Centenary of the Battle of the Somme

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for organising this centenary debate. Its subject matter is far enough away in time for many to feel as though it is ancient history, but it is close enough for some of us to have known veterans of that battle.

Let me pay a brief tribute to those in my family, my city and my county who were at the Battle of the Somme. My grandfather, Ogilvie Graham, was 22 at the beginning of the war and an acting Lieutenant Colonel in the Rifle Brigade at 25, with responsibility for others far beyond his years, as was the way in that and many wars. In the Battle of the Somme, he was badly wounded and awarded the DSO.

Like so many of his generation, my grandfather never spoke about the war afterwards. However, there was one great, good thing that came from the Somme, for it was there that he met a young unit administrator in Queen Mary’s Army Auxiliary Corps. She refused to allow him to take over a farmhouse where her team of nurses, cooks and secretaries was based. Winifred Maud Harford did, however, allow my grandfather to marry her, so the Battle of the Somme is indirectly responsible for who I, my brother and my sisters are. I am just as proud of my grandmother’s military MBE from that war as I am of my grandfather’s medals.

My city of Gloucester, and the county of Gloucestershire, made an immense contribution to the Battle of the Somme. There were 13 battalions of the Gloucestershire Regiment—the Glosters—in that battle. Some 1,813 members of the regiment died, and about 6,000 were wounded. Carton de Wiart, who himself won a VC commanding the 8th Glosters, noted at one point that he had

“eight new officers arrive in the morning, and all were lost by the evening”.

Among the many grisly statistics of death from the Battle of the Somme, I find those among the saddest, alongside the story of the Soul family, from Great Rissington, in Gloucestershire. Mrs Soul had five sons who fought in world war one in different regiments, and all were killed.

On Friday, we will hold a commemoration in Gloucester cathedral, close to the stained glass windows that celebrate Ivor Gurney—Gloucester man and poet of the Severn and the Somme. In his poem “On Somme”, he started with these lines:

“Suddenly into the still air burst thudding

And thudding, and cold fear possessed me all,

On the grey slopes there, where winter in sullen brooding

Hung between height and depth of the ugly fall

Of Heaven to earth; and the thudding was illness’ own.”

The thudding is over, but Ivor Gurney never really recovered; he spent years in a mental hospital.

This Friday, in the cathedral, we will commemorate Ivor Gurney and all those from our city and county who fought at the Battle of the Somme. Nearby, in the parish of Hempsted, there will be on display all the research done by Hempsted primary school on those from the village who fought and died. That will be supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund’s special world war one fund.

In our cathedral and in the Lysons memorial hall, we will all be moved again, as Members have been here, by the tragedy of waste, whichever army it was in, and even by the story of the mules from Shandong province that my wife’s grandfather shipped to the front for a muddy death.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) in his place, replacing my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is away on maternity leave.

The aim of this short debate is to draw to the attention of colleagues and the public the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Apart from the maintenance of war cemeteries and memorials of two world wars, the commission is crucial to all the commemorative ceremonies for the first world war. I should declare an interest at the outset: I am one of two parliamentary commissioners represented on the commission. The other is the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is in the Chamber and hopes to catch your eye, Mr Streeter.

In many respects, we are enclosed by history. Today, for example, at this very moment 76 years ago, the Labour party, meeting in conference, was deciding whether or not to support Winston Churchill as the leader of a coalition Government. One can imagine the atmosphere among parliamentary colleagues on 10 May 1940, with Nazi armies invading the low countries and France. We are here to look at another anniversary. Almost 99 years ago, on 21 May 1917, the Imperial War Graves Commission, as it was called then, received its royal charter, which established its remit and gave it sole responsibility for graves and memorials to the then dead of the imperial British forces in the first world war.

Nothing was preordained about the establishment of what became the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Its creation was largely the work of a formidable, motivated man called Fabian Ware—a man who had been working with Lord Milner in South Africa, who was an intellectual, who became editor of The Morning Post and who had a wide range of friends and contacts in the British establishment. In 1914, too old to serve, Ware commanded an ambulance unit in France and became aware of the sheer numbers of casualties, on a scale that Britain had never faced before. The British armed forces lost approximately 3,500 men at the battle of Waterloo —one of our biggest losses. We had suffered about 80,000 casualties by Christmas 1914.

