Energy

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)]

I beg to move,

That the Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, dated 19 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this we shall take the following motion:

That the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023, dated 22 February 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.

[Amanda Solloway]

The instruments were laid between 11 January and 23 February 2023, and their purpose is to ensure that benefits from the alternative fuel payment, both domestic and non-domestic, are passed through to consumers. Throughout this winter, the Government have delivered critical support to households, businesses and other non-domestic consumers in response to the unprecedented rise in energy prices. The Government brought forward emergency legislation on energy support, paving the way for this support package to be delivered rapidly across the entire United Kingdom.

The alternative fuel payments scheme provides support to households, organisations and businesses that do not use mains gas and use alternative fuels such as heating oil. Eligible domestic consumers using alternative fuels will receive a one-off fixed payment of £200. Non-domestic consumers will receive £150.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

I suspect that the Bank of England will not be the only institution attacked by the right hon. Gentleman tonight, but I remind him that part of the purpose of the charter is to restore our faith in the economic institutions, after what happened less than six months ago.

The IMF has forecast that the UK will have the lowest growth among developed countries for the next two years: bottom of the league on the record and bottom of the league on the forecast. And yet still the Government come along tonight and table a debate supposedly designed to enhance their economic credentials.

Well, what will the effect on those credentials be of the re-emergence of the former Prime Minister at the weekend? I have to give her 10 out of 10 for timing. What better time to write an article saying that her mini-Budget was right all along than the day before the Chief Secretary has to come here and stand up for the Government’s fiscal stability record? What better moment for her to say to members of pension schemes that had to be put on life support as a result of her mini-Budget that it was not her fault? No contrition for trying to borrow from my constituents in Wolverhampton South East in order to pay for a tax cut for people earning over £150,000 a year; not a word of apology to the millions of mortgage holders left paying a Tory mortgage penalty because of the reckless irresponsibility of the Conservative party. Just when the Government were trying to bury the memory of that mini-Budget under 10 feet of concrete, up she pops—like one of those hands coming out of the swamp at the end of the film—to tell us it was all someone else’s fault.

For me, the best bit in the article was when, in a long list of culprits, other than the Government that actually introduced the mini-Budget, the former Prime Minister blamed the Treasury civil servants for not warning her about the impact on pension schemes. I had to ask myself, were these the same Treasury civil servants that she had spent the whole summer scorning and disparaging? Were they the same Treasury civil servants whose boss was shown the door on the first day of her premiership? In what world are we expected to believe that the former Prime Minister, her Chancellor and the Government would have listened to a word those civil servants said, when all along she defined them as being part of the problem and not part of the solution?

The real problem for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Treasury is that this is not going away. The last Prime Minister is not a lone voice, and the more that Conservative Members realise the Government have nothing left in their tank and are resigned to managing decline, the louder the drumbeat will become; and it will be cheered on by the same newspapers that gave such a warm welcome to that mini-Budget in the first place. The Prime Minister, demonstrating the sureness of touch with which we have come to associate him by now, has labelled those on the Government Benches calling for tax cuts “idiots”. That is his phrase, not mine—about those on his own side. And yet today, fearful of them, the Prime Minister now says he will listen. Which is it? Are they idiots or is he listening? This weekend’s intervention, and those who cheer its argument, will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor looking over their right shoulders every day between now and the election, when they should be focused on the needs of the country.

This debate is supposed to be about all of us swearing fealty to fiscal rules, but there is another problem: since this Government came to office, they have broken their fiscal rules 11 times. They have had even more sets of fiscal rules than they have had Chancellors and Prime Ministers over the past year. If you don’t like one set, don’t worry—there will be another one along in a while! The Chief Secretary himself outlined how these rules were different from the ones we debated this time last year in the George Osborne tribute debate of 2022, and each time we are expected to treat the new rules as though they were the ten commandments.

The second part of this is about respecting the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility. The document before us is very clear about that. It talks in great detail about the importance of that role. Indeed, when it was first launched, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury of the time set out the benefits of the OBR, making clear the value of its

“strong, credible, independently conducted official forecasts”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 747.]

She said that the establishment of the OBR and its independence from the Treasury meant that

“Governments will be reticent about introducing policies that seem to take them off course”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 749.]

Well, there was not much sign of that reticence last year as the Government crashed the economy, caused a run on the pound, caused mortgage rates to rise and put pensions on life support. Indeed, we had a real-time lesson in the cost of disparaging our institutions—institutions that the Conservative party used to care about. But tonight, even after that experience with chapter 4 of the charter, we are back to a hymn of praise for the OBR.

The real problem here is not just inconsistency, but credibility. I am afraid that the many-year record since the idea of this charter was first conceived a decade or more ago has meant that the Conservative party has now forfeited the right to call itself the party of sound management; it has forfeited the right to call itself the party of growth, because the record on growth has been abysmal; it has forfeited the right to call itself the party of low debt, because debt has rocketed; it has forfeited the claim to careful stewardship of the public finances, with billions lost in bounce back loan fraud, personal protective equipment waste and tawdry stories of one dodgy contract after another; and it has forfeited the right to call itself the party of low tax, because the tax burden is at its highest for decades.

What, after all that, has this been for? We have record waiting lists, trains that people cannot rely on, and delays and backlogs everywhere. In fact, there is not a single public service that runs better now than it did 13 years ago, when the Tories took office. Low growth and high tax for a worse outcome—that is the record. When people are faced with the question, “Are you and your family better off?”, the answer is no.

