Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Penny Mordaunt and Adam Afriyie

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I will attempt to answer the points that I did not answer during Second Reading.

The Bill has been introduced to support public bodies and wider society in responding to a serious emergency. The Bill is required as part of a concerted effort across the whole of the UK to tackle the outbreak. The intention is to get to a position whereby the right people—public agencies in all four countries—take the right action, as set out in the UK coronavirus action plan, at the right time, as a result of decisions taken by the four UK Governments, usually under the auspices of Cobra, using the same powers, at the same time, in the same way.

The action plan sets out the options that can be taken as part of that response. This Bill ensures that the agencies and services involved—schools, hospitals and the police—have the tools and powers they need. They are our front line in our fight against this disease, and they have the right to expect our support for the action they need to take. The Bill provides the possibility for that for the duration of the emergency.

Turning to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), we cannot use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to do this. If we have time to bring forward legislation, it is proper that we do that, and anything we did under the powers of the 2004 Act would apply for only 30 days. He should have the reassurances he asked for earlier on other rules that we follow, such as on the military aid to civil authorities protocol.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

It seems to me that the whole purpose of the 30-day provision in the Civil Contingencies Act was for the Executive to be accountable to Parliament. For example, those checks and balances would be needed in a scenario where—I am not suggesting this in any way, shape or form—the Government say that nobody can travel, and Parliament is therefore unable to reconvene. I simply point that out, but I do not intend to divide the Committee.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend has made my point for me. That is why we need this particular course of action, as opposed to relying on the Civil Contingencies Act.

I turn to the six-month review. I want to reiterate how these decisions will be made in an incredibly dynamic situation. Apart from a few parts of the Bill, these powers are not live at Royal Assent. They will be called upon or drawn down by the appropriate Government in the four nations—it is obviously appropriate that some of these decisions should be for the devolved nations—and they could be applied to very local areas, depending on what is happening in that particular situation.

We are therefore ensuring that the support that people need is there, with regular reports and debates in Parliament, to ensure proportionate accountability that does not itself make the management of this outbreak harder than it already is. These mechanisms currently include Ministers reporting to Parliament every two months on how we have used these powers. There will also be a debate after 12 months and a meaningful vote on renewal after 24.

We have also listened to people’s concerns about the need for periodic reviews of these powers. The Government have therefore tabled an amendment to the Bill that will enable the House of Commons to take a view every six months on whether the provisions of the Act need to be reviewed. That will be done within seven days of each six-month period if Parliament is sitting. If the House declines to renew these temporary provisions, the Government will ensure that they expire.

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between Penny Mordaunt and Adam Afriyie

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I welcome this debate and the motion tabled by the Backbench Business Committee and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

Of all campaigns in this Parliament, I have received the highest level of communication from my Windsor constituents about the air passenger duty, and that says a lot. My constituents are wonderful people. They are incredibly articulate and eloquent, and although they are extremely good at writing letters on all sorts of subjects, I was taken aback by the level of communication on this issue.

Although we love our noisy neighbour, Heathrow, do not wish to see it close and hope that its status will be maintained, the air passenger duty lies right at the heart of the airport’s future. We will need further capacity in the south-east, but Heathrow is not fully utilised at the moment, and I wonder whether part of our failure to use it to its full capacity is due to air passenger duty.

Let me make some brief observations about APD. First, it is an odd tax in its own right; it is a tax on the free movement of people and goods in our country, the European Union and the world in general. It is a harmful tax—it harms competition and trade—and it is damaging to our reputation and connections with the rest of the world. The tax directly affects people’s behaviour. I am sure that many hon. Members have had their mouse hovering over the online basket when buying air tickets, and then suddenly realised that on occasion, the tax is higher than the price of the ticket. That bizarre anomaly lies at the heart of today’s debate.

It strikes me that there is an evidence-sized hole at the heart of this debate. The Treasury may have conducted reviews into how much revenue is raised and how much money APD brings in, but the absence of a full review leaves a huge hole and lack of information about the overall economic impact of this tax on our nation.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I represent Portsmouth, which is quite a deprived area, and my constituents are concerned about keeping interest rates low and expect the Government to be watchful of the cost of living and life’s necessities. Much like my hon. Friend, however, the volume of mail that I have received on this issue suggests that my constituents are sceptical about whether air passenger duty produces a positive return for the Exchequer.

[Adam Afriyie]

My hon. Friend puts her point incredibly well. This issue has led to more than 200,000 communications with Members of the House of Commons, let alone the House of Lords and other places. Interestingly, just 100,000 names on a petition would have, in any case, triggered a debate in this Chamber, and the Government would have had to listen closely to that.

APD is a very blunt tool. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) referred to his days studying economics in the ‘80s. I also studied economics at that time, and it is clear that air passenger duty does not recognise the elasticity of demand, and potentially the elasticity of supply. It does not differentiate between different types of consumer or passenger.

The APD is also a blunt instrument and an anomaly because it does not deal with carbon emissions or global warming—the EU emissions trading system deals with them. The APD does not recognise opportunity cost. By raising revenue through the APD, the Exchequer might be forgoing a great deal more revenue from trade and travel, which might generate economic activity in other spheres.

The APD is an odd tax, but I should give a little credit to the Government, who had an opportunity to raise even more money from it in the past year or two. Thankfully, they contained the rate of increase. Nevertheless, it is beholden on them to consider the overall economic impact of the APD to ensure we have evidence and move forward on a rational basis and tidy up the matter.

The beauty of the motion is not just its presenter, but the motion itself and the fact that it is reasonable. It is not strident and does not attack the Government, and it is not party political. We have had a free and easy debate because all hon. Members recognise that we are talking about the rational outcome of tax. The motion is not party political or contentious; it is plain common sense. I urge my good and hon. Friend the Minister wholly to embrace the direction of the motion and to commission an overall review of the economic impact of this rather bizarre tax that is holding our country back.