Amendment of the Law
Robert Flello Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
There has been much trumpeting and advance spinning of the Budget in recent days, so almost every announcement this afternoon came as no surprise. There are also hidden messages in the Budget: those who are poor and whose income is being squeezed are being asked to work longer; but for those in the top income bracket, the message is, “Let us ease your pain. We’ve reduced your corporation tax bills, lowered your banker’s bonus tax, now let’s cut your income tax rate.”
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Was not another thing sneaked through the Budget quickly and carefully: the more than £1 billion hit that British pensioners will take as a result of the announcement on “simplifying” personal allowances for pensioners?
Ann McKechin
My hon. Friend has cleverly noted that hidden message, to which, I am sure, the Chancellor was keen to avoid drawing attention. However, pensioners are not as daft as he thinks, and I think that they will soon reckon that they are paying for the millionaires’ tax bonus announced today.
There has also been complete radio silence on other matters: women, for example, or children. By any rational definition, the Budget has not only ducked the hard issues, but entrenched the division in our society.
Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses
Robert Flello Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
I can confirm that according to the latest forecast, there will be significantly increased borrowing compared with the previous one. The hon. Lady should have explained in her opening speech that her policies involve substantial further increases in borrowing, which would destroy this country’s economic credibility and the hard-won low interest rates that we have achieved.
As a result of our action, we have record low bond yields that feed through to record low interest rates, which benefit households paying mortgages and businesses refinancing loans right across the country. Whereas our bond yields are just 2.1%, those of Spain have risen to 5.5%, those of Italy remain over 6%, and those of Greece have climbed to a staggering 34%. Even a 1% rise in our market interest rates would force taxpayers to find an extra £21 billion in debt interest payments. A 1% rise in effective mortgage rates would result in an extra £10 billion for mortgage payments.
The Opposition have had 18 months to come to terms with the mess they created, but they still do not get it. It has taken them 18 months to move from the wrong place to all over the place. The Leader of the Opposition called the pay freeze an
“ideological attack on the public sector”,
but he now accepts it. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury called the uprating of pensions with the consumer prices index an “ideologically driven move”, but it is a move that the Opposition have now accepted for their party’s own pension scheme. So let us be clear—financial discipline is not ideological; it is a necessary condition for effective government. In the past 10 days, members of the Labour shadow Cabinet have succeeded in proving that they cannot even convince themselves of the credibility of their economic policy.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his idea of economic stability to my constituents? In my constituency the long-term youth unemployment rate has risen by 162% in the past year. Will he explain how his stability will affect the people of Stoke-on-Trent who are losing jobs hand over fist because of his policies?
Danny Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman looks around Europe at the countries that have failed to tackle their deficits, he will see much more serious economic problems—problems of the kind that we would have here if we followed Labour’s policies. He should start by apologising for the mess that his party made of the economy.
Fuel Prices
Robert Flello Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I begin by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing today’s extremely important debate, which is long overdue. We have heard today of double whammies and triple whammies. I shall not go for quadruple or quintuple whammies, but simply point out that the price of fuel pervades every aspect of what we do.
Whether in a rural community or in a heavily urbanised community such as Stoke-on-Trent, everything happens because of the cost of fuel—constituents going to the local shop and travelling there by car or constituents going to work by bus are all affected by the costs of fuel. The goods in the shops will have got there by means of the haulage industry, and some of those goods will have come from the farming community that produced them. At some level, the cost of fuel will be a component of the cost of every item on the shelves.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one group that is particularly vulnerable to the cost of fuel is the disabled? Those who are on Motability schemes, such as the constituent who contacted me, have no choice—they have to use their car and are therefore subject to the high cost of fuel.
Robert Flello
I could not agree more. All our poorest communities, whether they are people with any form of disability requiring a mobility allowance or special vehicles, or the poorest communities trying their best to get to work in difficult circumstances, are the people most heavily affected. The point was made earlier about who is paying the tax. It is being paid by the poorest. Who is not paying the tax? The oil companies and the speculators, who are taking the opportunity of the Arab spring and in some cases the continuing troubles to speculate a little more in the belief that the price will go up, until that becomes self-fulfilling. We end up with petrol prices continually going up, irrespective almost of fuel taxes. We should have a thorough root-and-branch review of that.
In the few minutes available to me, I want to turn my attention predominantly to the impact on the haulage industry and the associated industry, the road rescue services. I place on record my thanks to the Road Rescue Recovery Association, the Scottish Vehicle Recovery Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association for the campaigns that they have been running, alongside the FairFuelUK campaign, and the pressure that they have been bringing to bear to get the issue debated seriously on the Floor of the House.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the high fuel duty is having a particularly damaging effect on the construction industry, which is going through a difficult time at present?
