Beer Duty
Roger Gale Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Graham Evans, Jim Shannon, Helen Whately and Claire Perry are all seeking to speak, and I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am. I am not going to impose a limit, but do the maths.
Finance Bill
Roger Gale Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Clauses 42 to 44 stand part.
Clauses 65 to 71 stand part.
Mr Gauke
The Bill introduces measures on small business investment that will simplify the tax system and ensure that allowances are fair and not open to abuse.
Clause 41 charges corporation tax for the financial year beginning 1 April 2017. Corporation tax is an annual tax approved by Parliament each year. This is an essential provision that enables us to collect tax. The key reform announced in the Budget to support business investment and back Britain’s economy is set out in clause 42, which cuts the rate of corporation tax to 17% with effect from 1 April 2020. I expect that our debate will focus on this provision, so I will start here, before commenting more briefly on the other clauses.
I will begin by setting out our broader strategy on corporation tax. The Government have been clear that taxes should be low but must be paid, and since 2010 we have made progress towards those goals. The main rate of corporation tax was 28% in 2010. By 2020, we will have cut the UK main rate by more than a third to make the UK more competitive and to support growth and investment. It will be one of the biggest boosts British business has ever seen. Further corporation tax cuts will increase the returns companies receive on their investments, and by 2020 corporation tax cuts delivered since 2010 will be saving businesses almost £15 billion a year. This will ensure that the UK has by far the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20 and make Britain even more attractive to inward investors.
At the same time, we have taken significant measures to clamp down on tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. The Government successfully helped initiate the G20-OECD base erosion and profits shifting project and worked internationally, including with G20 and OECD partners, to bring this to a successful conclusion in October 2015. We spent the earlier part of today’s debate considering some of the measures introduced in the Bill to address avoidance and evasion, but the Bill also takes further steps elsewhere. Key measures include tackling hybrid mismatch arrangements, introducing a restriction on the tax deductibility of corporate interest and expense, extending the UK’s withholding tax rights over royalties and ensuring non-resident property developers pay tax in the UK on profits they make in this country.
Low corporation rates enable businesses to increase investment, take on new staff, increase wages or reduce prices. This is borne out in receipts data: onshore corporation tax receipts have risen by almost 20% since 2010, despite lowering corporation tax rates. The Treasury and HMRC have modelled the economic impact of the corporation tax cuts delivered since 2010 and those announced at Budget 2016. This modelling suggests that the cuts could increase long-run GDP by more than 1%—almost £24 billion in today’s prices. The corporation tax cuts and other reforms we introduced have completely changed perceptions of the UK tax regime. The UK is now regularly cited in surveys as one of the most competitive regimes in the world.
As the Chancellor has said, in the last six years, the Government and the British people have worked hard to rebuild the British economy. We have worked systematically through a plan that means that today Britain has the strongest major advanced economy in the world. Cutting corporation tax rates has been a central part of the Government’s economic strategy, and that strategy is working.
The UK has been one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7, and the OECD forecasts the UK to be the fastest-growing G7 economy in 2016. There are 2.3 million more people in employment since 2010, and business investment is now 30% higher than it was in 2010. Tax competition is dynamic. In the last few decades, we have seen countries across the world cut their corporation tax rates. We cannot afford to stand still while others rush ahead. The UK needs to be as competitive as possible. A new 17% rate of corporation tax sends out the message loud and clear around the world that the British economy is fundamentally strong and highly competitive and that Britain is open for business. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to support the clauses, and to speak in anticipation of what we are about to hear, I hope the Committee will reject amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), which would cancel the corporation tax cuts.
Let me move on to the other measures in this group. Clause 43 abolishes vaccine research relief from 1 April 2017. This relief is available only to large companies and is claimed fewer than 10 times a year, with a value below £5 million. The Government believe that direct spending programmes such as the recently announced £1 billion Ross fund offer a more effective and flexible approach to supporting the development of medicines and vaccines, and will have a far greater impact.