Two weeks ago, we had the Chancellor’s speech on the way forward. He had four Es, and more than one person said that the biggest E was for empty, because the real problem for the Conservatives is that, when it comes to growth, the only policy they reach for is unfunded and untargeted tax cuts, and when they tried that in September, it blew up in their faces. Growth is the right question for the country, but it does not come from the discredited idea of trickle-down economics. It comes from the efforts of all of us—from every businessperson with a new idea and the drive to make it happen, and from making sure we use the UK’s strengths to make the most of the green transition that is coming, rather than standing back and allowing those investments to go elsewhere. It comes from every teacher equipping a pupil with new skills and knowledge, and from not having 7 million people on NHS waiting lists, keeping many of them out of the labour market. Talking of former Prime Ministers, it does not come from saying “F*** business”, but from a modern partnership with business that brings in the long-term investment the country needs. Most of all, in a knowledge economy like today’s, growth has to come from everyone, not just from a tiny proportion of people at the top.

Fiscal stability is an essential foundation for what we have to do—I agree with the Chief Secretary on that—but it is not an end in itself. It has to be the foundation for meeting the challenges the country faces and for giving people a more prosperous future. After many years of this debate, we look less at the latest version of the rules and more at the gap between claim and reality, because after crashing the economy and leaving the British public to pay the bill, the Government have no credibility to come forward and claim to be the champions of fiscal stability.

The idea for this charter was born in another political time, as I said at the start, and if it did have a purpose, events since have rendered it an unconvincing exercise to say the least. It certainly has not kept the Government to their fiscal rules, which have been broken many times, and it is unlikely, particularly after recent months, to convince anyone outside this Chamber that the Government have got the economy back on track.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

If I may slightly abuse my position in this Chair, let me say that I only heard from the Minister on the Treasury Bench at the start of this debate of the death of Robert Key. He was a dear personal friend, an excellent and dedicated constituency Member of Parliament, and a first-rate Transport Minister. I know that those in the House who knew him will wish to share their thoughts with Sue and his family.

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and may I associate myself with those passionately expressed words from the Chair?

I did think there might be a few more people here this evening to talk about the charter for Budget responsibility, after we have had so much debate across the country about the Office for Budget Responsibility and its forecasts over the last year or so. This was the year when the Office for Budget Responsibility made it into the headlines on numerous occasions, so I thought there might have been a bit more of a heated debate. I listened to the words of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and I am not sure I understand at the end of his speech whether the Opposition are in favour of tonight’s motion and of the charter. I am not sure whether they are in favour of Budget responsibility. In fact, I did not hear any suggestions at all for solutions to the criticisms that he raised.

This evening, I reiterate, for those who were not here in early 2010, the rationale for the setting up of the Office for Budget Responsibility. It was because, in the Treasury of 2008, 2009 and early 2010, it was far too easy for the Government simply to make their own forecasts and to mark their own homework. I think there is merit in having someone external to the Treasury and oblivious to ministerial pressure come up with a set of forecasts. We all acknowledge that none will be perfect, or have perfect foresight about the future, but that externality means there is a way of marking the Treasury work and the Treasury projections. A Chancellor can certainly make an argument about why they may take issue with some of the elements going into the forecast, and there is often a more dynamic quality to tax revenues than is perhaps put into some of the external forecasts referenced this evening. A Chancellor can certainly have a debate about the numbers, but we do need to remind ourselves of the importance of this process and its external nature.

The other point I want to raise is about the fiction, which the Treasury Committee highlighted in one of our recent reports, that clouds the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts for fuel duty. Again, this practice goes back many Chancellors and many Governments, and it is about putting into the projections for future tax revenue a ratchet up every year of fuel duty, yet for the last 12 or 13 years, every Chancellor coming to the Dispatch Box has decided not to implement it. It would be astonishing—I note that the Chief Secretary gave me a little cheeky smile—to see what is currently projected for fuel duty in the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, which is for an extra 12p to go on to fuel after the Budget if the Chancellor does nothing. I think we can all agree that that is fiction. I cannot see the Chancellor coming to the Dispatch Box on 15 March and increasing fuel duty by 12p—I would be astonished—because the temporary one-year reduction of 5p will expire and there is the cumulative impact of the ratchet over the years.

I just wanted to highlight that there is some element of a work of fiction in the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. It would be healthier for all concerned if a more realistic approach could be taken to the forecast for fuel duty not just in the short term, but in the medium term, because I think we all recognise that there will have to be a change, as more and more people are buying electric cars, in how we tax transport and drivers. I also wanted to publicise how our Committee has come together on a cross-party basis to make that point.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) This section makes modifications of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 in relation to any land transaction the effective date of which falls in the period (“the temporary relief period”)—

(a) beginning with 23 September 2022, and

(b) ending with 31 March 2025.”

This amendment provides that the relief from Stamp Duty Land Tax provided for by the Bill is only to apply until 31 March 2025.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to amendment 1, after “transaction” insert

“(except in relation to additional dwellings)”.

This amendment is intended to remove the relief from stamp duty land tax for second homes (see Amendment 15 to leave out subsection (3)).

Amendment (b) to amendment 1, leave out “31 March 2025” and insert “31 March 2028”.

