Business of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My memory is that the issue was raised in the Backbench Business Committee’s discussions, but I cannot be sure at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I might talk with the Chair of the Committee. I think that it might have scheduled the debate and that it has already taken place, but I just do not remember entirely. However, there are certainly important opportunities for us to debate that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 965, which is about using the extra revenue raised by the new 45p rate of tax?
[That this House notes newspaper reports that the top rate of income tax is expected to raise more money when it falls to 45 pence, not less, as fewer will avoid it; further notes that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Treasury have estimated that £7 billion was lost when the top rate was raised by the previous administration to 50 pence; concludes therefore that when the economy recovers, any extra revenues gained from the rich by the cut in the top rate should be used to pay for lower taxes on lower earners, for example by restoring the starter 10 pence rate of income tax; and finally notes that a new generous 10 pence band between £9,440 and £12,000 would be worth at least £250 annually to British workers, and would lift everyone on the minimum wage at least halfway towards earning the living wage in cash terms.]
Will he consider having a debate on the subject so that we can see whether we could use the extra revenue to restore the 10p income tax rate and lower tax for lower earners?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I have seen that early-day motion—we have discussed it in previous business questions. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising it, including, if I recall correctly, during Northern Ireland questions. He is so assiduous in these matters that I think no Government Minister can be unaware of the point he is making. However, it is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Business of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman seems to be living in some kind of denial. We inherited the largest deficit among OECD countries and have reduced it by a quarter. We are taking the action necessary following the appalling legacy we inherited, and the way we are going about it is fair. If he looks at the distribution of impacts of income tax changes, he will see that the highest earners see the biggest increase in taxation, and that low earners see reductions in income tax, not least specifically as a consequence of the change in personal tax allowance.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 897 on restoring the 10p income tax rate that was abolished by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)?
[That this House regrets the abolition of the 10 pence rate of income tax in 2008 by the last Labour Government; notes that a starter 10 pence rate of income tax between the personal allowance and 12,000 would instantly move all British workers on the minimum wage about halfway towards earning the Living Wage, in cash terms; concludes that the poorest Brits would benefit the most as a share of income; and therefore urges the Government to restore the 10 pence rate of income tax as soon as economic growth allows.]
May we have a debate on lower tax for lower earners? In that way, we might see how restoring the 10p rate would be a better way to help lower earners rather than recycling benefits through the tax system?
Mr Lansley
I have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. He knows we have taken action to help the lowest-paid workers, but as I have said a number of times, the increases in the personal income tax allowance will take 2.2 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. Someone working full-time on the minimum wage will see their tax bill cut in half as a result of that measure.
Business of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
A large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As usual, I am anxious to accommodate as many of them as possible. The House will be conscious of the fact that there is an important Government statement and three pieces of business under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee to follow. That information serves to underline the imperative of short questions and answers. We will be led in our mission by Mr Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 686 on compensation for Zimbabwean farmers who had their land stolen by Mugabe?
[That this House calls on the World Bank and the Zimbabwe government to respect the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) court ruling in April 2009 that granted compensation of EUR22.5 million to Zimbabwean and European farmers, including Timolene Tibbett, who were illegally and often brutally thrown off their land during the Mugabe land reform in 2000 and 2001; believes that settlement of this claim will demonstrate a commitment to international law from the coalition Zimbabwe government and build confidence with international investors that arbitration ruling for investments, no matter how small or large, will be respected to created jobs and opportunities in Zimbabwe; and cautions the World Bank against adopting the incoherent position of progressing with a debt write-off programme with the Zimbabwe government whilst not ensuring the Zimbabwe government honours the legal commitments arrived at via proceedings of the ICSID, which is a World Bank court.]
May we have a debate on Zimbabwe to ensure that we get justice and compensation for farmers, including my constituent, Timolene Tibbett?