Clause 44 makes a small change to ensure that the introduction of the research and development expenditure credit does not have the unwanted effect of reducing the amount of relief available to certain small businesses. The expenditure credit replaced the old large company R and D tax credit scheme in 2016, following a period of three years in which both were available simultaneously. We recognise that R and D tax relief plays a vital role in supporting productive investment in the UK. These two changes will ensure that R and D tax support remains effective in meeting this objective.
Clause 65 extends the current time limit for claiming enhanced capital allowances in enterprise zones to eight years from the date on which the enterprise zones are announced. Businesses operating in the 46 enterprise zones across the UK can opt either for a rebate on business rates or enhanced capital allowance covering 100% of investment. Extending the time limit for claiming enhanced capital allowances to eight years will allow all zones to enjoy it for the same duration. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will welcome this.
Clause 66 will strengthen the existing capital allowance anti-avoidance revisions to ensure that artificial and contrived arrangements cannot be used to gain excessive capital allowances. Capital allowances allow businesses to write off amounts that they spend on plant and machinery against their taxable profits. This reflects the depreciation in the value of the assets over time. When the business disposes of the asset, the legislation is designed to subtract this disposal value so that the allowances are reduced to reflect the net cost of the asset to the business. HMRC has received several disclosures of tax-avoidance schemes where the disposal value has been manipulated to an artificially low level. This leads to excessive capital allowances being received; the tax result does not reflect commercial reality and so constitutes an avoidance of tax. Clause 66 prevents this and ensures that business pays the correct amount of tax.
Finance Bill
Roger Gale Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 133 and 134 stand part.
Amendment 183.
Clauses 135 and 136 stand part.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
Clauses 132 to 136 set out changes to the climate change levy, or CCL, which is a tax levied on the supply of energy to businesses and the public sector. It was introduced in 2001 to incentivise industrial and commercial energy efficiency. The Finance Act 2015 removed the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity generated on or after 1 August 2015. A consultation was then held to seek views from industry on the appropriate length of time for the transitional period.
Clause 132 sets the length of the transitional period during which electricity suppliers can continue to exempt from the climate change levy renewably sourced energy generated before 1 August 2015. The clause provides for an end date for the transitional period of 31 March 2018. Setting a transitional period will minimise the administrative impact on electricity suppliers by giving them time to retain the benefit of renewably sourced electricity acquired before the date of the change.
Following a review of the business energy tax landscape and consultation with industry, it was announced at Budget 2016 that the Government would abolish the complex and unduly burdensome carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme and move to a single tax—the existing climate chance levy—from 2019. Moving to one tax will provide a clearer price signal for business energy use, incentivising energy efficiency while reducing administrative burdens.
Clauses 133 and 134 set the main rates of the CCL from 1 April 2017 and 1 April 2018 to increase by the retail prices index. Legislating for those increases now provides certainty for businesses before the wider business energy market reforms take place.
Clause 135 will increase the climate change levy rates above RPI from 1 April 2019, to recover the revenue that will be lost from abolishing the CRC. Increasing climate change levy rates will strengthen the incentive for businesses with the greatest potential to save energy. At the same time, rebalancing the rates for different taxable commodities from 1 April 2019 will update an outdated ratio and more closely reflect the carbon content of the energy used. That will help to deliver on our commitment to achieve greater carbon savings.
Clause 136 will increase the levy discount for energy intensive sectors with climate change agreements. That will ensure that businesses in those sectors will pay no more in the climate change levy than the expected RPI increase in April 2019, thereby enabling them to maintain their international competitiveness. Those reforms will take place in 2019, providing a three-year lead-in time for businesses to adjust to the new business energy tax landscape.
Several hon. Members have in the past voiced concern over the impact of the clause to remove the climate change levy exemption from renewably sourced electricity, so allow me, if you will, Sir Roger, to repeat the reasoning for the removal of that exemption. There is no doubt that the exemption was increasingly providing poor value for money for British taxpayers. Without action, the exemption would have cost almost £4 billion over the course of this Parliament, providing only indirect support to renewable generators.