Robert Flello
Indeed. Every aspect of what we do is affected by the price of fuel, whether at the pumps, domestically, or at the heavy duty pumps that the haulage industry and other industries use. All sorts of other issues then come into play. For example, hauliers will be looking to ensure that their vehicles are running as efficiently as possible, yet on the European stage there is the possibility of a reduction in the height of trailers to 4 metres, which will have a negative impact on our haulage industry in the United Kingdom, exacerbate the problem of the price of fuel and increase the need for a cut in the fuel duty.
As has been said, a temporary VAT cut would be absolutely the right thing to do to secure an immediate impact for the domestic motorist, but something different is needed for the haulage industry in the longer term. A VAT cut would obviously have a wash-through effect, but we need a more serious change and a restructuring of the way the fuel costs of the industry and associated industries are met.
Other factors that impact on the haulage industry, such as London’s low emissions zone, also have a knock-on effect. I wish that Mayor Boris would respond to my letters and agree to meet to discuss the impact on the haulage and haulage recovery industries. It has a direct impact on fuel efficiency and keeping traffic moving on London’s streets if vehicles that should be on the streets helping to recover other vehicles and keep traffic flowing are prohibited from doing so. That will of course become a greater concern in the run-up to the Olympics.
Indeed, other aspects of the price of fuel will affect the membership organisations—I will not name them—that come out when their members break down by the side of the road, and those organisations’ costs are passed on to their members through the running costs of the yellow or orange vehicles that assist people at the roadside. That industry will also be hit by Green Flag’s terrible announcement that it is devastating the number of contractors who work for it. Some of them will unfortunately end up unemployed.
Nia Griffith
Does my hon. Friend recognise the real danger to haulage companies from foreign competition because of the price differentials?
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend makes her point well.
In the 20 seconds remaining, I wish to make two points. First, instead of cutting the top tax rate of 50p for high earners, we should be helping motorists. Secondly, we should be looking at ways of taxing the speculators and the people who are making a profit from the ordinary motorist and make them pay instead.
Jobs and Growth
Robert Flello Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
I know the details of that campaign, although I do not know all 49 members. I know that it argues for a widening of our proposal.
One business organisation, the Federation of Small Businesses, has said:
“the Government’s growth strategy is just not working…We must see a cut in VAT to five per cent in the construction and tourism sectors to boost consumer demand.”
The business demand for a change of course is growing.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My constituents, my right hon. Friend’s constituents and constituents across this country are seeing growth—growth in their gas and electricity bills and in their food bills. That double whammy is hitting our constituents on top of the mess that the Chancellor is making.
Ed Balls
Our constituents are seeing growth in VAT and in unemployment as well. The only thing that they are not seeing is growth in growth.
The markets are not the real reason why the Chancellor is determined to cling on to his failing economic policy. There are two obstacles in his way. The first is the coalition agreement. We know how desperate the Chief Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister are for the Chancellor to stick to the deficit reduction plan, because they steamrollered their colleagues into signing up to a manifesto that explicitly rejected it. The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto stated:
“If spending is cut too soon, it would undermine the much-needed recovery and cost jobs.”
They were right, which is why there are so few of them here for this debate. They all know that their leaders graphically predicted before the election the very calamity that has happened after the election. The fact is, any successful coalition has to have the flexibility to change course when things go wrong.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Wise words from Lord Keynes, and he was a Liberal. He must listen to the current incoherent, confused and contradictory ramblings of the Business Secretary and turn in his grave.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). Her points about competitiveness in the long term and the immediate future are valid. However, all of us who have been in industry know without a doubt that long periods of deflation, inactivity, insufficiency of demand and cuts hurt competitiveness. That is the trouble with the Government’s policy.
By sleight of hand and cleverness in debate, the Chancellor seems to have turned the debate from being about what the Government’s plan originally aimed to do into being about debt and interest rate management. We are all pleased that there has been some success in those areas, but at what cost has that success come? It has come at the cost of missing the central aim of the plan that the Chancellor set out when he came into office in June last year: to reduce the deficit within this Parliament. It is quite obvious that we are not getting anywhere near that. Indeed, every single indicator in the plan is going into reverse and being missed. The unemployment figures that came out today are disastrous and will make the plan cost a lot more. We are overshooting the borrowing requirement, which was meant to be reduced, by £46 billion before we even come on to the increased costs of higher unemployment and the benefits that go with it.