Mr Lansley
I am sure that, like me, the House will have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. I hope that we can find an opportunity for such a debate. To accelerate the process, it might be advisable for him and others to seek time to discuss the issue on the Adjournment.
Business of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The Government have not put the legislation on the back burner. We responded to the Procedure Committee, which made significant and substantial comments that were not supportive of the proposals that were before it. We will continue to consider what progress is appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of our adhering to our parliamentary responsibilities, not only by being in this House, but by meeting them elsewhere. He will no doubt be considering the position of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), given the relatively few occasions on which he attends this House on behalf of his constituents. For our part, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and his colleagues have taken the action that they should have taken in relation to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries). I am clear that if a Member wishes to engage people in Parliament and convey to them a sense of its relevance, the place to do it is here, not in Australia.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 699?
[That this House notes newspaper reports on the auction of the 4G spectrum, which suggest that it could raise around 2 billion to 3 billion in 2013; further notes that this would be enough revenue to scrap the previous administration’s 3p January petrol tax twice over; and therefore calls on the Government to continue its historic freeze in fuel duty, to continue to be the motorist’s friend and to stop the planned 3p fuel duty rise in January 2013.]
Will he find time for a statement on the auction of the 4G spectrum? Newspapers have reported that the spectrum auction could raise £2 billion to £3 billion next year, which is enough revenue to scrap Labour’s petrol tax rise in January twice over.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the action that we are taking to ensure that mobile phone operators can meet the rapidly growing demand for mobile internet access and introduce next generation mobile services. That is essential for economic growth and will bring an estimated benefit of £2 billion to £3 billion to the UK economy. My colleagues have instructed Ofcom to auction more spectrum to ensure that we meet the growing demand. The Government are working to ensure that we have the digital infrastructure that businesses need.
My hon. Friend will know that any resources raised for the Exchequer by the auction are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will note that the autumn statement is on 5 December.
House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. Had I not thought of those questions before, it is now firmly planted in my mind to ensure that they are all properly asked.
The last point that I wanted to touch on is the plans to increase revenue. The Administration Committee has done considerable work on this, and we had a debate in Westminster Hall which featured that topic. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden will speak in this debate and I am sure that he will cover this in greater detail. It is also the subject of an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Notwithstanding the fact that I am about to disagree with him, I respect hugely the point that he puts and I am extremely grateful to him for having raised it in the debate. It is one of the core points and it is absolutely right that we as Members should discuss that. He has therefore done us a service by tabling the amendment, and I am grateful that it has been selected. However, I will now proceed to disagree with him, if I may.
The House has operated a number of facilities for staff, visitors and Members, including cafes, restaurants, bars and shops, for a considerable length of time. I hope it will be uncontroversial to affirm that these should be correctly priced and effectively costed. All these are details that the Administration Committee goes into. However, the Palace not only houses Parliament, but is a world-class heritage asset and one of the United Kingdom’s leading visitor attractions. I suggest that as such, we have a duty to make the Palace available to visitors who want to visit it, and an equal duty to ensure that the cost of that does not fall on the taxpayer, but is recovered from those visitors.
The key point is to ensure that there is no conflict between Parliament as a working institution and the Palace as a world-class visitor attraction, so I shall set out my principles in that regard. They are three. First, Parliament is a working institution and while it is sitting, those activities take precedence over any other activity. Secondly, all citizens have the right to visit their Parliament and to engage with their Members of Parliament and the parliamentary process without any charge at any point. Thirdly, subject to those first two principles, the Palace is a world heritage and tourist asset which should be made available for tourist visitors, provided that the costs of such provision are recovered and not passed on to the taxpayer.
I believe—and I think this is where I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow—that provided we have absolutely ensured that parliamentary proceedings are sacrosanct and that citizens can visit the Palace without a charge and without fear of a charge, we have a duty and a right to open it to wider visits and to charge to recover the costs.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In his document he talks about respect for Parliament. This sums up the nub of my argument. The effect of what he proposes is that people who are rich, such as corporates that can pay more money, will have special privileges to get into the Palace of Westminster. That is what I find objectionable. I do not make the distinction between when Parliament is sitting and when it is not sitting.
