hon. Friend attend Prime Minister’s questions, given that she said that “redistribute” was a word heard more often among Opposition Members, and redistribution is perhaps a policy more often pursued by the Opposition? The Prime Minister ruled out redistribution almost unilaterally as a means by which we could help—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I listened to the Prime Minister at PMQs, and I did not hear him refer once to clause 35. This is rather specific. I know that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) wants to talk about the broader generalities, but that is not what clause 35 is about; otherwise the debate would be very general indeed.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful, Mr Evans. I am mindful of the provisions in clause 35, which is specifically about taxation and tax breaks for child care. This is about redistribution, and I will say in passing—just one sentence, I promise—that I am proud of Labour’s record on redistribution. We do not talk about it as loudly and proudly as we should in my view, but a set of redistributive policies since 1997 took 600,000 children out of poverty.

To return to the meat of the clause, I am proud of the way in which we redistributed spending in favour of families and children, particularly the spending that we directed towards building significantly increased child care provision. That is a significant creation of child care provision. It is not perfect, as a number of families are still not provided for, but by any measure it was a step change in provision and a fundamental change in the child care landscape which resulted from Labour policies over the past 13 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right. She highlights another of the Government’s key strategic objectives, an objective that commands great support and interest across the House, but the Government fail to put in the infrastructure and the investment that would enable them to deliver such an objective. Again, that is a matter of regret.

Any parent will say that child care remains an enormous challenge for families, particularly in terms of helping parents to access the labour market, but much more broadly than that. We know that UK parents already pay the highest child care charges of any parents in the OECD. That is probably why in the OECD report just last week on progress on child poverty across the OECD nations, it was specifically identified—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is turning into a general debate on child poverty and that is not what clause 35 is about. It is about higher earners. I am sure the hon. Lady has read the clause. Will she speak just to clause 35, please?

[Kate Green]

I beg your pardon. This was not intended to be a general discourse on child poverty. There was a specific reference in the OECD report to the importance of child care, and it is specifically that element of the report that I feel is relevant to the clause, but I entirely accept that we are discussing the implications particularly of the provision to remove the tax break for higher earners. My point is what do we do with that money. That must be a financial consideration too.

[Kate Green]

Indeed, and that does not make good fiscal sense. It cannot be sensible for public money to be invested but then not exploited for the benefit of the community, those families and, indeed, the economy. In the context of this Finance Bill debate, that surely has to be at the heart of our scrutiny of its clauses.

It is also important that we understand just how much is going on to make it even more challenging for parents to afford child care, and therefore why it was all the more important to use the funding that the tax break before us is saving in order to replace some of the funding that is being lost for the provision of child care.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Just to inform the House, I am not going to allow a general debate, either, about what the money could have been spent on. We are talking about the merits, just simply, of clause 35.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful.

What is important about the legislation behind clause 35 is that it retained all parents, higher-income parents as well as lower-income parents, in a single integrated child care market. It ensured that all parents received some financial support that helped to create, expand and ensure the quality of that market.

When lots of families participate in a child care market, the market is sustained, secure and improved in terms of what it can offer to families, and that is important for raising the aspirations of families and children, a particularly important strand of the Government’s social mobility strategy. If we are to remove higher-income families from the ambit of the child care market, and Opposition Members all understand why the Government might choose to do so, it is very important indeed that we recognise the potentially deleterious effects on the quality of the child care market for those families who remain within it—those families whom we want to remain within it because of the improvements that it can secure for children’s outcomes. Importantly, therefore, when removing that tax advantage we must be very careful to ensure that we compensate for any damaging effects that its removal might have on the general landscape of child care provision, including its quality and its availability for other families who remain within its ambit.

This is very much a debate in the context of a Finance Bill. It is therefore a debate about what works most effectively for the economic strength of the country, and it is very much a debate about how best we come through the recovery and start to promote the return of the growth that we all hope to see. We have just begun to see it return hesitantly and slowly, but we now want to see it improve.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend leads us into really important territory: the issue of universal provision. If we are going to start to eat into that universal approach, for good reasons, we have to be very mindful of and careful about the consequences, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight the consequences for social cohesion, which is a key fundamental of good economic growth.

