Iraq Inquiry Report
Pete Wishart Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him down his comparison between Dr Strangelove and past Prime Ministers, but he is right in one respect: the most important element of this is what we learn from our mistakes. However, there are also issues of accountability and closure, which I will return to in a moment.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am reluctant to interrupt, because I am very much enjoying the powerful case that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but I invite him to ignore the representations of his colleague, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), because this war is bound up with one key individual: Tony Blair. For ever and a day, he will be associated with this particular war. It was personalised around the personality of that Prime Minister. As far as I am concerned, he could have a tattoo across his forehead reading “Iraq”, such is his legacy. This will be a comment and a statement about his day. I was in this House when we voted to go to war, as was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and I had to listen to the nonsense and drivel that was that former Prime Minister’s case for war. Please let us make sure that where blame is to be apportioned, it is apportioned rightly.
Mr Davis
I will come back to this issue in the latter part of my speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I have a very dear common friend who thinks that Mr Blair should be at The Hague, so there is a range of opinion on this, but to come to that conclusion today would be to pre-empt the report. I do not intend to do that, but I do intend to turn to the issue of accountability in a minute.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Pete Wishart Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
This is a debate about the threat of cuts facing some of the most vulnerable people in our society. This is not a time for engaging in student union politics in this Chamber.
By Friday of last week, the Chancellor was facing so much criticism that he needed to find someone to blame. So, in one of the most despicable acts we have witnessed in recent political history, the Chancellor sent out his large team of spin doctors to try to lay the blame on the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. That was a disgraceful act of betrayal of one of the Chancellor’s own Cabinet colleagues to save his own skin and his leadership hopes.
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. Leave me to deal with this. Mr Cleverly, I have known you for years and you have always struck me as a very polite fellow. You are getting over-excited, young man. You will have an opportunity to intervene, perhaps in due course, but you don’t do it like that. Learn from a few old hands.
Pete Wishart
I am surprised that the shadow Chancellor is taken in by some of the crocodile tears from the Tories and this concern for the disabled. Surely he agrees that this is nothing to do with the Tories’ new-found concern for the disabled in this country—it is all about their euro civil war.
John McDonnell
Let me move on. I appreciate the point made. The betrayal was why the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green resigned. I have not agreed with a single policy that he has brought forward, but I do not doubt his sincerity in the policies that he has pursued.
Enterprise Bill [Lords]
Pete Wishart Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. Can you explain exactly what is going on with this particular procedure we are asked to consider?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Do not worry. I can give the answer now: no, I do not.
There will now be a joint debate on the consent motion for England and Wales and the consent motion for England. I remind hon. Members that all Members may speak in the debate but that, if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England on the consent motion for England.
I call the Minister to move the consent motion for England and Wales. I remind the Minister that, under Standing Order No. 83M(4), on moving the consent motion, the Minister must also inform the Committee of the terms of consent for England.
The Chairman
I think the Ayes have definitely got this one. It was a lonely but valiant effort.
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.
Third Reading
Alan Brown
My first time on a Bill Committee was during the passage of this Bill, and the journey has certainly been interesting from start to finish. In Committee, as outlined by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we had a vote that was not a vote and then a re-vote, but that will hopefully not be the future. Today, it was good that the Secretary of State gave the SNP complete credit for the Government defeat. We are happy to take that, but it was actually the result of work across the House and the amendment of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).
I was slightly frustrated by today’s proceedings, because I hoped to table an amendment relating to cash retentions, which is a big issue in the construction industry. It represents another missed opportunity for the Government. Our attempt to table an amendment proves that we are not about grabbing headlines, and we have been serious from start to finish in what we are doing.
Pete Wishart
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has some words of consolation for the Secretary of State, who seemed to be unduly upset about the temerity of SNP Members to come to the House and vote in the interests of Scottish workers. Does my hon. Friend have any advice to help him to get over his grievance?
Alan Brown
The Secretary of State could give us further devolution for a start. If we had been given more powers in the Scotland Bill, as we wanted, perhaps the Government would need to worry less about us.
Another interesting aspect of what we have seen today is the Government’s last-minute so-called “concessions”, and we are going to get amendments that we do not know about, in the House of Lords. The Government need to make up their mind whether they are in favour of the House of Lords and what is being done in there or not. Only last week they were not happy with what the House of Lords is doing but today we are supposed to vote with the Government because the Lords will save us—I do not know where we are going with that.
Scotland Bill
Pete Wishart Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and he has the ears of those on the SNP Benches. He is right that we have got a halfway house and we have got to get this resolved. That is what the Scottish people thought they were voting for when they voted for us in such numbers. Is there anything the hon. Gentleman can do to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen to what Scotland has said, and to have the proper solution and ensure we do this right and get what the Scottish people voted for just a few weeks ago?