John Thurso
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I entirely respect that point of view. I just fundamentally disagree with it, in the nicest possible way. Let us take, for example, the fact that we are putting up the prices for commercial filming in certain parts of the Palace. We have done that for many, many years. All that we are currently doing is making the prices roughly equal to the charges for any other commercial activity. Let us consider another example. My fellow Commissioner, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), is Chairman of Mr Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art and has done a power of work to open up the art work in this building by offering specialist tours in secure areas to people who would not otherwise be able to get there. Those tours mean that members of staff have to be assigned to that duty. The choice, it seems to me, is that we either recover the cost of those members of staff so that we can widen the access, or we do not do it and do not pay the staff so that we can stay within budget. An ever-increasing openness of the Palace that takes no account of the costs is plain wrong.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), because this is the first time that the House has been able to examine, after a considerable degree of preparation and consultation, what is, in effect, its budget. This is an important occasion, and it may well be one that can be repeated on an annual basis.
Some people, when they look at the suggested savings, might think that we are dancing to the Executive’s tune and that that is not what a legislature should do. In fact, one can see from our spending plans that there are ways of making changes and savings that bring us up to date in our operations, even if we are in a 19th-century building. The trouble is that everyone has their own ideas about savings, and what pleases some will not please others, according to their particular pattern of working. At some point, a package needs to be decided. It is not necessarily just a question of cutting or of doing things in a different way; the other ingredient can be to generate income.
We should not over-emphasise the public’s reverence for this building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has done in the past, because I suspect there is a lot less reverence for the catering deficit, which was £5.9 million at the start of this Parliament and which the proposals will, if carried, bring down to at least £4.4 million for 2012-13. If there is doubt whether we can press ahead with the full programme for the restoration and renewal of this building—a matter to which the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) has just referred—it is because of the fear that the public will be concerned about the costs involved. I think that the public look to us to act in a responsible and, I would hope, business-like way.
I want to concentrate on catering and retail, bearing in mind the thrust of my hon. Friend’s amendment. Clearly, we felt that the catering subsidy could not be ignored. We were not exactly helped by the Commission’s decision to impose a 10% price increase at the start of this Parliament, before the Administration and Finance and Services Committees were in place. That got us off to a difficult start. I wish it had left it a little longer. It has resulted in some perverse effects.
People think of this place as 650 Members of Parliament, but there are in fact 13,000 pass holders, not all of whom have the same income as MPs. A few have higher incomes, but for the most part they are on much lower incomes, and outlets have seen a reduction in footfall. Members of Parliament also entertain their constituents here and are finding that it has become much more costly to do so. We should not create a regime that makes Members hesitate to bring in guests because of the facility costs in certain outlets.
Income generation is an important element in achieving our objectives and we can do it through both catering and retail. I do not think that a considered approach to the issue should be dismissed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow seems to wish—as commercialisation, as though it were a vulgar activity. If, in his own words, this is the people’s palace, I do not see why we should not widen access, especially when our facilities are not needed by us.
Robert Halfon
My right hon. Friend has said that some of the proposals are justified because Members are finding the restaurant prices too high. What he is saying is that it is okay to bring in companies to have special access to our facilities, because that will help Members reduce their bills. How can that be right and how would members of the public react to such a proposal?
Sir Alan Haselhurst
My hon. Friend is both unfair and wrong. I said that one effect of the price increases has been felt by colleagues, but that a much greater effect has been felt by lower-paid pass holders in this Palace—I was more concerned for them. The fact of the matter is that large organisations, be they charitable, private sector or nationalised, have access to this place already, and we take a great deal of revenue from them. All they need is the fig leaf of sponsorship from a Member of Parliament. The proposals simply say that access could be achieved without the presence of a sponsoring MP. There is no actual difference with regard to the ability to access the Palace.