Other Government support for UK low-carbon generators demonstrates this Government’s commitment to renewable energy. Since 2010, nearly £52 billion has been invested in renewables, and that has led to a trebling of the UK’s renewable electricity capacity. There was another record year in 2015, with £13 billion invested in renewable electricity. Removing the exemption will provide better value for money for UK taxpayers, contribute to fiscal consolidation and maintain the climate change levy price signal necessary to incentivise business energy efficiency.
The Government’s consultation with industry showed that the current business energy tax landscape was too burdensome and complex. Clauses 132 to 136 demonstrate the Government’s commitment to simplify and improve the effectiveness of business energy taxes in order to meet our environmental targets.
Amendment 183 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on behalf of the Opposition. If I may pause for a moment, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her on her elevation today. It is an extremely well-deserved promotion and we wish her all the best in her new role. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that her amendment has slightly less merit. It would require the Chancellor to publish a report detailing the impact of the climate change levy in reducing carbon emissions within 12 months from the passing of the Finance Bill, but such a review is unnecessary.
Following a hearing on the 2015 summer Budget, the Chancellor wrote to the Treasury Committee on the impact of the removal of the CCL exemption. He made it clear that the exemption would not directly affect our commitment to reduce carbon emissions. In addition, the Department of Energy and Climate Change already intends to publish a consultation on a simplified energy and carbon reporting framework later this year. That will be accompanied by an impact assessment, which will examine the removal of the carbon reduction commitment and propose adjustments to reporting requirements.
The impact of ending the exemption from the climate change levy for renewable electricity has been discussed at length over the course of debates. It has been confirmed to Parliament in writing by the Chancellor that removal of the exemption will not impact on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon budget targets. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, but should she be minded not to do so, I urge the Committee to reject it.
Greece
Roger Gale Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The hon. Lady draws attention to the very poor record on revenue collection in Greece. It is one of the things that most frustrates its creditors and it comes up regularly in the discussions with the other eurozone Governments. There is actually some history to this: there is a tradition of non-payment—if we can put it like that—going back through Greek history, partly because of the Governments it has had in the past. To be fair to the current Government, and indeed their immediate predecessors in Greece, they have talked about trying to improve revenue collection. The British Government have offered assistance; members of the British civil service have been out on secondment and the like over recent years to try to improve revenue collection. Unfortunately, however, at the moment revenue collection has almost dried up.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has many aspects of this on his mind at the moment, but those of us who seek to protect the interests of ex-pat UK citizens know that they will be hugely appreciative of the fact that he is seeking to safeguard their pension rights and exportable benefit rights, but there are others, particularly those living in Cyprus, who are also dependent on the Greek banking system, so will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister for Europe, sitting to his right, and make sure consular assistance is made available to all ex-pat UK citizens who might be affected by the Greek banking crisis?
Mr Osborne
Of course, we do keep a close eye on the situation in Cyprus. A couple of years ago we provided a lot of support to British citizens or others receiving, for example, British pensions in Cyprus when its banking system collapsed.
One of the challenges with people in Greece who receive a British pension but have a Greek bank account is that if we simply stop the money going in, in order to try to protect the payment from whatever might happen, we do not know whether that might disrupt an agreement they have, for instance, with money coming out of their bank account to pay for rent, or for other things, and of course the Greek Government have not so far put restrictions on pensioners in Greece. We monitor this very carefully, and we have contacted a couple of thousand of the people affected to see if they want to switch bank account and offer them a British bank account facility if they want one. We keep this under daily review.
European Union Referendum Bill
Roger Gale Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather far from the dates that are the subject of the amendment. It is fascinating material, but we do not really need another Second Reading debate.
Mike Gapes
I was tempted by the interventions, so I apologise to you, Sir Roger, for following the temptation. I will get back to the point.