Nigel Mills
I have tried to convince the Treasury Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), of various tax reforms over the last five years with, I would have to say, somewhat limited success, so I am not sure my words will help. If we are to achieve a lasting settlement of our constitution, having these tax rules in the right place with everyone understanding them and believing them to be fair will be extremely important. I do not think my constituents will understand how Scotland can set a different rate of income tax from what they pay if Scottish MPs are still able to vote on the English rate of income tax because it applies to passive income and dividend income. I suspect we will get into a constitutional nightmare, and I can foresee a situation in which Scotland chooses a lower rate of income tax than we have in England, and the English taxpayer will, rightly or wrongly, see a subsidy going from England to Scotland through the Barnett formula and then SNP MPs coming here and voting for a higher rate of income tax than their constituents are paying. That is the nightmare we would hate to see.
We need to have a clear devolution of taxes and responsibility, not what I fear we have here: a halfway fudge that we will have to try to fix in a few years’ time.
David Mundell
As my hon. Friend knows, we had lengthy discussions in the Smith commission on the balance between the respective responsibilities, and it was agreed that while income tax should remain part of the wider UK tax regime, these specific significant powers would be moved to the Scottish Parliament. I believe that that creates the balance we were seeking.
David Mundell
No, I will not at this stage—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is one of the most frequent contributors to debates in the House, and he does get to have his say, although not as much as his former leader does. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is a very frequent contributor.
The SNP’s new clause 54 goes further than amendment 124, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). However, to go further than the powers set out in the Bill would break the concept of shared tax and be complicated for individuals and employers with activity on both sides of the border, as they would have to understand and comply with two potentially entirely different tax systems. The Law Society of Scotland agreed with us, saying of the proposed change:
“The administrative burden would increase considerably. The complexities regarding the UK savings and investment market may also be particularly problematic”.
That would not be in keeping with a stronger Scotland within the United Kingdom. It is not what the people of Scotland voted for last September, and I cannot accept the new clause.
On new clause 32, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the House. The new clause is intended to provide the House with a report on the implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax and the further income tax powers in the Bill. That is a laudable aim, but I can reassure hon. Members that current legislation already provides for annual reports on the implementation of devolved tax powers to Scotland.
Section 33 of the Scotland Act 2012 requires the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers to lay before both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament annual reports that broadly cover the areas suggested in the new clause. Three reports have already been produced, the most recent in March, and HMRC’s accounting officer for the Scottish rate and the Comptroller and Auditor General have both given evidence to the Scottish Parliament on the progress of tax devolution to Scotland. Of course, Westminster Committees have the opportunity to call for evidence, too. Alongside that existing requirement and to ensure that Parliament can have confidence in the implementation and operation of the Scottish rate, the Comptroller and Auditor General is required to report annually on HMRC’s administration of the Scottish rate.
I can also tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh South that I am satisfied that adequate resources are being brought forward to deal with the issues relating to the transfer of these powers to Scotland and to HMRC’s involvement in that process. I would further reassure Members that reporting requirements are a feature of the negotiations currently under way between the two Governments on the fiscal settlement that accompanies the Bill.
I have set out the rationale behind the Government’s drafting of the Bill, which, as has been widely acknowledged, fully implements the Smith commission’s recommendations on income tax. The fiscal framework will be an important part of the discussions, and we are giving this exercise the focus and priority that it deserves.
Ian Murray
It is great to see you in the Chair, Ms Engel. Congratulations on your elevation to Deputy Speaker. It appears that in tonight’s debate there is a sense of déjà vu, as we debated full fiscal autonomy a few weeks ago. Given that the Committee stage of this Bill has been dominated by the SNP manifesto commitment to deliver full fiscal autonomy and bringing forward its watered down promise to deliver it this year, it is good that we have the opportunity to try to put it into this Bill. In fact, as we witnessed last week, the SNP’s hand had to be forced by its arch Thatcherite colleagues, when its Members went into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I said at the time that the worst possible scenario for Scotland would be the SNP demanding full fiscal autonomy and its being delivered by a majority Conservative Government. Those words were echoed—
Ian Murray
Let me just finish this point. Those words were echoed by Dave Watson, the head of campaigns at Unison Scotland, who said:
“An incoming Tory government faced with a big number of SNP MPs, saying, ‘OK, if that’s what Scotland voted for, let’s give them Full Fiscal Autonomy.’ The Treasury would be able to dump £7.5bn of the deficit on the Scottish Government and just walk away.”
The fact that the SNP has another fudged amendment this evening shows that it does not believe that full fiscal autonomy would be good for Scotland.
Ian Murray
Before the hon. Gentleman pops up to say, “Too wee, too stupid and too poor,” as he always does, may I remind the House that that was a phrase coined by the SNP Finance Secretary and no one else? It is worth putting that on the record, given that he always pops up to say that.
Lord Smith of Kelvin said in his report that one of the primary aims of the Smith agreement was to provide the Scottish Parliament with accountability—
Ian Murray
I said that I would give way, and I will do so when I have made a little progress, given the late hour.
Lord Smith said that the Scottish Parliament was a Parliament that spends resources but does not raise any, so there is no accountability or responsibility. The Scotland Act 2012 resolved that position a little with the devolution of the most immovable taxes and 10p of income tax—
Ian Murray
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before he bursts a blood vessel.