This amendment is intended to extend the temporary relief from Stamp Duty Land Tax so that it expires at or around the time as the frozen thresholds for Income Tax, Inheritance Tax and National Insurance are due to expire.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

Amendment 15, page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is intended to remove the relief from stamp duty land tax for second homes (see Amendment (a) to Gov 1).

Government amendments 4 to 12.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 13.

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Comparison of temporary and permanent relief—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish an assessment of the change in Government policy on stamp duty land from—

(a) the Plan for Growth published on 23 September 2022, to

(b) the Autumn Statement published on 17 November 2022.

(2) This review must include—

(a) an assessment of the costs of implementing the change in policy referred to in subsection (1) for the Government, the property industry, and homebuyers;

(b) an assessment of any wider costs and impacts of the change in policy referred to in subsection (1) on the housing market; and

(c) what measures the Government is planning to ease the impact on tax revenues, home purchases and the housing market of the reduction in stamp duty land tax coming to an abrupt end on 31 March 2025.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a review of the change in Government policy to make the relief in this Bill temporary instead of permanent.

New clause 2—Review: first-home buyers—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct a twice-yearly review of the impact of this Act on the number of people buying their first home and must publish a report of this review at six-month intervals.”

This new clause is to ensure that a regular report is made on the impact of the proposed Act on the number of people buying their first home.

New clause 3—Review: second homes in National Parks and Areas of Natural Beauty—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish an annual report on the impact of this Act on the number of second homes in National Parks and Areas of Natural Beauty.”

This new clause would require that an annual report is published on the impact of the Bill on the number of second or subsequent homes in National Parks and Areas of Natural Beauty.

New clause 4—Review: house prices in rural areas—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish an annual review of the impact of this Act on house prices in rural areas.”

This new clause would require that an annual review is published on the impact of the Bill on house prices in rural areas.

New clause 6—Review: availability of affordable housing and the private rented sector—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct an assessment into, and publish a report on, the impact of this Act on the housing market, including (1) the impact on the availability of affordable housing and (2) the private rented sector.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to conduct an assessment into the impact of the Bill on the housing market, including the availability of affordable housing and the private rented sector.

New clause 7—Report on effect of temporary relief—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, three months before expiry of the temporary relief period, publish an assessment of the impacts of the temporary relief provided by this Act.

(2) This assessment must include an assessment of the impacts on—

(a) the volume and value of housing transactions on the housing market,

(b) any wider costs for the Government, property industry, housing market and/or homebuyers, and

(c) tax revenues.

(3) The assessment must make a recommendation as to whether the temporary relief period should expire or whether the House of Commons should consult on extending it or making it permanent.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impacts of the temporary tax relief and a recommendation before the temporary relief period comes to an end.

Government amendment 14.

[Victoria Atkins]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

At the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out set out how the Government are dealing with the global economic challenges that we face. The consequences of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the covid-19 pandemic mean that we must be fiscally responsible while supporting the economy and encouraging our businesses to grow and our constituents to thrive. We need a balanced approach to support our objectives, which includes helping people get on to and move up the housing ladder—and indeed to downsize.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The shadow Minister may be slightly perplexed as to why I did not call her first, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) had indicated to me that he wished to press new clause 3 to a Division, so I thought it might be helpful for her to hear his arguments before being called to speak.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon. I was not perplexed at all.

When we debated the Bill on Second Reading in October, the stamp duty cut that it seeks to introduce was one of the last few measures to have survived from the Tories’ reckless mini-Budget in September. As we said at the time, we oppose the stamp duty cut because it would not be the right way to spend public money and would not be responsible. On the back of 13 years of economic stagnation, our economy has just suffered long-term damage from the Tories’ recklessness at the end of last year. We made it clear that spending £1.7 billion a year on the proposed stamp duty cut simply could not be justified.

In October, as hon. Members may remember, there was a last-minute flip-flop in parliamentary business. Four days before we were due to debate all stages of the Bill, the Leader of the House announced that we would debate only its Second Reading. No reason was given for that last-minute change to parliamentary business, so we speculated that the decision might have been intended to give the new Prime Minister and his Chancellor the chance to change their mind about these stamp duty changes. That is indeed what has happened.

Rather than reversing the stamp duty cut altogether, however, the Government’s amendments seek only to impose a time limit on it. Ministers could have used the breathing space since last October to do the right thing and scrap the stamp duty cut, but instead the Chancellor proposes only a partial U-turn. Government amendment 1 will amend clause 1, imposing a sunset date of 31 March 2025. The Government’s other amendments, which are consequential on that change, include an amendment to the name of the Bill.

The Opposition remain opposed to the stamp duty cut. Even if Government amendments 1 to 14 are agreed to, the Bill will still represent a failure by the Conservatives to spend money wisely.

We are not talking about a small amount of money: the Government’s own figures make the Bill’s price tag clear. Even if the stamp duty cut is time-limited, it will still cost taxpayers £3.2 billion. We are serious about spending public money wisely, and the Government should be as well. For that reason we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading even if it has been amended, but before we reach that stage we still want to use this Committee stage to interrogate the Government on some of the detail, and to urge them at least to amend its provisions if they are not willing to drop it entirely.

Non-domestic Energy Support

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on how the Government are continuing to support businesses, charities and the public sector with their energy bills. Before I outline how we are helping businesses, I remind the House why we are in this position.