I am worried about the IPSA effect—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—on our budgeting arrangements. I believe that the change to Tuesday’s sitting hours has been effected by those colleagues who have found themselves without support for accommodation in central London. I must not impute motive to them, but 43 out of the 96 people affected by that IPSA regulation voted for the change in hours. I can understand why, but it has a serious effect on revenues. On Tuesday evenings this place is now deserted, and on Tuesday mornings we now have great difficulty in bringing in visitors from our constituencies, which is something that many Members value. That is also a question of access.
The Administration Committee has looked—indeed, it is still looking—at how our facilities can be better used. As a general approach, I honestly do not see what is wrong with that. First, I would like to think that Members themselves would use the facilities more often—that would be a start. The Committee, together with the catering management, is trying to find innovative ways in which we can hold Members here more often to take advantage of the facilities and, therefore, make a contribution to revenue, but allowing public access is the other way. Other Parliaments do it. Indeed, in the Parliament of Quebec, the public are able to book a table in the restaurants not only when Members are not present, but on days when the Parliament is actually sitting. I am not suggesting for a moment that we go that far, but the idea that this is a revolutionary or demeaning move on the part of the Palace of Westminster is entirely wrong.
Is it wrong to host civil ceremonies? Is it wrong to develop specialist tours, such as a works of art tour? Is it especially wrong to hire out the facilities? That is what we already do, but we could do more of it. My amendment to the business improvement plans simply draws attention to the valuable work done by the management in that direction, and I believe that that should be given the fullest opportunity to work before we consider any outside catering or similar. Let us put that to the test first—that is the gravamen of my amendment.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). He has a thankless task, but he always deals with me with respect and understanding. I greatly admire the work he does; I simply disagree about the emphasis.
I welcome much that is in the report, and it is rare that I disagree with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). We have worked together on other matters, but I disagree fundamentally with some of his arguments. As far as I am concerned, there are three issues: first, as I have said, our respect for Parliament; secondly, the precedent that the Commission’s decisions might set; and, thirdly, the need for savings. I am not against savings. I believe that we should have savings; I just dispute where those savings should be made.
The issue of respect is incredibly important, because Parliament is not a stately home or a tourist attraction like many of our other tourist attractions. It is not a hotel or a conference venue. It is a very special place and the foundation of our laws and democracy, and so it needs to be treated differently. Yes, we could make a lot of money by allowing companies to hire out rooms, letting people hold weddings here and allowing film people to use Elizabeth Tower, but, once we set that principle, where do we stop? The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is incredibly enlightened, and I believe him when he says that these changes will be limited, but who is to say that someone less enlightened will not in years to come extend the principle still further?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, “Well, we already have business sponsored by Members”, but most of that is politically related. We reached a compromise: we allow business to enter Parliament when sponsored by Members and when Members are there, and it is usually related to their activities as Members of Parliament. That is different, however, from allowing businesses to hire out rooms or from giving people special access, because they are rich, to see paintings that my constituents, who are not rich, who are on £20,000 a year, cannot see. This is our Parliament, our democracy, and we pay for it through our taxes. It is not like going round a stately home. That is why I feel so passionately about it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden criticised what I said during the campaign to stop charges for Big Ben tours. I said much of what I said then for the same reasons I say what I say now. He talked about overseas trips. The whole House will recognise the incredible work that he has done in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, but if we asked taxpayers whether we should shave a few percentage points off overseas trips—I will come on to savings in a moment—or give people privileged access to the Houses of Parliament, I know what they would say.
Once we set the precedent, where do we stop? Do we have rollercoasters outside? [Laughter.] Members may laugh at the suggestion, but once we agree the principle that we become nothing more than a theme park, we create a dangerous precedent.