Ware was concerned about what was going to happen to the dead, and he persuaded the general headquarters of the British armed forces in 1915 to establish the Graves Registration Commission, which he was to run. He made certain that the dead were buried or commemorated as near as possible to the battlefields where they fell and, most significantly, not repatriated. There was enormous pressure, particularly from the parents or families of reasonably wealthy people, to bring—where they could be found—the bodies of their sons, husbands or cousins back home. That was going to be impossible on such a scale. He was only too aware that many of the dead, when they could be found, had no means of identity whatsoever.

During the course of the first world war, and in the establishment of the royal charter, Ware negotiated with allied and enemy countries for land where the dead were to be buried. Most significantly of all, he established that there was going to be no distinction by rank. Crudely speaking, pre-Victorian army officers got individual burials; other ranks were dumped in a great big pit. The only distinction was going to be by religion—Christian, Jewish or Islamic. That would be marked on the headstone. Of course, those of the Islamic faith would have their own cemeteries carefully laid out.

There was a lot of opposition to that, mainly from the families, and there were heated debates here in Parliament at the end of the first world war. Ware outmanoeuvred them all. In the establishment of what we all know now as the cemeteries and memorials that are so distinguishable for the British and Commonwealth experience, he used a whole series of distinguished experts: Edward Lutyens; Herbert Baker; Reginald Blomfield; Rudyard Kipling, who had lost a son, Jack, and was deeply traumatised, and who established much of the terminology of the commemoration; and Gertrude Jekyll, who advised on the landscaping and the gardens.

The final thing I will say about Ware is that he placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that it was the Imperial—we would now say Commonwealth—War Graves Commission. It was not just about the British; it was about the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the South Africans and, above all, the Indians, who made the biggest commitment to our cause in two world wars. I am part of the commission, and our work today is supported by member Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and, above all, the United Kingdom. Each of those countries contributes a sum in proportion to the number of graves it has. The United Kingdom contributes 78%, which comes from the budget of the Ministry of Defence. The annual budget is approximately £70 million, which works out at roughly £40 per commemoration per annum.

I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of the commission’s approximately 1,300 staff—most of them gardeners and masons, and most of them locally employed—who care for this vast range of memorials and gardens. Many of them are the second or third generation who have worked for the commission. Many of them continued to maintain those sites under the most appalling difficulties in the second world war, and more recently in war zones. I will come to that in a minute.

The work of the commission is vast. We commemorate 1.7 million individuals and maintain their graves and memorials at more than 23,000 locations in 154 countries across the globe. That is a vast scale. We also have to pay tribute to the host countries. Some, such as Belgium and France, willingly gave land. Others are the inheritors of the old British and French empires. We have to imagine, at times, how we would feel if we had vast cemeteries within our constituencies of Egyptian, Iraqi or Nigerian graves from a war that had been fought over our territory. There is an important sensitivity here.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly references the symbolism and sensitivity of some of those cemeteries. There is also the extraordinary Commonwealth war graves cemetery in Gaza, which I think I am right in saying has been tended by the same Palestinian family since it was put up, now presumably almost 80 years ago. It contains Christian, Muslim, Jewish and even Hindu memorials. It occupies a large amount of land in a tiny place that is very short of space. During Operation Cast Lead, an Israeli tank broke through the walls and damaged some grave stones. Eventually, construction materials were allowed back there, and the first thing they were used for was the reparation of those grave stones. It is a great testament to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which he serves so well.

[Mr Simpson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which leads on to the fact that, even as we speak, the commission is working in Iraq—it used to be able to work in Syria—rebuilding cemeteries that have been destroyed by either war or ISIL/Daesh extremists, who see them merely as symbols of Christian occupation.

Indeed—if I may use what the Army used to call a visual aid—I have two photographs taken in Beirut. The first, from the 1980s, is of the cemetery almost completely destroyed; the second is of the cemetery lovingly rebuilt to the previous standard. We should remember, as I am sure all colleagues do, that at the end of the day we are dealing with individuals, either with a known grave or with their names on a giant memorial like those at Ypres or Thiepval. The memorials are for the families and also, now, for people who merely have an interest—I know that many colleagues are fascinated by the people behind the names.