Pete Wishart
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This rewriting of history is great and it is fantastic to find out the position of the Scottish National party, but perhaps he can explain the position of Scottish Labour. He abstained on full fiscal autonomy. Is that because he is uncertain, or is he perhaps now unsure about full fiscal autonomy?
Ian Murray
I am delighted by that intervention. What I did not want to do last week was rain on the parade of the Scottish National party as its Members went through the Lobby with the Thatcherite Conservatives to deliver full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. That is what seems to be wrong. The SNP is in full agreement with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) again tonight on the subject of the devolution of the entirety of income tax. Perhaps the party has a right-wing agenda after all.
As we know, the Bill provides full control of nearly 50% of revenues and more than 60% of spending. According to the Library, that will be 65% if the devolution of housing benefit is agreed tomorrow, making it one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The OECD ranked the Smith proposals and came to the same conclusion.
With that accountability and responsibility must come transparency and honesty. During the general election campaign, the First Minister and SNP candidates repeatedly said that they would vote for full fiscal autonomy this year. That was reaffirmed in the television debates. All the impartial and independent expert analysis of full fiscal autonomy shows clearly that that would devastate Scotland’s financial position. That is the genesis of our new clause 1. If the Scottish Government want to dismiss all the independent experts simply because they do not agree with them, let us set up an independent commission to consider the consequences on Scotland’s finances of full fiscal autonomy.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is worth recapping at the end of this debate why we are here and why we are having this debate at all. We are still talking about the deficit because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to fulfil his promise to get rid of that level of borrowing—the difference between our expenditure and our income as a nation. This charter, of course, is a device designed to distract from the Chancellor’s failure, making out as though the Tories still have a plan as they originally set out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) correctly pointed out, this debate was also supposed to provide a party political opportunity to smear the Opposition and to set up the Conservatives’ election tactics.
Chris Leslie
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The trouble for the Chancellor is that this debate gives us an opportunity to draw attention to his colossal failure to fulfil his promise to tackle the deficit. In his eagerness to trip up the Opposition, he has caught himself in a series of contradictions and entangled himself in his own spin.
We should remember that it was only nine months ago that this charter was changed. It keeps changing because the Government desperately have to pretend that they have a grip on things and that they are somehow on top of the deficit issue. The deficit after the next general election, however, is predicted to be a massive £76 billion. Revenues have collapsed over the lifetime of this Parliament, and we have seen rising tax credits and rising levels of housing benefit to subsidise low pay and the high-rent economy that the Chancellor has been fashioning. The Government now find themselves with an extra £200 billion-worth of borrowing over what they originally set out.
The Tories love to talk tough. They publish their documents—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see the Chancellor back in his place. He loves to bang that Dispatch Box and was getting very shouty and loud in his earlier contributions, but the reality is that his strategy has failed. The Chancellor and the Chief Secretary do not have a clue about what they are doing.
The debate was revealing, however, and I would like to ask the Chancellor about it. He said in his opening remarks that his deficit plan had not gone any slower than he had planned. I have taken the opportunity to look at the Hansard record of what the Chancellor said. He said:
“What we have done is cut the deficit by a half. We have neither gone faster than we said we were going to go, nor gone slower than we said we were going to go.”
The Chancellor has got himself into a terrible muddle if he thinks that he did not promise to eradicate the deficit back in 2010. The Prime Minister himself said:
“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books.”
That was the Prime Minister’s solemn promise to the country.
The Chancellor did become a little bit over-excited. Perhaps he found this rather a difficult occasion, given that the situation was blowing up in his face. Not only did he get into a tangle thinking that he had not changed his deficit reduction plan, but he got into a terrible muddle with the charter. That is quite embarrassing for the Prime Minister in particular. At 3.30 pm on 15 December, the Prime Minister said in a speech that targeting the current budget deficit would be
“a great, black, ominous cloud”
—that it would be a total disaster—but by 4.30 pm, the Chancellor had tabled a Charter for Budget Responsibility that actually supports a current budget process, which is, of course, the correct strategy.
Perhaps the Chancellor needs to be reminded what he said originally, in his 2010 Budget speech. He said that the mandate was current—[Interruption.] Does the Chancellor want to deny that he said, back in 2010, that the mandate was
“current, to protect… productive public investment”?—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
If so, let him correct the record now from the Dispatch Box. He will not do that, however, because he knows that targeting the current budget is the right thing to do.
At no point does the Charter for Budget Responsibility commit itself to a fixed deadline for 2017-18. The Treasury would like to pretend that it does, but it does not. Instead, it goes for a “rolling horizon” and year 3 of a five-year rolling forecast. The Chancellor needs to understand properly what that means; he did not quite get it earlier. It means that the target moves forward by a year each year. Perhaps the Chancellor does know that. Perhaps he did this because he wanted to wriggle out of any responsibility to which he might be held now, ahead of the approaching general election. However, if he feels that this is somehow a firm commitment to 2017-18, he is wrong. Labour Members believe that we shall need to get the current budget into surplus as soon as possible in the next Parliament, and nothing in the charter is inconsistent with that view. The Chancellor, incidentally, did not really talk about the charter at all.