Although wholesale energy prices are now falling, some businesses are still exposed to higher energy bills after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine pushed prices far above their historical averages. Putin’s military aggression has put households and businesses across Europe and beyond under serious financial pressure. For that reason, we have already provided a package of support for non-domestic users through this winter that is worth £18 billion, as per the figures certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the autumn statement.

The energy bill relief scheme gave a direct discount on energy costs for all eligible businesses. It lessened the shock of the immediate increase in prices; it gave businesses the certainty they needed to plan for the winter; and it is one of the most generous packages in Europe. It comes on top of our support for households, including the energy price guarantee worth £900 this winter according to the OBR, which further helped to support consumers and the businesses that rely on them. I remind hon. Members that that followed unprecedented business support during the pandemic.

The Government are proud to have helped businesses through a twin combination of unprecedented shocks that nobody could have expected a few years ago. We will always do what is necessary to keep the economy and the British people secure, which is why the Prime Minister has been clear that we will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security before returning it to target. That is also why we unleashed the furlough scheme, which avoided 2 million forecast job losses; a groundbreaking vaccine roll-out, which saved lives and ensured the safe reopening of our economy; grants for pubs, shops and other retail businesses; and now, humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine as it fights for democracy, with the UK giving more than any other nation bar the US. All those steps have been right, but all have come at a significant combined cost, leaving our national debt standing at £2.48 trillion or 98.7% of GDP.

To secure the future of public services, we have committed to get national debt falling, including two new fiscal rules—that the UK’s national debt must fall as a share of GDP by the fifth year of a rolling five-year period, and that public sector borrowing in the same year must be below 3% of GDP.

As we look to the next steps in supporting businesses, it is therefore in our national economic interest that we chart a path to withdrawing such support and restoring fiscal sustainability, but in a sensible and fair way that strikes a balance between supporting businesses now and protecting taxpayers’ exposure to volatile energy markets. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at the autumn statement, one of our key economic priorities is stability, and we cannot have stability without financial prudence. So all Members must recognise that there is a balance to be struck, and it is not sustainable for the Exchequer to continue to support large numbers of businesses at the current level.

No Government—no responsible, serious Government —anywhere in world can permanently shield businesses from this energy price shock, and we must cap the taxpayer’s exposure to volatile energy prices. We have also been clear throughout that such levels of support were time-limited and intended as a bridge to allow businesses to acclimatise. Firms need to adapt and invest in energy efficiency to remain viable, and as they do so, we will be at their side to help, including with £6 billion of additional investment to cut the UK’s overall energy use.

Yet we remain fully alive to the fact that businesses would be facing a cliff edge as support comes to an end. To avoid this, we are going to provide a further package of transitional support, so today I can confirm a new energy bills discount scheme for businesses, charities and the public sector. Up to £5.5 billion will be made available from the end of the energy bill relief scheme period on 31 March until 31 March 2024.

The Chancellor has been working with the key industry stakeholders to get this right. We heard that they needed a 12-month rather than six-month scheme. We have listened and, as a result, I confirm that we will be providing a year’s worth of support for all non-domestic bills beyond the current six-month scheme. This will give certainty and ongoing assistance to businesses locked into contracts signed before recent substantial falls in the wholesale price, and provide others with reassurance against the risk of prices rising again. It is different from the previous energy bill relief scheme, but provides long-term certainty for businesses and reflects how the scale of the challenge has changed since September last year.

From 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, non-domestic customers that have a contract with a licensed energy supplier will see a unit discount of up to £6.97 per megawatt-hour automatically applied to their gas bill and a unit discount of up to £19.61 per megawatt-hour applied to their electricity bill, except for those already benefiting from lower energy prices. This means a typical pub can expect a taxpayer-funded discount of up to £2,300 over 12 months and a typical small retail store will get up to £400 off its annual energy bill.

We also recognise that some businesses, especially intensive users such as major manufacturers, are highly exposed to both energy prices and international competition, which means they are unable to pass through or absorb all of these costs. I can therefore confirm that the Government are targeting a substantially higher level of support beyond April 2023 to energy and trade-intensive sectors, providing a major boost for the manufacturing sector. Businesses in scope will receive a gas and electricity bill discount based on a price threshold that will be capped by a maximum unit discount of £40 per megawatt-hour for gas and £89.10 per megawatt-hour for electricity. This discount will only apply to 70% of energy volumes. These firms will continue to be supported at source, based on a price threshold of £99 per megawatt-hour for gas and £185 per megawatt-hour for electricity. This means a typical medium-sized manufacturer would expect to receive nearly £700,000 of direct support over 12 months.

This comes on top of the £13.6 billion of support for firms with business rates over the next five years, a UK-wide £2.4 billion fuel duty cut this year and the protection from full corporation tax rises for businesses making profits of less than £250,000, with those making profits of less than £50,000—the vast majority—not facing any rate rise at all.

I have set out how this transitional support will reduce overall as a cost to the Exchequer while remaining significant at a time of elevated energy costs and providing certainty for a further 12 months. However, I have also been clear that, just as we withdrew covid support when we moved to a position of living with the pandemic following the success of our vaccination efforts, this energy support is deliberately transitional in nature. That means that in due course we will move unambiguously to a point where there is no universal support for businesses with energy bills from the taxpayer.

Ultimately, it is in the national economic interest that we move to a position where the Government do not routinely subsidise UK businesses. It is not for the Government to habitually pay the bills of businesses any more than it is for the Government to tell businesses how to turn a profit, and it cannot be that the taxpayer props up failing or unproductive firms. Instead, we must protect the forces of free enterprise and entrepreneurialism that have led to our economic success for generations. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not understand free enterprise and entrepreneurialism, and I do not think many of them have ever run a business.