We should also remember—in the words of Michael Caine, not a lot of people know this—that more than 300,000 Commonwealth servicemen and women who died in the two world wars are commemorated here in the United Kingdom. Their 170,000 graves are to be found at over 13,000 locations. In addition, some 130,000 missing Navy, Merchant Navy and Air Force casualties are commemorated on the great memorials at Chatham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Tower Hill and Runnymede. A forgotten element is that nearly 30,000 men and women of the Merchant Navy, unsung heroes and heroines, were killed. Most naval people, of course, have no known grave.

Budget Changes

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

One of the important challenges that we face is improving productivity in this country. If we want to improve productivity, we want more investment. If we want more investment, we do not want high rates of tax that discourage investment. May I point out that in terms of capital gains tax, the rate is still higher than the one we inherited in 2010?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Last week, I met two constituents. One of them, Mark, was unemployed for five years from 2007. He has now got a job in security through DWP funding for a Security Industry Authority course. Another, Luke, who has significant disabilities, has been helped by a specialist agency called Pluss to get a good job with B&M. Both those constituents of mine have benefited hugely from the compassionate conservatism that has driven our financial policy. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that will continue and that people such as Mark and Luke will continue to be helped?

[Mr Gauke]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting those examples. He puts the point well. There is something compassionate about having a society where there are plenty of jobs, and I am pleased that we as a Government are delivering that type of economy.

Draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 General Committees

[Greg Hands]

Let me answer the first question. The hon. Gentleman will have a longer memory than I have, but RPI has also gone negative in the past. It is not impossible that exactly same phenomenon could happen with RPI, his preferred measure of inflation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I think I am right in saying that RPI was negative in 2008, during the great recession. It is a constant hazard of recessions that there will be those negative indicators. Am I not also right in thinking that the main reason why CPI was chosen over RPI was precisely that the vast majority of pensioners are not still paying off their mortgages, whereas those people who are have predominantly not retired?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is right. For all kinds of good reasons the Government made the decision to move this whole sector of public pensions and benefits from RPI to CPI. I think he is right that at that time RPI had gone negative.

If I could answer the final couple of points from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston—

HMRC and Google (Settlement)

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We always look to try to find ways to simplify the tax system. I would make the point that if a company operates in many jurisdictions, its tax affairs are inherently more complex than if it existed in just one country, but the Government are determined to ensure that where the economic activity occurs in the United Kingdom, we tax it in the United Kingdom.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Everyone wants business to pay its fair share of tax, and most people will welcome the additional £130 million of tax revenue to fund important services, but many will wonder, given that the period of the settlement covers 2005 to 2011, what other multinational tax bills are out there that have still not been settled and what, if anything, the Labour party did in government to highlight those questions?

[Mr Gauke]

On the latter question, it may be the case that astronomers have located the ninth planet, but I am not sure that they have found any evidence of the Labour party doing very much on tax avoidance in government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, the people who suffer the most when the economy fails and when the country fails to control its public finances are precisely the people the hon. Lady is talking about: the low paid. They are the people who lose their jobs. They are the victims of economic insecurity. We are determined to deliver economic security and a controlled welfare bill—which, after all, the people she represents have to pay for through their taxes—and we will set out how we will ease the transition to that lower welfare, higher wage economy.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The coalition Government freed pensioners from mandatory annuities and encouraged saving through ISAs and auto-enrolment. However, tax relief on contributions to pensions is expensive and favours higher-rate taxpayers much more than others. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an area in which sensible reform could be considered, in order to help to balance the budget without disincentivising saving?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have taken significant steps to encourage saving, not least by giving pensioners control over their pension pots in retirement and by trusting those who have saved all their lives with the money that they have earned and put aside. He is an expert in these matters, and he will know that we are open to consultation on the pensions taxation system at the moment. It is a completely open consultation and a genuine Green Paper, and we are receiving a lot of interesting suggestions on potential reform. We will respond to that consultation fully in the Budget.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I am going to move on to a section specifically concerned with incentivising work and how on earth people with, for example, progressive conditions can be incentivised.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. On the specific issue of trying to help people in the work-related activity group to get into work, does she agree that the current system is not working as well as it should and that we need to spend more money on helping them find jobs? It is harder for them to find jobs than it is for other people on jobseeker’s allowance. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), that is precisely why we should be transferring money into helping them to get jobs.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but his question belies the facts. Some £640 million is being withdrawn from people in the ESA WRAG, while £100 million is meant, in some undisclosed manner, to provide support. There is no information from the Government on how that will support disabled people back into work.