Danny Alexander
It is a neutral assumption about the public finances that does not reflect the policies of the Liberal Democrats. I was just in the middle of describing those things, because people want to see some light at the end of the tunnel. They do not want a Dickensian world of decimated public services. I do not see any need for tens of billions of pounds of further cuts beyond 2017-18. If it happens, the reality for many people would be grim. Going too far or too slowly will not offer that light at the end of the tunnel.
Danny Alexander
No, I will make some progress because there are only a couple of minutes left of the debate. For our part, we Liberal Democrats are very proud to support this charter. Indeed, this is Liberal Democrat fiscal policy being voted on in Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, we will eliminate the structural deficit by 2017-18, but do so fairly, so we will ask those with the broadest financial shoulders to bear the heaviest burden by paying a little more in tax. When we have the national debt falling as a share of our national output and have eliminated the deficit, we will then balance the books, allowing borrowing only for productive capital investment or for financial stability. That means that we will finish the job and then be able to invest in our public services so that the people of the country can enjoy the world-class public services that they expect. That is the common-sense approach to keeping our national finances under control and to ensuring that our stronger economy also delivers a fairer society.
We should not delay the time by which we seek to finish the job, as the Opposition wish. Putting our nation’s finances back in order is the responsible thing to do, and that is what this charter does. It sets out two clear, simple, coherent targets for the public finances in the next Parliament. The first is to balance the structural deficit by the third year of a rolling five-year forecast, which, to correct the Labour Front-Bench team, does mean meeting that target by the financial year 2017-18. Should Labour win a majority at the election, it will be judged on that three-year target, so it should be straight with its own Back Benchers about what it is asking them to vote for. The second target is to be judged on those goals twice a year by the independent OBR, and also to be judged by the British people as they scrutinise the plans that each party puts forward at the general election against what we are voting for today.
This vote is deeply serious. These rules are a wise, sensible and balanced framework for the public finances in the next Parliament. The British people will expect us to stick to it, so I commend this charter to the House.
Question put.
Income Tax
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
No, we believe that instead of having the married couples break, which does not actually help many married couples, it would be far fairer to introduce that 10p starting rate of tax, because it would help many, many more people. The hon. Gentleman has hit upon yet another example—perhaps this is one for an Opposition day debate on a different occasion—where the Government constantly choose the route of unfairness, limiting the help to those who need support and assistance. Labour believes that everybody should have a share in growth and prosperity, which is precisely the opposite of the trickle-down economics that we have had so far from the parties in the Government.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Getting back to the 50p tax rate, does the hon. Gentleman have any explanation for the fact that when we voted on it in March 2012 only two Labour Members voted in that Division and the rest abstained? What is the explanation for that?
Chris Leslie
We have consistently opposed this outrageous change to dish out a tax cut for the very privileged 1% in society. The hon. Gentleman should join us, and I hope he will, in voting for today’s motion, as it is about a key divide in British politics and in Scottish politics. It is very important that we expose the fact that by cutting the top rate of tax on earnings above £150,000 from 50p to 45p Ministers have wilfully accelerated the divide between the majority and the richest 1%.
HMRC (Scotland)
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to have the final Adjournment debate before the House departs for the summer recess. The future of HMRC jobs in Scotland is an issue close to my heart. It is hard to grow up and live in my constituency without developing personal connections with what is known locally simply as the tax office. A number of my friends and family have worked or work at HMRC Cumbernauld, and it is by some distance the largest employer in my constituency, currently employing about 1,400 staff working across the spectrum of tax, benefits, debt management and the like. It is the UK’s largest tax office. Hon. Members have doubtless at one time or another had communication with HMRC Cumbernauld—not, I hasten to add, because of anything untoward, but simply because that is where so many tax communications are sent from and to.
In 57 days, Scotland will make its decision on whether to remain in the United Kingdom with England, Wales and Northern Ireland or whether to leave, and Scots are weighing up a wide array of issues and interests as they come to a judgment on that decision. That is why every survey of Scottish public opinion illuminates the public’s desire for more information and facts on the issues in hand. Some things are, by definition, uncertain about what would happen if Scotland was to leave the United Kingdom—things that will depend on negotiations with the rest of the United Kingdom, which will depend on the future performance of the Scottish economy in particular. But Scotland’s role in HMRC is not one of those things about which there is uncertainty. The arithmetical facts are these.
Across the UK, HMRC employs 70,000 people. More than 9,000 of those posts are in Scotland. In percentage terms, 13% of UK HMRC staff are in Scotland, a significantly above-population-share of the total. More than 3,000 more posts are allocated in Scotland than a population share would provide. That is testimony to the excellent job that Scottish HMRC staff in Cumbernauld, in East Kilbride and elsewhere provide. It is hard to argue otherwise than that this indeed is a Scottish HMRC jobs dividend. Leaving the United Kingdom would bring to an end Scotland’s role in HMRC. That is surely uncontroversial—a fact, not an opinion.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, but is not his timing just a little bit unfortunate? The Westminster Government are actually closing HMRC offices as he is on his feet. I know he does not like Scottish independence and I know he does not like what the Scottish Government are doing, but can he grudgingly accept the fact that we are having no compulsory redundancies in Scotland, which would mean that HMRC staff would be much better treated in an independent Scotland than they would be by the Westminster Tories?