There is an issue here to do with purdah and how the purdah requirements would apply. There will be great difficulty in holding a referendum at the end of 2017, when we are chairing the Council of Ministers meetings, because of that issue alone. For that reason, I hope that, if we are to have a referendum in 2016, we plan for it now—and that may already be, privately, the Prime Minister’s intention—rather than getting into great difficulties with the way in which it can be conducted, and damaging the United Kingdom’s role and relationship with the other 27 member states of the European Union. Once the referendum is over, assuming that it is won, we must work constructively with our partners to restore the trust and relationships for the future. It is better that we confront the issues early, rather than slipping into some kind of disastrous outcome.
Alex Salmond
On a point of order, Sir Roger. At various times during this debate, there has been reference to a letter. I was somewhat puzzled because I did not seem to have been sent such a letter. But now, through access to Twitter, it seems I may have found it. What I now have is a letter from the Minister for Europe to various Members on the Conservative Benches—it can be described only as a letter begging for support. I am somewhat disappointed not to have received it, and to have been ruled out of providing such support. If we are debating amendments—this letter specifically gives Government assurances relating to those amendments—should this communications not have been available to all Members, and should it not now been placed immediately in the Library of the House?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers are responsible for making available their own documentation. It may be a courtesy, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I think I am fairly confident in saying that the starting point of this debate is that every Member of the House—from the Prime Minister and Ministers to the acting Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers to the most newly elected Back Bencher—agrees that if we are to have a referendum it must be perceived to be fair. The most balanced position possible must be taken vis à vis those who wish to advocate yes or no, for a variety of reasons, so that the public hear the broadest possible range of views and can make a reasonably objective judgment.
I have never known a referendum settle any question. It certainly has not settled questions of Scottish independence, elected mayors, proportional representation or AV, and does not seem to have settled the European question either. However, I think that those who believe that a referendum is a valuable way forward agree with me that we should bend over backwards to make sure that all those who feel strongly either way on this subject are treated as fairly as possible.
Mr Nuttall
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend to the extent that I have every respect for the British people and am sure they are capable of considering two separate issues at the same time. I do not have a crystal ball, but I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend is on the other side of the argument from me. The real problem with holding local or Assembly elections on the same day as a referendum is that Members of a political party—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is becoming almost as long as the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech.
Mr Nuttall
The point is that Members of the same political party may well campaign on different sides of the referendum question while at the same time being on the same side for the local elections. That is the key reason we need to have them on separate days.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
May I say how much we are enjoying my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech? His casual wafting around of various sections, whether they are the right ones or not, reminds me of one of those lovely days when he said that he had not bothered to read the Maastricht treaty. Will he clarify something that seems to be a bit of a caricature? He says that the whole of Government would have to be closed down and that Ministers would not be able to engage in any business at all, but surely that could only possibly be true if the European Union was so involved in every nook and cranny of this country’s affairs that it could not possibly function without those relationships. Is not that the whole point?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Before we proceed, in case there was any implied criticism, I have to say that, although the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) might be rambling around the European Union, this is a broad-ranging set of amendments. I have listened to him very carefully and he is, in fact, in order.
Mr Clarke
I hope I am not being too light-hearted, but this has been a long debate. I have already confessed that the issues have not engaged me as passionate issues of great principle to the same extent as they have engaged others. I was genuinely surprised to hear Eurosceptics take off and pronounce that there was a monstrous conspiracy in all the details. I am trying to reassure them that if there was any risk of a conspiracy, it could be laid to one side. I will treat the arguments with every due solemnity.
I am not saying that every Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change—although this might apply to them—or the Scotland Office would necessarily find that they could not do anything. It is not like during an election, when they would not be allowed to go into the office or take any decision of any kind, but the proposal could be very wide-embracing indeed. It is all very well for people to dismiss light-heartedly—though perhaps they are not speaking in the same tone as I am—the Prime Minister’s warnings that there would be a serious impact on the conduct of business, but I think that that is what would happen.