As I was saying, there is no analysis of the impact that this will have on the disabled people who will be pushed into poverty. Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to live in persistent poverty, and 80% of disability-related poverty is caused by their extra costs. Last year, there was a 2% increase in the number of disabled people who were pushed into poverty. That is equivalent to 300,000 people. The Minister’s recent reply to me did not address this particular point, so I would be very grateful if that could be explained. Half a million disabled people will be affected and lose £30 a week—nearly a third of their weekly income. What is the Government’s estimate of the increase in the number of disabled people who will be living in poverty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.

[Richard Graham]

I invite the hon. Lady to come to the opportunities fair in my constituency on 6 November, which is specifically focused on helping people in the ESA WRAG category to find opportunities for getting back into work. It will be very similar in tone to the first Disability Confident fair we held a year ago, and I am sure she would want to encourage Members from all parts of this House to hold these events and champion people like that who are trying to find jobs.

[Debbie Abrahams]

In return, I ask the hon. Gentleman to ask his constituents who are on ESA WRAG how they will be affected by these proposals and whether they will have to cut back on such journeys and work fairs because of the cuts the Government are likely to impose. Up and down the country good work is being done to support people back into work, but this measure is not part of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend really does keep stealing my punches, because I too have met the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People, and he was most sympathetic in listening to these arguments. There are technical issues that are going to be dealt with, but I will return to that.

The positive impact of such a change on the individuals who are currently affected by the rule would be immense. It would that ensure people could afford the support they need in the final few months of their lives. In Committee, the Government suggested that changing the regulation could mean that a case manager would not have sufficient time to consider the case. I do not follow that argument, because the 28-day rule applies once a decision has already been made, so it should not have an impact on the time taken to decide on a case.

Having spoken to the Minister, I know that he is listening to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), myself and others across the House, and I hope we will get a positive response so that terminally ill people who are to see an increase in their financial support can receive it as soon as possible.

[Richard Graham]

Surely the point my hon. Friend raises and the Government’s response on some of these issues—which are sensitive, as other hon. Members have rightly said—indicate that the Government do care about this category of our constituents and are reacting and making changes that will help them, and totally give the lie to some of the irresponsible comments from the Opposition Front Benchers.

[Graham Stuart]

I would hesitate to give advice to any Member as to how they should conduct themselves, but this is an emotive area and these decisions affect vulnerable people. A balance has to be struck between fiscal responsibility, looking after the most vulnerable and changing the incentives so that we get people aligned with the best opportunity in the long term as well as the short term. These are sensitive issues, and I agree with my hon. Friend about the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth referring to the Government demonising the disabled and the poor in a way that she did not substantiate at all. One mention in an autumn statement two or three years ago of the fact that some people abused the system is not an effort to demonise the poor and disabled, and suggesting that undermines the other arguments—and there are strong arguments to be made in this area and questions that need to be asked about the Government’s programme.

The decisions being made are not easy, and they will not all be right, but trying to smear the whole Government Front-Bench team loses people rather than wins them over. I do not think the hon. Lady needs to do that in order to make a powerful case and have a strong hearing outside this place; if what she says looks like partisan point scoring and personal vilification, it will undermine the arguments she is trying to pursue and champion.

I am delighted that the Minister is listening. I hope and expect—as I know all my hon. Friends and Opposition Members do—that we will find a solution to this technical challenge and make sure it is delivered as quickly as possible, so that the terminally ill get the money they are due as quickly as possible.

Tax Credits

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I did indeed watch “Question Time” the other night. I sincerely hope that the reports in the press that the lady concerned had misunderstood her exact situation and will not be affected by these cuts is the case. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that Government Members have a better understanding of why people voted Conservative: they did so to sort out the mess of the past few years.