The approach I have outlined today does just that: it is fair in balancing the needs of non-household energy users with the need for prudence and a restoration of competitiveness, and it shows that this Government remain committed to supporting businesses, charities and the public sector through these challenging times. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She asked what happened to the review. Well, I am making a statement about the results of the review, and the policy decisions that we have come to a conclusion on, based on the review and consulting all the key stakeholders in business and industry and also the voluntary sector, who I spoke to only this week.

The hon. Lady used the word “criminal” to describe the announcement today. I think that is a little over the top. We are continuing to provide significant support for businesses. We have a universal scheme, plus the targeted support for energy and trade-intensive sectors, with significant expenditure of up to £5.5 billion. We must balance this, however. She talked about failing to support business, but I remind the House that at this precise moment we are in the middle of a six-month scheme worth £18 billion, which is an extraordinary sum.

The hon. Lady said that we have somehow betrayed hospitality. The last statement I made, the day before the House rose for the Christmas recess, was that we would be freezing alcohol duty for another six months. We have supported pubs throughout the pandemic. To a typical pub, this will be worth about £2,300 in support over the next 12 months. Beer duty is now at the lowest real-terms level for 30 years, having been cut or frozen in nine of the last 10 Budgets, and spirits duty is at the lowest level in real terms since 1918, and of course we have extended the discount on business rates for the hospitality sector—previously it was 50% and we are increasing it to 75%. So there is a huge amount of support for hospitality.

The hon. Lady called for energy security. I agree that the long-term answer to this problem is investment in energy security; it is about having robust British energy, and we should look at the figures on that. Only a few days ago we heard from the BBC that in 2022 we had a record level of wind production in this country producing electricity: almost 27%, with just 1.5% from coal compared with 43% from coal in 2013. No other country is making that sort of progress. I am proud as an East Anglian MP to say that offshore wind has made a massive contribution; we have the largest array of offshore wind in Europe. We are delivering energy security and, as the Chancellor said in his statement, we are going to keep doing it, investing in nuclear and putting other investment in place, backing contracts for difference.

I will make one final point. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition said that it was no longer the time for the big Government cheque book and that we need to put the cheque book away. I am not sure that his Front-Bench Members have got the memo, because there is a balance to be struck here: we need fiscal prudence. The underlying problem for the country is inflation: inflation is the reason why people are experiencing cost of living problems. If we want to get a grip of inflation, we need to set a path for fiscal sustainability, because the problem with what the hon. Lady is suggesting is that it implies not just getting the Government cheque book out again, contrary to the words of the Leader of the Opposition, but getting a blank cheque book out. The problem with that is that if a Labour Government start writing blank cheques, we know where that ends up: with them writing a letter saying there is no money left, and bankrupting the country. We must balance prudence with supporting businesses and the voluntary and public sectors with their energy bills. We have done that today as a result of our review, and I believe this is the right balance of policy for the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement. He rightly points out that President Putin has, by illegally invading Ukraine, effectively weaponised the cost of energy against western economies, and he is right to highlight that we have been able to withstand that attack with £18 billion of support over this six-month period.

We now have a gas price close to where it stood before the invasion of Ukraine, and businesses across the country have realised the big risk they face in terms of their energy costs. Will the Minister encourage them not to pass on the cost of higher energy through inflation to their customers, and instead call for the wholesale price of energy to feed through more swiftly to the retail price our businesses pay?

[James Cartlidge]

I think this is the first time I have taken a question from my hon. Friend since her appointment to the chairmanship of the Treasury Committee and I congratulate her belatedly on her success. She makes the good point that wholesale prices have fallen significantly. The gas price is back to where it was before the invasion. Of course, we should be clear that before the invasion it was still elevated in relative terms historically, not least because there was an increase in energy prices following the reopening of the economy after the pandemic. Of course, we do not want prices to be passed on to customers in terms of inflation—that is the last thing we want to see—but I should stress that one reason why we are giving extra support to energy and trade-intensive sectors is that, because they tend to trade internationally, they are particularly exposed to those price pressures and find it harder than other companies that are energy intensive but not trade exposed to pass on those high prices.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Happy new year, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Minister for his statement and for early sight of it, although I suspect businesses will be as underwhelmed and disappointed by it as they were frustrated by the delay in making it. I am disappointed that the higher level of discount will be removed after March this year, which is less than three months away; it does not give businesses the time or opportunity to plan.

There is also a degree of sleight of hand. I do not think the public will buy the £5.5 billion budgeted between March 2023 and March 2024 being portrayed as a year’s worth of support given that, as the Minister said, the cost of the package for six months to March this year came in at £18 billion. To dress that up as fiscal prudence simply will not wash.