To repeat the point I made earlier: strict purdah stems from long before the statute was passed. It stems from the rules for a general election, and they are right. Once we get into the campaigning stage of a general election, the Minister is the Minister only if he or she is required to sign something that has to be signed. When an election comes, the party political Minister is prevented from taking any decisions. Nothing can be changed. The civil service goes into its totally non-political mode because the whole point of that election is to decide which political masters are going to return to the Department, so that eventually we again have a Government who are able to act.
What we are discussing is a referendum being held by a Government. It is part of the Government’s policy to hold the referendum. The Government have been negotiating a deal as part of their policy on reform to supplement the arguments in the referendum. The Government will continue to be the Government for the next three or four years and will have to live with the consequences of the referendum, so what is being argued is that these men and women and the civil servants who support them should all switch off for four weeks, stop having an opinion on these issues and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and myself, the day after the election pretend that they now agree with the enlightened view of the electorate and that they are going ahead and taking all the decisions on whatever is now the position.
I am sure there is a balance to be struck. I would deplore it if the Government were to spend taxpayers’ money on sending out ridiculous pamphlets and so on. That would misfire. I expect the Government to be in favour of a yes vote. I will be campaigning for a yes vote. I do not want the Government to squander taxpayers’ money and plainly abusing their position by putting out material that I might not wholly agree with anyway. The electorate would react if it was obvious that the Government were resorting to using the machinery of government for campaigning. But the statute is too severe. I hope we will not all get carried away and that we will allow my right hon. and hon. Friends the chance to come back with a sensible compromise.
Let me move on. I am sure the Whips will be very happy, but I am taking rather longer than I intended. I am attracted by the Opposition amendments, although I am not going to support them, as I shall explain in a moment. The shadow Minister, with unusual naiveté, seems to believe in evidence-based politics. He obviously believes that the more rational information is produced objectively and placed before the public, the more certain one can be that the correct result will be arrived at.
But this is politics. This is the European issue. Nothing of that sort has intruded into the debate on the European Union for the past 30 or 40 years, and it will not do so now. The Government have tried to move in that direction. The Foreign Office carried out the most objective study of the division of powers—the division of competences, in the jargon—[Interruption.] Precisely. I hear colleagues behind me shouting out, “Whitewash!”, by which they mean that the study came to the wrong conclusion, in their opinion. Evidence-based politics was rejected the moment it emerged. It could not find that the balance of competences, as negotiated by successive Ministers of all political persuasions over the previous 40 years, contained anything that was to the disadvantage of the British public.
The reaction was not to try to challenge any of these arguments with any new facts, but to try to bury the document, which most members of the public were never allowed to hear about. I suspect that it has not been picked up—it is pretty voluminous stuff—by very many Members of this House, let alone people outside, but it is a noble aspiration.
I have one serious reservation about what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) proposes. He suggests that those pre-eminently independent bodies, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, should be, as it were, enjoined by this Bill to produce those reports, which is quite attractive. I have the highest regard for the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility. We should all vigorously continue to ensure that their independence is maintained in every possible way, but there is a danger of politicising them. The Bank gives its opinions all the time, as most central Banks do, about the outlook for the economy, the latest statistics and the way things are unfolding. Central bank governors become notorious for talking a kind of obscure, slightly ambiguous mandarin language. That is precisely to try to avoid getting themselves immersed, which the Bank and the OBR would do if they seemed to be leaping into something that is a partisan opinion or appears to be a position of strong partisan support for one question or another.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. The Minister knows whether to sit down or not.
Mr Lidington
We will ensure that there is a clear mechanism so that in the four weeks before polling day, the Government will not undertake a range of activities that most would regard as the province of the campaign, such as issuing mailshots, running commercial advertising campaigns and emailing voters in one way or another.