Sir Alan Haselhurst
It does not help the quality of debate to start using terms such as “theme park”. My hon. Friend has a vivid imagination, if he believes that any of us are interested in going in that direction. What is being proposed is an enlargement of what we do already. The logic of what he is saying, particularly about businesses coming in, is that hon. Members should be prevented now from allowing these functions to take place, and that is irrational.
Robert Halfon
This is where the disagreement lies. I think that we have reached a happy compromise and that we should go this far and no further. The Commission is suggesting that businesses will have special privileges to hire out rooms. My right hon. Friend said that if people are rich they should be able to see some special paintings in the House of Commons. That is wrong. This is our Parliament. We should not make a distinction between people with money and people without when deciding who sees which parts of Parliament.
I turn to savings. I have already talked about overseas trips: if a small percentage—20%, for example—was cut, we could save £250,000 a year. Another £50,000 a year is wasted on food waste. Have we ever considered closing one of the dining rooms, for example, because often the dining rooms are not used?
Sir Paul Beresford
My hon. Friend has touched on a key point. He says that the dining rooms are not being used. If he comes in here during recess, he will see people who have bought relatively cheap tickets—compared with other buildings they could visit—and are coming through and enjoying themselves. They are not rich people. If he walks a little further, he will also see empty rooms that could be used—but are not—to the benefit not only of the public but of the House’s finances.
Robert Halfon
The effect of what my hon. Friend says is that rich corporations and rich people would have privileged access.
As I understand it, the report suggests cutting corporate initiatives by 10%. Why not cut further, saving £300,000 a year? Trimming the overseas trips and delegations paid for by the taxpayer, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden is so keen to preserve, would save £250,000 a year and leave 70% of the original budget intact. Trimming parliamentary outreach by just 20% would save £388,000. I welcome the Commission’s massive efforts to reduce the amount spent on printed publications, but why on earth do we continue to spend money printing a daily Order Paper and a daily Hansard, which could easily be done online? A lot more could be done in that area.
As I said, I disagree not with making savings but with how they are made. I suggest that the Commission has gone for the easier option of giving companies special access to Parliament, allowing filming and so on, because it means they can avoid making tough decisions that would hurt Members not the taxpayer. That is why I have objections and why I tabled my amendment (c).
The issue of consultation has been raised. I respect hugely what the Commission has done to keep Members informed, but we should not just have a three-hour debate in one afternoon on a report that has, in essence, become a de facto decision. Rather, Members should be able to consider options for different savings, such as those that I have suggested, and then vote on them.
In conclusion, I have tabled my amendment so that the Commission can come back with more detail and so that the House can be given a vote exclusively on commercialisation. I do not say it should be banned completely—I tried to make my amendment as moderate as possible—but the issue should be considered more carefully, because I believe we are opening a Pandora’s box. I want my constituents to have exactly the same rights to come to Parliament as every other constituent, and not just because they happen to have a big wad of money in their pockets. That is why I make the argument I am making. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) laughs. I am absolutely amazed that Labour Members, who believe in equality, want to go down the path of giving big corporations special access to the House of Commons.
Ms Angela Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is using the exaggerated example of big corporates visiting, which is a worst-case scenario that the Commission has been careful to rule out. He really must not caricature something that is far less of a problem than he is making out.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Lady but I disagree, because the thrust of the report will have the effect of allowing companies and people with money to go and see special paintings, or whatever it may be, and will deny people who do not have money from having full access to the House of Commons.
I urge the House to think again so that we can consider the issue carefully, main item by main item, because I believe that, if passed, this budget will fundamentally change the nature of the House of Commons and how people access this Parliament.
Business of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I have been saving up the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 669?
[That this House notes the Chancellor’s strong support for motorists thus far, in particular the 1p cut in fuel duty in 2011 and the overall freeze in fuel duty that has lasted for two years; urges the Government to stop the 3p fuel duty rise planned for January 2013; and believes that this is an issue of social justice, as highlighted by the PetrolPromise.com website, showing that a 3p petrol tax will cost motorists an extra £60 at the pumps in 2013 and the Office for National Statistics, which shows that fuel duty is regressive, hitting poorest citizens the hardest.]