We are not going to do well as a national economy if we have to compensate all the time for a fractured society, a society of strains and tensions, in which the public pick up the cost all the time in order to remedy the damage that that causes. My hon. Friend is therefore absolutely right to point out that undermining the universal approach has potentially dangerous consequences for our economic performance down the line—[Interruption.] I sense that the Chairman fears that I am straying slightly—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Not slightly!

[Kate Green]

Not slightly—straying from the ambit of clause 35.

My hon. Friend’s point is correct: fundamentally, the clause removes a universal approach, an approach that keeps everyone in the context of the child care market and the wider social community. That is a really important point.

It is also important to recognise that we are talking about developing children’s long-term economic potential. I do not like to think of our children as future economic actors—I like to think of them enjoying and making the most of their childhood now—but they are the next generation of providers and sustainers of our economy and community care for us in our old age. Removing this financial support from some families and not placing it in the child care market means that some children will be more likely to lose the advantages that good-quality, professional, formal child care can bring.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is adding great expertise to the debate with her background in this area of policy. Although clause 35 was a mechanism that was suggested by the previous Labour Government, is not the difference between our approach and that of the Government that we would have invested the money raised back into child care provision?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. I am not going to allow any further discussion as to what the money could have been spent on. This debate is simply about clause 35. I know that the hon. Lady has expertise in this matter, so I ask her to restrict herself to clause 35, which relates to higher earners’ child care.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful, Mr Evans. I was mindful of your earlier injunction not to stray into a discussion of what the money be spent on, and I do not intend to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I wonder about the specific impact of clause 35 on bankruptcy and personal insolvency, given the loss of tax credits for middle-income families who will be faced with quite considerable personal burdens. That is part of the transfer of debt from the state to the individuals in low-income families, as highlighted by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Insolvency Practitioners Association highlights the rapid increase in the number of personal insolvencies and bankruptcies, and perhaps the increasing cost of child care will be a factor—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions must, by definition, be short. That was wide of the mark and does not need a response.

[Kate Green]

We are aware of the difficulty in planning the paying for child care. Parents are often required to pay a lump sum at the beginning of term or for a group of sessions. They are often required to pay for sessions that they subsequently cannot use for various reasons, but there is no money-back guarantee. Parents will often pay for sessions for more than one child, but there is no financial advantage to them; there is regrettably no bulk discount when buying child care.

Removing money from parents that they could have used to meet some of the burden and the lumpiness in the structure of the way that child care charges are often levied will be a real financial burden on family budgets. Some families will take on debt to meet those commitments, because parents will always try to put their children’s best interests first. If they are happy with their current child care setting, they will do all that they can to keep their child in that stable child care place.

Even if parents are worried that they might be unable to afford that place because of the loss of the tax advantage but can see a time coming when they could resume paying for that place, they will none the less not want to give up that child care place. If they think that they can afford the place again in six or 12 months’ time because their economic prospects might improve, they will stagger on through those six or 12 months, desperate to keep their child in that child care place for two reasons. First, they know that child care places are like gold dust and that, if they give one up, they might not get one back again very easily. That is certainly the case in some parts of the country. Secondly, they know that it will be good for the child. If a child is thriving, doing well and prospering in a settled, high-quality child care place, a parent will make all sorts of sacrifices elsewhere to sustain that child in that place.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 9, page 41, line 27, at end add—

‘(2) The Chancellor shall review the bank levy and publish a report, before 31 December 2011, on—

(a) the Government’s analysis behind the rate and threshold chosen for the bank levy;

(b) the adequacy of the bank levy in the context of other reforms to the wider banking system; and

(c) the total tax revenues expected from banks across all categories of taxation in each year from 2011-12 to 2016-17.’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Chris Leslie]

We find ourselves in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, a rather large two-volume measure that, over the coming two days on the Floor of the House, we will no doubt explore in some detail. The Bill will then progress upstairs to Committee, where more detailed scrutiny will take place.

It is a peculiarity of Ways and Means resolutions and of the way in which proposed finance legislation is scrutinised in the House of Commons that hon. Members who are not Ministers may not table amendments to Finance Bills that would have the effect of raising the level of taxation. That was news to me, perhaps because I was in government and did not think about tabling such amendments, but the rules of order are as they are, so the amendment does not propose—because we cannot—an increase in the rate of the bank levy. Instead, it calls for a review of the rate and the general approach to bank taxation adopted by the Treasury. It seeks to look into the rationale behind the rate that the Treasury has chosen for the bank levy and why a number of other choices were made.