The key thing is that the Minister said that no Government anywhere in the world can permanently shield business from the energy price shock—that mirrors what the Chancellor said a few days ago—and he went on to say that levels of support were time limited and intended as a bridge to allow businesses to acclimatise. May we have an assurance, however, that if this turns out to be not a short-term price shock but a medium-term price problem, this package and the level of the discount will be reviewed before next winter so that we do not have businesses that manage to survive this year falling over next December, January or February because they cannot afford to heat or light or power their workshops?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. and learned Friend asks an excellent question. Through the review, we have heard of issues in and around the pricing and availability of non-domestic tariffs, including increased standing charges, prohibitive contract renewal terms such as those he referred to and, in some cases, decisions by individual suppliers to withdraw from supplying particular sectors. Ofgem and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are working urgently to understand those issues, and Ofgem is launching a deeper review of the market. I can confirm that today, the Chancellor has written to Ofgem, asking it to do that work with the utmost urgency and to update him in time for the Budget. The Government recognise the importance of that work to many pubs, restaurants and other businesses that feel they are not getting a fair deal from their suppliers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

We know from the design of the domestic scheme that people in particular circumstances are not being helped as the Government perhaps intended. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will tweak the design of this policy in the same way that they did the domestic scheme where there are legitimate cases of businesses not being helped as Ministers intended?

0.7% Official Development Assistance Target

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

I want to touch on the two core aspects of this: the political and the humanitarian. Dealing first with the political, we are promoting global Britain, we are told. Once again, we are proudly taking our place on the world stage, we are told, and that is right and good. However, if we are going to do that, we have to be able to hold our heads high, and I cannot see how damaging some of the poorest people in the world will enable us to do that.

Politically as significant is the fact that where we leave a vacuum, others will fill that vacuum. Those others will be China, the Russian Federation and Russia’s client states, Azerbaijan and Belarus. I wonder how many colleagues are prepared to see the emerging democracies turn to communist dictators for assistance, because we have pulled the rug out from under them.

Secondly, the humanitarian effect has been touched on over and over again. In 38 years—tomorrow—in this House of Commons, I have been privileged to travel fairly widely to some of the poorest regions of the world. I assume that the former Foreign Secretary, now the Prime Minister, during his time in his previous office, was able to do that. I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a widely travelled man. I suppose that they, like me, will have seen, smelt and tasted the death that comes from poverty and starvation, and seen the misery of young girls having to walk miles every day to fetch foul water. Now, to see the opportunities taken away from those young people around the world is, I believe, unforgivable.

Yes, of course we have run up a huge debt in the course of the covid crisis, but put that in perspective. We are talking about a cut upon a cut. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said in his opening remarks, this was designed to scale against a reduction in gross national income. By reducing the figure from 0.7% to 0.5%, we are exacerbating that cut. In so doing, we are hitting what used to be known as the bottom billion, the 1 billion people in this world who live on less than $1 a day, a figure that the United Nations believes to be the sign of abject poverty.

I want our Prime Minister to be able to go to the G7 with his head held high. I extol the virtues of our contribution to COVAX, but this cut that has been put forward by the Treasury is unforgivable and it must be reversed next year.

Religious Slaughter of Farm Animals

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to that. Even within the kosher community, there is not a universal view on whether post-cut stunning should be permitted.

A couple of years ago, I visited Kuwait and talked to a meat importer about the issue of halal production. He explained to me that the main requirement in Muslim countries in the middle east is that there is no pork contamination in the food they eat, which is why all their protocols focus predominantly on not sharing machinery between pork production and lamb, chicken or beef production, to ensure that there is no pork DNA. That is their primary concern, alongside ensuring that there has been an Islamic blessing of the food. When I explained to him that the issue of non-stun slaughter was contentious, he said it is predominantly a western cultural interpretation of the Muslim faith. Interestingly, non-stun slaughtered meat is not a particular requirement in middle eastern countries. There are exceptions, but generally speaking that is not their primary concern. Indeed, non-stun slaughter is banned in Australia and New Zealand, which are the largest lamb exporters to all countries across the middle east, from Israel right through to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The other point about kosher meat is that Shechita UK insists that it is most certainly not a religious ritual, and a Hebrew blessing is not given. It is simply the case that the ancient holy books describe a method of slaughter that they believe remains the most humane approach. The principal concern for Shechita is that there should be no injury to an animal before it is presented for slaughter. They regard stunning as an injury to the animal—that is their particular concern—but that is not a universal view. There has been some rabbinical support for the idea of post-cut stunning, and we know that some abattoirs producing kosher meat allow post-cut stunning of bovine animals.

I turn now to some of the options that we could consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) mentioned labelling, which is a complex area because there is no single definition of halal. The simplest way would be to label meat as un-stunned, because that is a clearly definable legal definition. That causes some concerns for Jewish communities. They argue that if we did do that, we should also list whether an animal has been killed through anaesthetic gas or electrocution, or all manner of other things. Farmwell, which is a leading charity in this area, established a system that all religious groups are willing to buy into: a coded approach of numbers from one to 10, denoting the method of slaughter. However, it does not deal with the problem of food entering the service trade, where unwitting customers would buy it.

There are a number of other things that we could do, including increasing the standstill time on bovine animals. The current limit of 30 seconds was probably due to a drafting error—we know that cattle do not lose consciousness that quickly. We could therefore move the minimum standstill time to at least one minute and 30 seconds or two minutes, to ensure that there is no movement of a bovine animal while it is still conscious. In conjunction, we could require a post-cut stun on all bovine animals, recognising that there is an issue with the physiology of bovines, which leads to a long and protracted death. I do not believe that a post-cut stun would violate the religious beliefs of either the Halal Food Authority or Shechita UK.

As an alternative, we could simply ban the non-stunned slaughter of bovine animals, recognising that there are issues with that. We could introduce a maximum standstill time, which is the approach taken in countries such as the Netherlands and France, where there is a requirement to use a bolt gun if a period of, say, 40 seconds has elapsed after a cut has taken place and the animal has still not lost consciousness.