The Chancellor is right to continue the process of reform. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said—this was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—now is the optimal time to put forward sensible, necessary reforms: there is a strong economic backdrop, UK employment is at a record high and the economy is growing faster than anywhere else in Europe. These reforms are a package of measures that cannot be viewed in isolation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is quite right to mention that the changes are part of a package, which includes higher tax-free allowances, lower social housing rents and wage rises that are significantly higher than inflation. Does he agree that we still have not seen a full assessment of the impact of all those changes or of the tax credit changes in research by either Parliament or the IFS?

[Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to the many factors that are mitigating the tax credit reforms, including the national living wage, the fuel escalator—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) referred to that—and the doubling of free childcare provision. As a colleague of mine on the Work and Pensions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) will be well aware that it is going to look at some of the detail of how the reforms may affect people. I look forward to engaging with him on that, as well as with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and others.

I recognise that there are concerns. However, I urge all hon. Members to remember that we are dealing not with a static environment, but with the most dynamic economy we have known for many years. The positive reforms that the Chancellor is making will have a pronounced ripple effect. Morrisons, Costa Coffee, Sainsbury’s and Ikea are among 200 firms that have already increased pay to meet the national living wage or move above it.

Tax Credits

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

Because employees will work for a wage that they can afford to work at, and if the Government are subsiding those household incomes the employers can take advantage of that. It is difficult—I completely concede that—to unravel this.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Conservative Members are clear that the macro picture is absolutely right and we have to reduce the welfare bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could do one specific thing that would help enormously? The BBC has withdrawn its online calculator for people who want to know how much they will be affected by this, and online forums suggest that different calculations are produced by different newspapers. Could the Government produce their own calculator so that our constituents can find out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Graham, you know you are pushing your luck. The hon. Gentleman has already given way twice and you are taking up your colleague’s time.

Finance Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat debate with the hon. Gentleman, but the SNP did not support our reasoned amendment last night. In my opinion, the measured and sensible way to take the Finance Bill forward, as we have done with previous Finance Bills in the previous Parliament, is to scrutinise it in detail. There are more opportunities with Finance Bills because we have Committee of the Whole House as well as the Public Bill Committee, and we shall press important measures in the Bill to a vote when we reach the latter stages of the Bill’s passage; but given that there are very important measures that we do support, it is important that we signal that by allowing the Bill a Second Reading.

One issue to which we will return in Committee of the Whole House is bank taxation. The Government will decrease the rate of the bank levy from January 2016 and will at the same time introduce a surcharge on profits of banks over a threshold of £25 million, which represents a switch from a tax on balance sheets to a tax on profits. Those measures are contained in clauses 16 and 17.

We will debate those in detail in Committee of the whole House in September, when we will seek to increase transparency regarding revenues from the banking sector. We will also push the Government for further details about the impact that these measures will have on the diversity of the financial sector, including any disproportionate impact on building societies. That is one of the things that people have been warning about since the measures in the Bill were unveiled.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted, by 2021 there will have been 13 tax rates in 10 years as the bank levy is gradually reduced from 0.21% to 0.1% by January 2021. This measure will cost £1.8 billion from 2021 onwards. Because from 2021 UK banks will be taxed on liabilities in the UK and not worldwide, that represents a fairly significant giveaway that it is important to test further in Committee. In contrast to what is happening to the bank levy, the 8% corporation tax surcharge, in effect, on bank profits from January 2016 raises £1.3 billion. There are a number of questions on the rationale for moving to this form of taxation for banks, as well as on the original intention of the bank levy and whether that will continue to be met in the new regime. It is important that hon. Members have the chance to test this further in Committee. The Minister will know that the bank levy was designed to discourage risky leverage, but whether it has been successful in doing so is a matter for some debate. Moving to a system of having a tax on profits possibly introduces a risk that there may be some discouragement from declaring UK profits. It will be important to analyse what risk that might pose in the banking sector.