Gregg McClymont
I will come to a couple of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but on the issue of HMRC jobs, I am sure he will agree that it is an arithmetical fact that Scotland has a significant dividend from UK HMRC jobs. That is because of the professionalism of staff in Scotland, but it is something that must be put on the record.
Let us tease out a little further these arithmetical facts and then, I think, what we might judge an outcome to be for Scotland after leaving the UK and ending our membership of HMRC. We know as a fact that Scotland has significantly more tax-collecting jobs relative to the UK as a whole. Is there any reason to imagine that an independent Scottish state would need those surplus tax-collecting jobs relative to the size of the UK tax-collecting system? It seems to me that it is hard to imagine why that would be the case. The jobs dividend in Scotland regarding HMRC posts does not reflect different Scottish conditions regarding tax collection, but simply historical decisions and the excellent work undertaken by the Scottish tax office staff.
I have also heard it said by those who might accept in a conversation the arithmetical facts around the number of Scottish HMRC jobs—perhaps by the hon. Gentleman and certainly by others—that there will be no compulsory redundancies, and of course new civil service posts will be needed in a separate Scottish state, the implication being that surplus tax-collecting staff would be transferred to those posts. As the hon. Gentleman said, the SNP Government have given a promise that there will be no compulsory public sector redundancies, but is that promise from Alex Salmond worth the paper it is written on? It is easy to promise something, as things stand, when it looks, as things stand further, as though that promise will never be tested, but let us think a little more about the state, the structure of the Scottish economy and the civil service and public sector jobs therein.
Scotland does not have a small public sector. Our public sector is significant— bigger than that of the UK as a whole. I was glancing through the Scottish Government’s most recent statistics, and they clearly show that Scotland has more public sector jobs and significantly more tax-related public sector jobs than the UK as a whole. I welcome that—it is a credit to the staff and their professionalism—but it suggests that the slack to absorb surplus tax-collection posts in a separate Scottish state will be hard to identify. I say that based on the arithmetical facts, but also as a judgment about the relative size of Scotland’s public sector. Indeed, if we add to that the difficulties that Scotland would inevitably face as it transitioned into an entirely distinct and separate state, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other independent experts have observed, one has to question, with some substance and credibility, what that would mean for those tax-collecting jobs in Scotland, and particularly in the largest tax office in the UK in Cumbernauld.
It is my judgment, based on those arithmetical facts, that defending existing public sector provision, not increasing the size of the public sector, is likely to be the reality faced by my constituents working for HMRC in Cumbernauld. In the end, the argument about what happens when we have a substantial surplus of tax-collecting jobs is about whether those posts can be absorbed in the wider Scottish public sector. That is a fundamental question in the referendum debate. There are facts, as I have set them out. There are also judgments, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) takes a different view, but it is surely incumbent on all of us to give the Scottish people all the facts as they bear on the debate and to let them draw their own conclusions.
The role that HMRC plays is important for my constituency and for Scotland. The next Labour Government are committed to tackling the tax gap. It looks as though in the last financial year the tax gap widened again, despite the Government’s efforts to close it. In my judgment, closing that tax gap will not be achieved without using the professionalism and experience of Scottish HMRC staff.
I am not suggesting that this is the only issue we face in the debate before 18 September—not at all—but for constituents of mine who either work in the tax office or who have friends and family who work there, the issues need to be put on the record and the facts displayed; then a judgment can be made by the people of Scotland.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) on securing the debate. He continues to make a firm, clear and eloquent case on what is, understandably, a hugely important issue for him and his constituents: the future of the HMRC office in Cumbernauld.
Before dealing with some of the detailed points the hon. Gentleman raised, I would like to explain some of the context behind the changes occurring in HMRC staffing. As hon. Members will be aware, HMRC is currently reshaping itself in order to become a more modern, flexible and cost-effective organisation that can deliver better and more personalised services for customers, increased tax revenues through greater compliance activity and, crucially, better value for money for the public.
In order to provide the best possible value to the taxpayer, HMRC has had to downsize. In fact, it has been steadily reducing the number of employees since it was formed nine years ago. Over that time it has reduced its staff levels from around 97,000 full-time equivalents in 2005 to around 60,000 now. On top of that reduction, and as part of its increased work on digitisation, HMRC will soon be implementing a new system whereby it will scan incoming post. The rational behind that change is that it will remove the need for sorting and transportation. Instead, correspondence will be moved to where it can be dealt with instantly, ensuring that taxpayers’ queries are dealt with more quickly and effectively.