There are various ways in which that might be done. Some colleagues have talked about a code of conduct. The Opposition have tabled a constructive amendment, which we welcome, but there are some technical problems with it, not least how the Government could anticipate what might be published by all public bodies, which is required by the text of amendment 54. As an alternative to a code of conduct, we could include provisions in the Bill that would restrict Government activity to particular named forms of publication or prohibit the Government from taking part in specific forms of communication.
We will not programme the Report stage until the autumn, which provides ample time for Ministers to consult parliamentary colleagues in all parts of the House to understand their concerns and views more closely, and to frame a set of amendments that will command the widest possible consensus in the House on Report. That is probably the best way to ensure that the referendum is conducted on a basis that everybody believes to be fair.
We have always been clear that it is not our intention that the Government should be a lead campaigner in the referendum. It is right that the Committee should seek reassurance from us on that point. We are happy to bring forward the amendments that I have described and, in the meantime, to discuss proposals with hon. Members in all parts of the House. However, I believe that section 125 of the 2000 Act is deficient for these purposes and urge right hon. and hon. Members not to press the amendments that would impose the provisions of that section on the referendum.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 6, line 6, after second “period”, insert—
“of not less than 16 weeks”.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum period lasts for at least 16 weeks.
Amendment 20, page 6, leave out lines 23 and 24.
Amendment 28, page 6, leave out lines 23 to 31.
Amendment 24, page 6, leave out lines 25 to 31.
Amendment 53, page 6, line 33, at end add—
“(ix) the total number of permitted participants shall be limited to a number specified by the Electoral Commission to ensure broad equality of resources between those campaigning for each of the outcomes of the referendum and those taken into account for the purposes of this provision will be the first persons to give notice under section 106(1) of the 2000 Act.”.
The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to ensure that during the referendum campaign, the total spend of the campaign on either side of the referendum would be broadly equal by limiting the number of participants, taking into account moneys spent by business, government, the European Commission and the campaigns themselves.
Amendment 32, page 6, line 33, at end add—
“( ) Nothing in this Schedule alters the law governing charitable organisations in any part of the United Kingdom to confer an entitlement to participate in a referendum which would not have been possible prior to the coming into force of this Schedule.”.
Amendment 29, page 7, line 5, leave out “any of sub-paragraphs (v) to (viii)” and insert “sub-paragraph (v)”.
Amendment 22, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 19.
Amendment 30, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 23.
Amendment 26, page 7, leave out lines 20 to 23.
Government amendment 14.
Amendment 33, page 12, leave out lines 18 and 19.
Amendment 41, page 12, leave out lines 18 to 25.
Amendment 37, page 12, leave out lines 20 to 25.
Amendment 10, page 12, line 38, at end insert—
“(6) For the purposes of paragraph 6 of Schedule 15 of the 2000 Act a permitted participant must not accept a relevant donation, irrespective of whether or not it meets the requirements of the 2000 Act and this Act, if the donation is funded directly or indirectly in whole or part from moneys, resources or support disbursed or allocated by or at the direction of the European Commission, its agencies or any related European institution to the donor or via other parties to the donor.”.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no funds or support provided directly or indirectly by European Union bodies have a bearing on the outcome of the referendum.
Amendment 45, page 12, line 38, at end add—
“( ) Nothing in this Schedule alters the law governing charitable organisations in any part of the United Kingdom to confer an entitlement to make a donation during a referendum which would not have been permissible prior to the coming into force of this Schedule.”.
Amendment 42, page 13, line 6, leave out “any of the paragraphs (c) to (f)” and insert “paragraph (c)”.
Amendment 43, page 13, line 10, leave out “any of the paragraphs (c) to (f)” and insert “paragraph (c)”.
Amendment 36, page 13, leave out lines 12 to 16.
Amendment 44, page 13, leave out lines 12 to 22.
Amendment 40, page 13, leave out lines 17 to 20.