Mr Robinson
I will give way in a moment.
Inherent in the plan are further unnecessary deflation and cuts in the economy. The growth plan was essential to the original plan of stabilising and reducing the deficit. I agreed with that entirely, as I am sure did all Members, particularly the Government Members who speak about the private sector. However, it relied on the private sector getting going and increasing investment, output and net exports. Every one of those things is going into reverse.
After I have given way to my hon. Friend, I will come back to that point and deal with this week’s National Institute of Economic and Social Research report.
Robert Flello
My hon. Friend is making a very good point about growth in the private sector. His constituency, like mine, will have businesses that could export because they have order books for three years, but cannot because the banks will not lend them any money to solve their cash-flow issues. They cannot do the work or fulfil their contractual orders because they do not have the working capital to do so due to the nonsense that is going on.
Mr Robinson
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I will come to the problem of bank lending towards the end of the few minutes that I have.
To see the central failure of the plan and why it is so obviously not working, one must just look at what the NIESR has said about the progress of manufacturing, on which the plan relies:
“manufacturing output—the biggest contributor to industrial production—fell for the third month in a row, suggesting the engine of the economic recovery had shifted into reverse.”
I do not think that anybody can doubt that. The plan is not working, like it or not. Manufacturing output fell 0.3% between July and August, meaning that it has fallen for three months in a row. At the beginning of this year it was increasing by 6.1%, but that has dropped to 1% on an annual basis. We are looking at a catastrophe.
The Government attempt to blame all this on the previous Labour Government, as if we created the world crisis, which we did not. We have to find a way of yanking them out of that mindset. It is quite clear to anybody looking at the situation as we go into the second year of their plan that they own this economic policy. It is their economic policy and their plan that are on trial, not what the Labour Government did or did not do five, six, seven or eight years ago. It is their plan that is not working. I do not know why everybody on the Government Benches cannot see that that is a simple fact. Whether we did the right thing is totally irrelevant to the present situation. The question is: is the Government’s plan working? It is quite clear that it is not. I will willingly give way to the Chief Secretary if he wants to intervene on that point. Realising that, the Government are trying to move the debate to another issue, which is not the central issue.
The Government are also trying to introduce some measures that will help, and they have gone for monetary easing and credit easing. The trouble is, the history of monetary easing does not suggest that it gets into the real economy. Indeed, when the Governor of the Bank of England gave that remarkable interview to two economic journalists following the announcement of the £75 billion increase in monetary easing, he could not say that it would get into the real economy. He said, “That’s none of my business,” but of course it is. He said, “I will lend it to the banks, what they do with it is up to them.” We know as a fact from previous experience that it does not get to the high street or into the real economy. Unless measures are taken to direct that money effectively in some way or another, against the Governor’s explicit policy of not interfering in capital markets at all, it will not work. We know that Project Merlin similarly failed.
The Chancellor has now come up with a great plan for credit easing, but who is going to administer it and dress up the bonds involved? Will there be a composite element of different companies? Who will decide who gets the money and who does not? Perhaps the Chief Secretary will enlighten us when he winds up the debate, but there is nothing concrete about the plan. It is just an idea that has been floated, like Merlin or monetary easing. It sounds good—if we could get small companies in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) back working with money, it would be great. We would all back it, as we are in principle.
It is no good the Government believing that they cannot embark on capital investment right throughout the economy. Of course the plans will take time to introduce, although if they had been started a year and a half ago, when we pointed out to the Government what they should be doing, they would be ready now. Every time we have gone to the Treasury we have been told, “Oh, that won’t have any effect immediately.” That argument just puts off the day on which plans are implemented. The Government’s plan is not working, and we can put forward plans that would get the country back to work and also help to reduce the deficit much more effectively than the Government’s failed plans are.
Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living
Robert Flello Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson
I accept my right hon. Friend’s point: with a 20% price differential, fuel smuggling of course becomes a lucrative trade.
Although there are differences in approach, there seems to be a fair degree of unanimity that this issue needs to be dealt with. In fact, the only dissenting voice I have heard is that of the member of the Green party who sits in front of me, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who seems to think that it is a good idea that fuel prices go up. I think she is more interested in influencing temperatures in the world in 100 years’ time than dealing with the poverty people face in the present day—it is a quirky party, so of course it has quirky ideas.