We could introduce more formal quotas for abattoirs, which is an interesting idea. It is already the law that only food destined for Muslims and Jews is permitted to be slaughtered under our current religious derogation, but we know that there is a real problem with the mainstreaming of religious slaughter. We know that that provision, as drafted in our law, is unenforceable. When I discussed that with departmental lawyers, their response was that if somebody maintains that they thought that the animal was destined for a religious community when they committed the slaughter, that is sufficient to satisfy the requirement, so it is entirely unenforceable. In Germany they have a much more sophisticated quota system. They make an assessment of the need of orthodox religious communities, and abattoirs must apply for a licence and demonstrate that they have an actual market for the food they are producing.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Rosindell, I will come back to the basic principle. On this specific point, Germany can do it, so why can we not do it? It is not good enough for departmental lawyers to say, “Oh, it’s all far too difficult,” which is effectively what my hon. Friend has said. There is a way through this. We know the market is oversupplied. It should be limited, should it not?

[George Eustice]

I agree that adopting a German-style model, whereby we put in place the measures and mechanisms necessary to enforce something that has been a facet of our law since at least 1933, makes a lot of sense, and is probably the easiest option for the Government, given the alarm that there has been about the growth of religious slaughter.

We could increase the period of standstill time before chickens move on to the next process. There is a very real concern at the moment that there is typically a moving shackle line for chickens, whose throats are cut randomly by people as they go past, but what happens if they miss a chicken? What happens if the chicken is not stunned through a water bath and they fail to cut its throat? The answer is that it probably proceeds to the next stage of production, which if I am not mistaken is a scalding tank to remove the feathers. It could enter that while fully conscious, which is horrific. We should be doing more to check that those birds genuinely lose consciousness before they move on to the next stage. It should not just be a moving shackle line.

Pet Identification

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling opening speech, which will resonate well beyond this Chamber. I put on the record my admiration for the determination and passion shown by Helena and her team of volunteers. At its heart, their argument is about our compassion at the worst moment for a pet owner or parent—for all intents and purposes, pets are family members. We are asking for standard and consistent practice across the country that is supported by law—a Government looking for a legacy could implement that now—to ensure that a cat that has been involved in a traffic accident or killed in some other way is returned to his or her mum or dad through scanning. It is a simple process and many local authorities are already picking such animals up.

Pets should not end up in landfill but be returned to the arms of their mum and dad. Otherwise, even in this time of austerity, we risk having councils with all the parts but no heart. I hope that the attention and support shown by the 100,000-plus signatures collected by my constituent Helena and her team set a trend of expectation of changes in law to end that practice quickly and reunite parents with their cats.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

It is a good job Sir Nicholas Winterton is not in the Chair. I ought to explain to hon. Members that Mr Frith very kindly and courteously indicated that he has to be in two places at once. I am not normally quite so relaxed about interventions, but on this occasion, it was fair for him to make his point.

[James Frith]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I could possibly have tested your patience by making an overlong intervention on the Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, but rather than do that I thought I would make a brief observation now.

I think I am right to say that on Report the Minister said that the Bill had been six and a half years in preparation. In fact, it was in 1997 that, as the then chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, I presented to the incoming Minister of State at the Home Office in Mr Blair’s Government—who, I think I am right in saying, was the now right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth)—the group’s report on performing animals in circuses. It is comforting to know that matters in this place move so swiftly and that it has taken only 22 years for these measures to reach the statute book.

The fact is that the persistence of colleagues on both sides of the House of Commons has driven us to where we are today, in the hope and expectation that the Bill will get a fair wind in the House of Lords and become law and that performing animals in circuses will be consigned to the dustbin of history along with very many other animal abuses that we have managed to deal with.

In the spirit of total co-operation and in gratitude to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) and my hon. Friend the Minister, I say that other things that are not contentious can, and should, be going through the House much more quickly. I am proud that this Government and this Minister are in the process of putting the Bill on to the statute book, and I hope that we shall now see a succession of other animal welfare measures following it.

[Sir Mike Penning]

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has addressed exactly the memory loss that I had during my speech on Report. I could not remember the dates when the all-party group dealt with this. I was here in a different capacity at that time. All of us would understand the situation in ’97, when there was so much legislation from a new Government. Finding time was difficult, but there was a huge majority on this issue and it was not contentious. I remember the discussions absolutely vividly. People were saying, “Would you do this private Member’s Bill? Would you take this forward? Would you go into the ballot?” It has taken until today to get the Third Reading of a Bill that, frankly, is a no-brainer in this day and age.

I am thrilled that the Minister has taken on this Bill and by the way in which he has done so. I was not invited to go on the Public Bill Committee, and I was genuine when I said that I would have loved to. I was not here on Second Reading, so people obviously thought that I was not interested, and so on—but we are where we are.

I hope that when this very short Bill goes to the Lords they will look at what this House has done—how we have come together—and move the Bill through the other place quite fast so that it can be on the statute book in time for what the Minister is looking at doing.

People out there will say, “We miss this” and “We miss that”, but there is not very many of them. As the Minister said, the country has changed. If we had tried to bring this Bill through in the ’70s and ’80s, we might have struggled, because people were different. I am not saying that they were bad, but what was acceptable then is not acceptable now. Making animals do things that are completely unnatural to them is not acceptable. I vividly remember one of these fly-on-the-wall videos that was taken at one circus—I will not name it, because a lot of circuses were bad. People were abusing and torturing animals to make them do things that were not natural. I hope that the Bill means that that never, ever happens again.