The 3p fuel duty rise in January will cost motorists £60 next year; for anyone who has to drive to work, that undoes one third of the benefit of raising the tax threshold. Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to lobby the Treasury to stop the January rise and may we have a debate on the cost of living and fuel duty?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I have indeed seen his early-day motion. He will know, and it is important to remember, that as a result of the steps that the Government, not least Treasury Ministers, have taken, pump prices are now approximately 10p per litre lower than if we had stuck with the Labour party’s plans. That is tremendously important.
On the cost of living, if somebody is on the minimum wage and in full-time work, the effect of the increase in allowances coming through in April next year will be to halve the income tax that they pay. That, too, is an important point about the cost of living, among other things.
Business of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The House will be aware of the Government’s view, which I think is widely shared, that the right route is to a two-state solution through negotiation. That will continue to be the Government’s approach. Indeed, depending on the events at the UN General Assembly, Her Majesty’s Government will be seeking to promote such a negotiated solution.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 489?
[That this House notes that the Charity Commission has formally recognised druids as a religion and granted them charitable status, even though they have just 300 members; questions why therefore the Charity Commission has not recognised the Christian Brethren church, which has 16,000 members and more than 300 churches across the country; further notes the extensive community and charitable outreach that the Brethren church does, which has significant public benefit; and finally calls on the Charity Commission to stop the discrimination against this Christian church and to have a level playing field for all religions.]
May we have a debate on the Charity Commission and the recognition of religious groups to find out why it recognises druids but does not recognise the Christian Brethren, who have 16,000 members and 300 churches across the country?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I have seen the early-day motion in my hon. Friend’s name. Of course, the Charity Commission is not a regulator of religion, and it should be explaining its responsibilities and doing so in a way that commands confidence.
General Matters
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I want to make just one point about the transparency of petrol and diesel prices.
The Government have stepped up to the plate in cutting fuel duty. Ministers have done more to cut fuel duty in two years than many Governments have managed. However, fuel duty is still a stealth tax. As the FairFuelUK campaign has pointed out, we are not straight with the public about how much tax they pay. I pay tribute to FairFuelUK, which is one of the most effective campaigning groups in our country.
When I fill up my car, my receipt says, “Fuel: £50. VAT: £10.” That is wrong. If it was accurate, my receipt would say something like, “Fuel: £25. Duty: £25. VAT: £10.” There should be some mention of how much of that tax is spent on our roads. I want to make three brief points. First, I will explain that it was never meant to be like this. Secondly, I will say what I am proposing. Thirdly, I will say why transparency works.
The history of car taxation is a textbook case of how a tax becomes entrenched. First, it is temporary and is hypothecated for a specific purpose. It is then expanded. Finally, it is folded out into general taxation. That is exactly what happened to fuel duty between 1909 and 1937. In the early 20th century, funding for roads was drawn mainly from local ratepayers. The so-called people’s Budget in 1909, which came from the Liberal party, put a new duty on motor spirit, or petrol, in the days before our European Economic Community membership forced us to introduce VAT. The duty was ring-fenced for a road improvement fund. The explicit promise of Lloyd George in his Budget speech on 29 April 1909 was
“that the funds so raised will not merely be devoted exclusively to the improvement of the roads, but that they will be well and wisely spent for that end.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 497.]
By the 1920s, the road fund was repeatedly raided to prop up the Treasury. At the same time, fuel duty was compounded by licence fees, vehicle taxes and so forth. Eventually, from 1937 motoring duty was treated as general taxation. By 1966, just 33% of the revenue was spent on roads, and by 2008, the proportion was just 20%. Over the years, a series of “temporary” increases have been brought in. The fuel duty escalator began, in a sense, with the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Act 1956, back when duty was fluctuating between 5p and 6p a litre, and VAT did not exist. The temporary increase was a mirage. Fuel duty is now 58p a litre, with 20% VAT on top—an increase of more than 1,000%.