A number of criticisms have been made of the motion before us, and I must say that I have some sympathy with them. I know that getting a derogation from Europe will not be easy. Indeed, after this debate I will be speaking with the Minister about the aggregates levy and derogations for it, and even for something that simple we are looking at more than a year for Europe to agree a variation on something that it has already accepted. One must bear it in mind that that is not a quick remedy. However, the motion at least highlights the issue, which is one reason I support it, and it does so in stark terms, setting out the impact that fuel price rises have on people.
The Economic Secretary’s response has been threefold. First, she spent quite a lot of her speech looking back. I suppose it is difficult for someone from Northern Ireland to criticise another for looking back, so you will have to allow me to overcome that irony, Madam Deputy Speaker. I admire the way the Economic Secretary made her argument. In fact, I like her style—head-butt the opponent, get them on the ground and kick them when they’re down. She should be an honorary Ulsterwoman. I appreciate her approach, but although the previous Government have a case to answer, I think that people outside are interested not so much in who did what in the past, but in what will happen in future. Although it was good to hear her robust response, it has to go further.
Secondly, the Economic Secretary gave a number of reasons why things could not be done. She talked about deficit reduction and the fact that there would be a cost attached to any action on fuel prices, but one point that has escaped mention in the debate is that we are talking about a windfall for the Government. The increase in money that has resulted from the price rises was not anticipated in the deficit reduction plan in the first place—at least I do not think that the Government anticipated there would be a war in Libya and that that would put up fuel prices and built that into their Budget. If they did, God help us, because if that kind of planning goes into a long-term Budget we should be very worried. It is a windfall tax, so the Government have an opportunity to give it back to the people; it does not impact on the deficit reduction plan and it alleviates a problem that they have identified.
Thirdly, the Economic Secretary said that she cannot pre-empt the Budget, and I suppose we must have some sympathy with that. I do not think that anyone would want her to do so, but if there is to be some good news in the Budget, I would have liked her to have at least softened us all up by giving some hope that that will happen.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am thoroughly enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but, to pick up on that point, Government Front Benchers could pre-empt the Budget by announcing now, as Labour did in the past, that the proposed increase will not happen. They do not have to wait until the Budget.
Sammy Wilson
I was just coming to that point. Government Front Benchers could today at least have offered us some softening up, some promise or some hope held out, but that was not apparent in the speech we heard. Perhaps in the winding-up speech there will be such an opportunity. The one thing we do know is that in opposition and faced with increasing fuel prices and protests about them, the current Chancellor said that when prices and the tax take go up, taxes should go down, and that when prices go down, taxes should go up. That was the policy enunciated when Government Members were in opposition. I look forward to next Wednesday to see whether that promise and policy will be given some effect in the Budget. If that happens, this motion and this debate will have been worth while and there will be at least some alleviation of the hardship that fuel price increases have brought.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
We have heard today from Members on both sides of the Chamber about how ordinary working families and people are feeling the squeeze in these tough economic times.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) made an excellent speech in which she spoke up for the constituents who have contacted her by e-mail telling stories of how they are being hit by the fuel price rises. My hon. Friends the Members for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) added their tales of woe from constituents who are finding times difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned a constituent who wrote to him about being hit from all sides by a litany of blows rained down on him by this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) referred to a cocktail of economic policies that amount to an assault on the living standards of ordinary working families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South talked about the impact on small businesses, as did the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who spoke from first-hand experience as someone who used to run his own business. He said that the cost of fuel had gone up from £2,000 per month to £3,000 per month, which was obviously having a major impact on the ability to run a profitable business.
Robert Flello
Is my hon. Friend aware that organisations such as the Road Rescue Recovery Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Scottish Vehicle Recovery Association are asking, “When are the party in government going to honour their pledge about the stabiliser?” They are desperate for that to happen.
Finance Bill
Robert Flello Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle
I beg to move amendment 61, page 3, line 12, at end add—
‘(2) Schedule 3 shall not have effect unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report on the implications of the abolition of compulsory annuitisation of pensions, including—
(a) the revenue implications of abolition; and
(b) a distributional analysis showing who would benefit from abolition.’.
The amendment would mean that the age at which compulsory annuitisation is required could not rise, as the Government announced in the Budget, from the current 75 to 77 until the Chancellor lays before the House a report setting out the implications of abolishing the compulsory annuitisation of pensions savings. That would include the revenue implications and a distributional analysis of who would benefit from the abolition, in the interests of transparency. It is important to explore in more detail the Government’s precise thinking and intentions.
Before I do that, I shall comment on the sudden appearance this morning of a written ministerial statement, to which the Economic Secretary referred, on the matter. It appeared without the courtesy of any warning before our debate on the subject.