Other legislation needs to come forward, and I am conscious of what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), was saying. We have legislation on the statute book but we have to be good and strict on this issue. Dogfighting is on the up in this country. Cockfighting, believe it or not, continues to this day. There is badger-baiting.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Trophy hunting.

[Sir Mike Penning]

To me, a trophy-hunting Bill is the simplest thing in the world. If someone wants to do that sort of thing, do not bring trophies—the animal’s head—to this country. That is so abhorrent to 99.9% of the British public.

We have set a line in the sand and shown that we can bring such Bills through the House—it is a shame that more people are not in the Public Gallery to listen to us when we get things right. I am sure that, tomorrow, in Parliament this will get thruppence, because of President Trump and other things that have been going on, but this indicates what this House can do and is right morally and ethically. We should be very proud of what has happened in this House today.

Puppy Smuggling

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

Sorry. I know my hon. Friend is a Sheffield Wednesday supporter. If the change cannot be brought in by Government, they should at least provide time for a private Member’s Bill so we can introduce it forthwith. The change has been promised for a long time, and the issue is ongoing. Action needs to be taken now.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Ah! Sir Roger, I am afraid you have only a minute, but you are welcome to it.

[Sir Roger Gale]

That is fine, Mr Hollobone. I will make three points very quickly in a minute. First, I live 15 miles from Dover. I use the cross-Channel ferries about 16 times a year. I am subjected to regular checks. The police are searching for firearms, drugs and terrorists. I cannot believe they cannot find puppies too.

Secondly, this is about money. We have to kill the trade, and the way we do that is by taking away the vehicle and crushing it in front of the owner on the quayside at Dover.

Thirdly, my son is a vet in a small animal practice. He picks up the bits of this trade time after time. It is miserable. The people who buy the puppies face considerable distress. The short answer is public education: if it is cheap, it is probably also nasty.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I rise briefly to address clause 89, which is on an amendment to tax legislation in consequence of EU withdrawal, and to make one specific comment to the Minister that I hope he will take on board and do something about.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on general aviation, which has as its membership 177 Members from across this House and other place. There is a particular issue that I am very keen for the Minister to know about in relation to pilot training. According to Boeing, the world will need 790,000 more pilots in the next 20 years. The UK, with English as our language and with our history in aviation, should be in an absolutely key place to train new pilots, but there is a massive problem: in this country, people have to pay for that training themselves. It costs about £100,000, and then the Government charge £20,000 VAT on top of that. The all-party group has taken up this issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us that it is tracked into EU regulations and there is nothing that we can do about it during our time within the EU. However, I want to make an impassioned plea to the Minister to have a really good think about what we could do with regard to clause 89.

It is clear and obvious—one need only travel on an aircraft anywhere to realise this—that the pilots in this country, and indeed worldwide, but in this country generally, are nearly all male, nearly all middle-class and nearly all from backgrounds where families might say, “I’ll tell you what—we’ll remortgage our home and let you go and spend £120,000 on learning to be a commercial pilot.” That puts off too many people from too many hard-to-reach sections of society. That puts off a lot of people, particularly women, who we want to persuade into these very well-paid STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—jobs, which really should be the future for this country.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

The ambassador for the all-party group is Carol Vorderman, who has probably done more than any other single living person to try to encourage young women to take up aviation as a profession, but the young women she is trying to persuade are hitting the buffers all the time because they are coming up against this cost. That is driving our trainee pilots overseas to places like Spain, which does not have the VAT, when we ought to be training them at home. Should this not be taken on board by the Treasury?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a crazy situation. We are driving pilot training out of the UK, but English is the language of the air and should be our natural advantage. Our ambassador for the all-party group Carol Vorderman regularly reminds us that she wanted to go into the Air Force but was rejected, not through any lack of knowledge, STEM education or mathematical ability, but because she was a woman. It cannot be right that our Government are not able to address this.

I am very hopeful that the Minister will take on board clause 89, which will allow the amendment to tax legislation in consequence of leaving the EU, to do what other EU countries have somehow already managed to do—such as Spain, which does not charge VAT on pilot training. This gives us an enormous opportunity as a country to take a big chunk out of the global pilot training market, which should be, in effect, a massive export for the UK.

While we are on the VAT issue, I have one other point. This country has the ability to lead aviation into a much quieter, cleaner and more environmentally friendly future. The future of aviation eventually is to have electricity in planes—electric planes—but that will not happen without having the same dedication and enthusiasm that this Government and the previous one showed towards electric vehicles transferred to electric aviation.

This is a revolution in aviation that is coming, but it would be very encouraging if we saw the UK lead the way, and, again, this is in no small part down to how VAT is treated, in terms of not only pilot training but the inquiry, investigation, research and development that goes into electric aircraft.

The all-party group is starting a STEM aviation working group headed by a fantastic woman called Karen Spencer from Harlow College. It has the aviation STEM college at Stansted airport, where it is training 294 youngsters this year and over 500 young people next year in STEM aviation qualifications. I encourage the Minister to go and see it for himself. I believe that if we work together on this we can make aviation a much more inclusive profession, and it starts with clause 89 and what can be done under these amendments to tax legislation in consequence of EU withdrawal.