However, a consequence of that change will be that fewer staff will be needed to handle post, which will have an impact on HMRC’s five regional post rooms, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I should point out, however, that with regard to business presence and work force size, the recent changes have not had a disproportionate impact on Scotland. In April 2011, around 13% of HMRC’s work force were based in Scotland, and at the end of last month, following the significant reductions it has achieved across the UK, the proportion of its work force based in Scotland remains around 13%.
As it reduces in size, it makes sense that HMRC will need to bring its people together into larger sites where they can work more flexibly and more easily share the costs of office space and IT. In May 2012, HMRC made the concluding announcement about the estate changes it would be making during the spending review period. That saw, as the hon. Gentleman has said, a number of its offices across the country announced for closure, but at the same time it was also confirmed that there would be 16 strategic locations nationwide until at least 2020. Two of those are in Scotland—Edinburgh, encompassing Bathgate and Livingston, and Glasgow, encompassing Cumbernauld, East Kilbride and Paisley.
Pete Wishart
The HMRC office in Perth was, of course, closed in the past year under this Government’s stewardship. How many jobs has HMRC lost in Scotland under this Government, how many offices have closed and how many jobs does the Minister foresee going in the course of the next five years?
Mr Gauke
I reiterate that the changes in Scotland reflect those across the United Kingdom. The proportion of jobs is identical to what it was three years ago. It is the case that HMRC has reduced significantly in size since 2005, and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so across the United Kingdom. We have stated that we anticipate that staff numbers will fall to about 54,000 by the end of this financial year, although, to be fair, HMRC is expanding its staff in particular areas. There is no reason to believe that Scotland will be disproportionately affected by further reductions. That has not been the history of what has happened in the past.
HMRC continues to review its business, work force and estates needs, and is currently in consultation on a proposal to close a further 12 smaller offices during 2015, two of which are in Scotland—namely Glenrothes and Irvine. Those are all smaller offices and HMRC, for the reasons I stated previously, believes that it makes more sense, and will deliver better value to the public, to bring those staff into larger workplaces. I should make it clear, though, that the consultation on those decisions will, of course, include the consideration of equality impacts and will involve HMRC’s employees, their trades unions, Members of this House and other local interests.
It is also worth bearing in mind that, while the number of general business roles has been reducing in size—as HMRC tries to increase compliance-related yield—the number of roles in that specific area is increasing. Hon. Members may be aware that in June, HMRC advertised up to 2,100 vacancies primarily in compliance roles—up to 680 of which will be based at offices in Scotland. Many of those will be at the newly opened compliance centre in Edinburgh, and HMRC’s debt management and banking business aims to create up to 170 jobs in Cumbernauld, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has pointed out. Therefore, as HMRC’s work moves forward, new opportunities are opening up for its work force, including in the Cumbernauld constituency.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the September referendum and the future for HMRC staff should there be a vote for the Union to come to an end. Neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government know for sure what will happen if the people of Scotland vote to leave the UK. In the event of a majority vote in favour of independence, both the UK and Scottish Governments agree that negotiations would be needed. Both Governments have agreed that negotiations to establish a new Scottish state cannot begin unless—and until—there is a yes vote in the referendum. That does not mean, however, that representatives of the UK would or could facilitate everything that the Scottish Government have said they hope to achieve through independence.
If the people of Scotland were to vote to leave the UK, the negotiations that would follow would be unprecedented, highly complex and incredibly detailed. There are too many unknown factors at this stage to say how negotiations would proceed and how long they would take. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Scottish Government’s White Paper set out what they would like to happen if Scotland became an independent state; it is not a blueprint or a legally enforceable document, and it cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations between the UK and the new Scottish state. In fact, much of what is included in the White Paper depends on the agreement of the UK Government and numerous other public bodies and organisations. In this instance, I therefore cannot get into any detailed discussion of what might happen should such an event occur. However, the hon. Gentleman was quite right to raise, on his constituents’ behalf, concerns about uncertainty for HMRC employees in the event of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of Members of the House when I say that I hope that those negotiations never come to pass.
To return to specific HMRC matters, HMRC as an organisation has to work within its resources and to fit its future shape. Its plans to deliver an increasingly modern service for its customers, while increasing tax revenues, depend on making changes to its structure and the size of its work force. The changes to date are making an impact and helping it to provide a much better service for the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, last year it secured nearly £24 billion in additional compliance revenues—a record—and it achieved its best ever customer service levels, and all that was done by about 2,000 fewer staff, who oversaw £235 million of efficiency savings. The staff are doing an excellent job. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman about the job losses in his constituency, which he mentioned, and with the staff themselves, we need to make sure that our services continue to provide the best possible value to the public. We remain committed to a consultative approach to ensure that any changes are managed in the very best way possible.
May I just make one further and final point, Mr Speaker? As the last speaker before the summer recess, I am the last hon. Member to speak from the Dispatch Box or indeed anywhere in the House and to turn to the Table to see the reassuring presence of Sir Robert Rogers. I know that the House has already had an opportunity to pay tribute to him, but I will just put my thoughts on the record. He has brought to his position an enormous amount of authority and a great love for this House. In an environment that can sometimes be a little heated, he has been a consistent embodiment of a sense of fairness, decency and not a little kindliness. In his distinguished career, he must have listened to many thousands of speeches delivered by many hundreds of right hon. and hon. Members. As the deliverer of the last of those speeches—and, I hope, on behalf of the many hundreds who have spoken before me—may I thank him for his outstanding service and wish him a long and happy retirement?