I spent some time on the Treasury website trying to avoid the increasingly odious comments on the “spending challenge website”, which continues to publish offensive and outrageous suggestions for savings, such as sterilising the poor, reopening the workhouses and the forced repatriation of immigrants. It appears to be completely unmoderated by the Treasury, and I hope that the Economic Secretary will convey my strong view that something should be done about that thing on the Treasury website.
What I could not find on the Treasury website, right up to the point when I came into the Chamber for today’s debate, was a copy of the consultation document that the written ministerial statement said would be there. I have a copy of the complete list of Treasury consultation documents that was on the website at around 12.30 pm. It featured the bank levy consultation, but not the consultation alluded to in the written statement. I therefore had to go the Library and have it printed so that I had the chance to look at it before I dashed into the Chamber, but the Minister has been waving it about. Will it be the usual behaviour of those on the Treasury Bench to give Members of the House so little time to look at a 53-page document? There was no advance warning, and the document was unavailable on the Treasury website, even though the written ministerial statement said it would be there. The Minister should get her Department to do a lot better than it has done today. That the document was unavailable anywhere other than via a photocopying machine in the Library at the last minute is a discourtesy to the House.
When I had a look at the consultation as I sat on the Front Bench while other debates were going on, the first thing I noticed was that the consultation will be a mere eight weeks long. It starts today and will end on 10 September, which is four weeks shorter than is recommended as good practice in the code on consultation, the second criterion of which states:
“Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible”.
The consultation is an eight-week, rushed consultation that includes the entirety of the August holiday, when many of the people who have expertise on this matter will be sunning themselves in very much nicer climes than most of us could probably afford to visit, before they come back to pronounce. That is a very peculiar way to consult on such an important matter.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend also find it a little strange that there is such a short consultation period when we are talking about a two-year extension? That seems contradictory.
Ms Eagle
I too wanted to ask the Minister this: what on earth is the rush about? One thing about annuitising and pension rules is that she has a little run-in time to consider—at some length—the implications of her proposals. I do not understand why there was such short notice and why the consultation is so rushed. I am forming an impression that the Government have already decided what they are going to do and that the consultation is a sham. If it is, they ought to have the decency to tell us what they have decided and not to consult at all. I would not have thought that the many experts who will be sunning themselves over the August holidays will thank the Government very much for giving them such a short time to respond.
The foreword of the consultation document states:
“The Government wants to foster a new culture of saving in the UK.”
We would all agree with that, and that a rebalancing towards saving is necessary. Therefore, it is important to prioritise large numbers of people saving appropriately. I had a look to see what the Government have done so far to encourage saving, particularly in pensions, which is what annuities are all about. Will the Minister explain quite how reducing public and private pensions by changing their definitions from RPI to CPI helps to increase pension saving? Yesterday, the Daily Mail and various other experts said that that is a raid on people’s pension expectations of more than £100 billion in the private sector, an amount that will accumulate year after year. Can the Minister explain how that encourages pension saving? Will she confirm that the impact assessment in this consultation lets the cat out of the bag when it comes to changing annuitisation rules? We have no particular problem, and certainly no philosophical problem with shifting the age of annuitisation from 75 to 77. Longevity has increased and the last rules—and the age of 75—were set in 1956. Indeed, annuitisation was first made compulsory in the Finance Bill of 1921, which was slightly before my time and I know that it was also before the Minister’s time.
Stephen Timms
I appreciate that the arrangements will broadly have the effect of maintaining the tax treatment that applied to similar expenses paid under the previous arrangements. Tax treatment of MPs’ expenses used to be dealt with by specific legislation or long-standing extra-statutory concessions. As hon. Members will know, a long-term project has been undertaken following the judgment in the Wilkinson case of 2006 to place all the statutory concessions on a proper legislative basis. Can the Minister confirm that the previous concession, which I think is numbered A.54—Members of Parliament: accommodation, allowances and expenses—has, with this legislation, been withdrawn, and whether any of the other extra-statutory concessions outstanding are affected by the Bill?
Robert Flello
My right hon. Friend said that schedule 4 was broadly neutral in terms of income tax. Has he noted paragraph 1(4) on loans for deposits payable on rented accommodation—perhaps our constituency offices or flats that we need in London because of the ridiculous IPSA rules on staying in hotels? It is common practice for landlords to charge a deposit on flats, something that we have to pay only because we are here representing our constituents. Has my right hon. Friend noticed that there is a tax implication for us in that?
Stephen Timms
I confess that when I read the legislation that point did not strike me, but it has been raised and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it on the record.