There is a particular problem with regard to challenger banks, which were not subject to the bank levy but will fall within the new surcharge. Challenger banks are important for the overall health of the financial sector, because we need them to challenge the dominance of the big four or five banks. The Government will say, rightly, that the £25 million threshold is partly designed to prevent too much of the impact from being felt by challenger banks. Nevertheless, the Government will also be aware that a lot of the commentary since publication of the proposals has focused on the genuine concerns of challenger banks, which are worried that despite the £25 million threshold, they will still be disproportionately affected, with a significant impact on consumer choice as well. We will need to look at those issues further.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s confirmation that she and her party support much of what is in the Bill. Will she confirm that she agrees with its general direction, which is fundamentally towards an economy characterised by higher wages, lower taxes and less welfare?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will shortly turn to insurance premium tax, which is a very significant tax-raising measure that the Government have not been quite as keen to trumpet as other measures in the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber—it is significant that most of the very contentious changes in the Budget, particularly in respect of working tax credits, are not in the Bill but will be made in delegated legislation Committees. I dispute the Government’s characterisation of these measures, because I believe that they will leave working people worse off. That is not necessarily directly relevant to all aspects of the Bill, but it is relevant to the overall package of measures introduced in the Budget.

There is serious concern about the impact that the 8% surcharge will have on building societies. Of the six main building societies—Nationwide, Yorkshire, Coventry, Skipton, Leeds and Principality—only Nationwide currently pays the bank levy. Based on the most up-to-date profit figures from 2014-15, it is estimated that the building societies will pay about £126 million a year through the corporation tax surcharge, equating to about £630 million up to 2020. The building societies point out that the primary way in which they build their capital is through retained profit, so a tax on profit has a disproportionate effect on them. Moreover, they do not have shareholders, unlike public limited companies, so this is, in effect, a tax on the customers who own them—retail savers and mortgage borrowers. It will be important for the Government to explain their thinking on building societies and what analysis there is of how these changes will play out for them in practice.

The next key issue that we will return to in Committee relates to the climate change levy. Clause 45 removes the climate change levy exemption for renewable source electricity generated on or after 1 August 2015. I am afraid that this is another example of the Government undermining investor confidence in renewable energy. They have already tried to halt the development of the cheapest form of clean energy by pulling the plug on onshore wind, and this continues that trend. It would be fair to say that since taking office they have put placating their Back Benchers’ more strident views about renewable energy generation above the jobs and investment that would be created across our economy if we were genuinely able to move towards a low-carbon economy.

We will particularly seek to push the Government on a suggestion by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that they produce a road map, as they have done previously on aspects of taxation policy—in particular, corporation tax policy—setting out their plans for the future of environmental taxes to help the renewable energy industry, and business more generally, to take long-term investment decisions. That could be an important way for the Government to set out their intentions for the life of this Parliament and for us to test whether they mean it with regard to charting a course towards a low-carbon economy for our country.

Insurance premium tax, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), is a significant revenue-raising measure. Clause 43 increases the standard rate of the tax from 6% to 9.5% with effect from 1 November 2015, raising £1.6 billion. There are very important questions about the distributional impact that that will have and whether those on middle and low incomes will bear the brunt of the increases. It is interesting that the Chancellor did not focus on the very significant revenue-raising measures in his Budget. Indeed, the rhetoric and narrative that he has been pursuing suggests that it is a Budget of giveaways. He will not be surprised that we will not let him get away with that characterisation.

Insurance premium tax has been described as a stealth tax. Ministers will be aware that several industry figures have warned that increasing it could prompt policyholders to buy less cover, possibly exacerbating problems caused by under-insurance, particularly with regard to car insurance. Again, we will wish to test those areas further in Committee when we will look carefully at any analysis by Government of the possible impact on under-insurance. The AA has said that insurance premium tax on the average car insurance policy is equivalent to a fuel duty increase of almost 2p per litre, so either way drivers are being hit in their pockets. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the measure’s overall distributional income, what conversations the Government have already had with the insurance industry and what this means for future changes to fuel duty.

As I have said, we support other measures in the Bill, particularly the so-called tax lock both for income tax at the basic, higher and additional rates, and for VAT. I remind Treasury Ministers that, back in 2009, the current Chancellor was very critical about Chancellors passing laws to ensure that they fulfil the promises they make in general election campaigns, and I think that that criticism applies just as much to him now. However, we support the principle of the lock. We have pledged not to raise VAT, national insurance or the basic and higher rates of income tax, so we welcome those measures.