Question put and agreed to.
Wales Bill
Pete Wishart Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nia Griffith
Amendment 13 would remove a clause which would make it possible for people to stand both on the regional list and in the constituency. A bizarre argument is put forward in favour of dual candidacy—if dual candidacy is not allowed, the smaller parties in Wales may struggle to find sufficient candidates of any quality—but if such parties expect the electorate to take them seriously as parties that could help form a Government in Wales, they need to demonstrate that they can find enough additional candidates to field on each of the five regional lists.
Could this problem of finding candidates be something to do with which parties we are talking about and what they believe in? Could it be that young people in Wales are not rushing to put themselves forward as Conservative candidates because they know that the Conservative party in Westminster abolished the education maintenance allowance, while the Labour Welsh Government have retained it, or because the Conservative Government here did away with Labour’s future jobs fund, whereas the Labour Welsh Government have launched a similar programme, Jobs Growth Wales, focusing on the private sector? There is also the issue of university tuition fees.
Could it be that people are not coming forward as candidates for Plaid Cymru because they do not want an independent Wales, or because they do not want to support cutting tax for the better off, as Plaid Cymru’s economic adviser, Adam Price, has confirmed is its policy? People have realised that Plaid Cymru is not the progressive party it pretends to be, but a reactionary party.
Perhaps people do not want to put themselves forward as Lib Dem candidates as they are somewhat confused. One minute we hear that the Lib Dems are in favour of a reserved powers model, yet we struggled to see any of them in the Lobby with us, supporting our amendment. I am not sure where they are now.
People simply do not like to think that they have bothered to go out to vote, only to find that although their preferred candidate won, the candidate or candidates they rejected also got in. We all remember the Clwyd West scenario where the Labour candidate won the constituency—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What advice has the hon. Lady had from her colleagues in Scotland on this issue, given that they are now almost totally dependent on the list for their membership in the Scottish Parliament and have reviewed their whole attitude towards dual candidacy? It is a democratic good, according to Scottish Labour.
Nia Griffith
I am not casting aspersions on any individual list candidates. We have two excellent Labour list Assembly Members in west Wales—Rebecca Evans, who champions disability issues, and Joyce Watson, who champions human trafficking issues. They are doing an excellent job, because they are focusing on topics, not sitting like some great cuckoo on one constituency out of eight and making that their sole focus of attention, ignoring what is happening in important aspects of the other seven constituencies that they represent.
We have seen such abuse in Wales before. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) will remind us again, as he has done many times, of the blatant abuse of the list system. He has quoted frequently from the leaked memorandum from Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru, in which she gives explicit instructions to her party’s list Assembly Members to direct their time and resources, paid for by the taxpayer, to Plaid Cymru’s target seats.
Some people say that putting into the 2006 Act the clause that prevents an individual from standing for both the constituency and the list was a partisan move by the Labour Government, but we knew full well that it would also prevent our candidates from standing for both. We had at least four sitting constituency AMs who we knew were likely to be vulnerable to electoral change in the 2007 Assembly election and who could have hedged their bets by standing for both. That might have been very cosy for them, but as a matter of principle we knew how much the electorate hated it. On the doorsteps we heard people ask, “What difference will it make if we go out and vote?” It was extremely difficult to convince people after the Clwyd West scenario, because whoever the constituents voted for, all four parties were elected.
It was extremely important to us to stand by our principle, rather than making some sort of cosy situation for our AMs. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in some circumstances, depending on the specific arithmetic for the region, a candidate who could stand for both the constituency and the list could be pretty much guaranteed to be elected on one or other of them. That could breed a certain complacency, which would not serve the electorate well at all. We take issue with the accusation that this is a partisan point, because it is a point of principle. We strongly oppose clause 2, which seeks to turn the clocks back and allow dual candidacy. Our amendment therefore seeks to remove that clause from the Bill.
Our view is that the Assembly’s electoral arrangements should be decided in Wales, so we have also tabled an amendment proposing that an order should be laid in the Assembly by the Welsh Government before any change on dual candidacy can be implemented. I hope that Members will vote for our amendments.
Pete Wishart
I am genuinely interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s view on this issue. What advice does he have for Scottish Labour, which has just done a total U-turn on dual candidacy and is now allowing the practice to go on? Will he disparage Scottish Labour as much as he seems to be disparaging Plaid Cymru for carrying out this appalling act?
Finance (No.2) Bill
Pete Wishart Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman always makes very intelligent points. I believe that he is talking about the Laffer curve. I will discuss the optimal rate of taxation later, but I agree wholeheartedly with his comments.