I argue that the tax burden should be clear and transparent on every receipt and every fuel bill. There should be also be some indication of how much is being spent on our roads. My receipt would therefore say, “Fuel: £25. Duty: £25. VAT: £10. Amount spent on roads: £7.” My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) made such a proposal for income tax, which the Chancellor welcomed. Let us do the same for petrol and diesel.
Why is that necessary? First, because we should be honest with motorists. The average family in Harlow spend a tenth of their income on fuel, which is more than they spend on the weekly shop. In essence, they face fuel poverty and they have a moral right to know why their bills are so high. Tax transparency would also act as a deterrent to any Government hiking fuel duty without good reason, because people would see the increase on their receipts.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As always, my hon. Friend makes a compelling case on this issue. Does he agree that it is important not only that the ordinary motorist knows that information, but that the road haulage industry knows it? It has been crippled by heavy taxes.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I know that when he goes back to Cleethorpes, his constituents will thank him in the streets for the work that he has done with me to try to cut fuel duty.
Tax transparency would also make it easier to hold the big oil companies to account. The Government say that their actions have a low impact compared with the huge swings in the oil price, and my proposal would give people hard evidence on a weekly basis of whether falls in the price of oil were being passed on to consumers. as recommended by the website with which I am involved, www.petrolpromise.com.
My proposal does what it says on the tin. We need basic transparency about how much fuel duty people pay and where the money goes. That would be more honest, it would be a deterrent against tax rises and it would put pressure on the oil companies to be fair. I hope, if the House is willing, to introduce a private Member’s Bill on the subject later this year. In the meantime, I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the proposal for the autumn statement.
Business of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I will spend the summer recess looking forward to that debate, when we can explain what we have done: cutting corporation tax, ensuring access to finance, scrapping regulations, setting up 24 new enterprise zones and a range of other measures to promote employment and growth in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on the anti-Christian behaviour and bias of the Charity Commission? A constituent has contacted me because the commission has revoked the charitable status of a trust that is part of the Brethren Christian Church, which does a lot of good work for charity. This is an extremely important test case because it has widespread implications for all Christian charitable trusts. Does the Leader of the House not agree that Christian groups that are serving the community have the right to charitable status and should not be subject to politically correct bias?
Sir George Young
I am sure that the Charity Commission is not anti-Christian. I do not think that the organisation to which my hon. Friend refers has ever been registered as a charity, so it is not quite true to say that that status has been revoked. The application has been turned down because it was not clear whether there was enough social engagement with the community to meet the public interest criteria. As I understand it, that decision has now gone to appeal at the first tier, which I think is probably the right way to resolve it.
Sittings of the House
Robert Halfon Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Joan Ruddock
I could not agree more. I have a constituency of many very poor people and one of the things they do is work antisocial hours. They have several jobs and many of them work through the night, but believe me they do not want to do it. They would wish to be able to work in the hours of daylight and to do a normal and reasonable job. We owe it to ourselves to consider whether that would not work for us as well.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given that this debate is focused on the Tuesdays, because most people believe that the Mondays should remain the same, and because whether we finish at 6 pm or 7 pm on Wednesdays is neither here nor there, is not the way to solve this problem without major upheaval to keep the sitting hours as they are but just move one-line Whip business or Back-Bench debates, which tend to have a one-line Whip—or they do not necessarily have a three-line Whip—and private Members’ Bills to Tuesday nights? People would then have the option on whether or not to stay here in the Chamber.
Dame Joan Ruddock
That is an interesting suggestion, but the hon. Gentleman would have had to put it to his Government business managers before the debate to see whether they would have done it. We are too late for that now, because we have the motions on the Order Paper.