A report for the Office for National Statistics entitled “The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2011/12”, which was released in July 2013, showed clearly that, while income tax is progressive, as it should be, the effect of indirect taxes such as VAT means that the bottom fifth of the income groups pay the most out as a percentage of their gross income at 36.6% in taxes, while the top fifth pay 35.5%. The overall tax system is therefore still heavily weighted in favour of the highest earners. Plaid Cymru believes in progressive taxation irrespective of the timing and state of the wider economy. We believe that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden of taxation. A Scandinavian model of progressive taxation is part of our DNA.
The House has voted on this measure only once, during the resolution votes following the 2012 Budget debate. I am delighted that it was Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party Members who called that vote. The shadow Chancellor must have been having an off-day, because the entire parliamentary Labour party abstained, apart from two honourable exceptions, the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), if my memory serves me correctly. Although Labour Members voted against the Government’s 2012 Budget, which reduced the 50% rate to 45%, they missed the only vote that we have been able to have directly on the reduction of the top rate.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that what happened to the Labour party that evening was cataclysmic. Does he have any explanation as to why the Labour party missed that vote that evening? Something from the Whips Office suggested headless chickens, but that would be showing disrespect to headless chickens. Does he have any idea why Labour abstained on what was one of the key policies at that point?
Jonathan Edwards
Unfortunately, I cannot enlighten my hon. Friend, other than to say that the Western Mail informed me that senior Labour staff described it as a “balls-up”.
To be slightly more serious, I was happy that, in response to an intervention from me last week on Second Reading, the shadow Chief Secretary, who is in his place, said that should Labour form the next UK Government, it would restore the 50p top rate for the duration of the next Parliament. I would certainly support that, and I look forward to doing so if there is a Labour Government. My understanding before his answer was that Labour was proposing a temporary increase in the top rate, so I welcome that development. I hope that during today’s debate, the Labour Front-Bench spokesman will confirm that that will be its policy at the next election and beyond.
Owing to the manner in which Finance Bills are processed, it is impossible to press to a vote amendments to alter tax band rates, which is why both new clause 4 and Labour’s amendment 4 call for a review from the Treasury of the impact of re-introducing the 50p rate. The 2011 Budget included the provision of a review to reduce the 50p rate. As I said, nobody foresaw the Treasury introducing such a policy within a year. In other words, the 2011 Budget provisions were a sop to Tory donors that their party was minded to reduce the top rate at some point in the future. The following Budget then introduced the policy.
Proponents argue that the reduction in the additional rate to 45p has led to a windfall for the Treasury because of reduced avoidance and evasion. I noticed in the lead-up to the Budget last month that some Tory Back Benchers were making the case for a reduction to 40p for this Budget based on higher than expected tax receipts—some £9 billion—following the top rate changes. In the newspapers this morning the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) was making a similar call for his party to adopt the 40p top rate come the general election. He is not in his seat, so perhaps he has been told to go somewhere else. I find that argument difficult to swallow as individuals seeking to avoid tax at a 50p rate would surely be minded to do so with a 45p rate. The higher than forecasted tax receipts used to justify a further cut in the top rate was surely as a result of higher than projected economic performance, and therefore a 50p rate would have brought in even more receipts for the Treasury.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Pete Wishart Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
I am tempted to say that we are wandering slightly from the Bill. I can draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to several measures in the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto that proposed reining in excessive expenditure by the Labour Government.
I note that Labour Members have tabled a so-called reasoned amendment. I point out that we are investing in new technology and new energy sources because of the Labour Government’s failure to tackle rising energy bills; because of their failure to get young people into work, we have created the conditions for more than 1.5 million new jobs in the private sector; because of their failure to boost housing supply, we have had to cut back hundreds of pages of planning laws, and because of their failure to help families with child care costs, we have taken bold steps to introduce tax-free child care. In short, because of Labour’s failure to create jobs and growth and build homes, the British public asked the coalition to clear up the mess. The Bill takes further steps to do that. A Labour party that stands in its way is a blockage on the road to recovery.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will of course be grateful to Labour for voting with his Government on the welfare cap. Was he as surprised at that as I was, however, given that he will have observed what happened in Perth, with all those weekend socialists proclaiming their commitment to the left-wing cause, only to come down here and vote with the Tories?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is wilfully misinterpreting what the welfare cap is about. If he had listened to my speech summing up the debate on the welfare cap last week, he would have discovered that the cap was a means of ensuring transparency and accountability to the House in relation to increases in welfare expenditure. In the past, welfare increases were smuggled through the forecasts without proper transparency and scrutiny. The reforms will ensure that, when expenditure is forecast to breach the cap, the Minister responsible will have to come to the House and explain why the breach is happening and what he or she intends to do about it. That could include introducing measures to reduce expenditure; it could also include an increase in the cap, if that is regarded desirable. Given that the hon. Gentleman’s party seems to believe that, under independence, it would be possible for taxes to fall and for expenditure to rise without the chickens coming home to roost, it is not surprising that it should oppose measures to increase accountability to this House on expenditure. The result of the vote last week showed, however, that the House as a whole welcomes the opportunity to hold the Government to greater account for expenditure increases in that area.