Government amendment 15.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Mr McFadden
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I seek your guidance. The Committee has just agreed to Government amendment 55, which states that the referendum will not take place on the same day as elections in May of next year, but other amendments that we did not get the chance to discuss fully this afternoon also deal with the date of the referendum, including amendment 3, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Can you give the Committee any guidance on whether there will be time to debate those further amendments on Thursday?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments 3 and 7—I think he is—it will be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider them for debate on Thursday. I think the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes, there is the opportunity, or there is likely to be the opportunity, for debate.
Alex Salmond
Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. Does the same apply to amendment 17, which is also in that category? We would not want to lose any opportunity to debate further the extent of the Government’s humiliating climbdown and acceptance that they should show courtesy to the people of Scotland.
The Temporary Chair
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no, because that was not debated under the group.
The Temporary Chair
Amendment 11 comes later in the proceedings. Whether or not that is the subject of a Division will be a matter for whoever is in the Chair later in the day. My expectation is that there will be a Division, but that is a matter for the Chairman at the time.
Sir William Cash
My view about the clause is that we have managed to have a wide-ranging debate. In the interests of brevity, I do not think much needs to be said on the subject. We really ought to get on to other matters, including the question of European Union financing. I have no further comments to make on clause stand part.
The Temporary Chair
Order. I am at the disposal of the Committee and looking for hon. Members to speak, but there appears to be no one but Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh
Is it appropriate that I speak to my amendment 53, Sir Roger?
Sir Edward Leigh
Amendment 53 would state that
“the total number of permitted participants shall be limited to a number specified by the Electoral Commission to ensure broad equality of resources between those campaigning for each of the outcomes of the referendum”.
I refer the Committee to the Member’s explanatory statement, which states:
“The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to ensure that during the referendum campaign, the total spend of the campaign”—[Interruption.]
The Temporary Chair
Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? There are people who wish to hear the debate.
Sir Edward Leigh
I was just referring to the explanatory statement. It is very helpful that the Public Bill Office now publishes explanatory statements, as it makes it much easier for us to understand amendments.
Alex Salmond
As I understand it, and I am open to correction from Sir Roger, the sinner may get a chance to repent even before that. Amendment 11 has still to be called in our proceedings, so the sinner may get a chance to repent on Report, at the eleventh hour or at 7 o’clock this evening. Let us all hope that the sinner does repent whenever they choose to.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
As I am being quoted, may I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not be taking repentance at that time?
Alex Salmond
I wish to make it absolutely clear for the record that the only sinners to which we are referring are those who were previously located on the Labour Front Bench. I am not talking about anyone else in the House.
There is a serious point. Whatever side of this referendum campaign we want to adopt, and if we are all agreed that it is important that everyone sees the referendum as fair and square, the rules should be drawn up in such a way to give a proper contest—a square goal, as some of my Glaswegian colleagues might say. If there is to be a genuine and fair contest, it does require us, when opportunities present themselves to defeat the Government, as they so rarely do, to ensure that those opportunities are taken. I appeal to the Labour Front Bench Members—perhaps they will communicate this to their colleagues—to see that that opportunity still beckons to ensure that that can happen later in our proceedings.
The Government’s position across a range of matters seems to be somewhat disorganised. I know that there was a great anxiety on the part of Government to rush forward with this Bill immediately after the general election. Perhaps they wanted to catch out the Labour party, which was still in a state of leadership limbo. A number of things already in our proceedings tell us that insufficient thought has gone into the Government’s position. There was that extraordinary climbdown, or cave-in, on Government amendment 55. I welcome the fact that respect has belatedly been shown to the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it does not have the smack of a Government that have considered their point of view. Across a range of matters, particularly with regard to purdah, there is a sign that the Government have not sufficiently thought through their position.
Earlier, I was told that it is in order for the Minister for Europe to circulate a letter, only to his colleagues, that says what might happen on Report if people do not press their amendments inconveniently. I see that the experienced hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who spoke from a sedentary position—we all welcome him back to his place—is smiling. He has been on the receiving end of many such letters over the years—probably more than the rest of us put together. I do think that it is somewhat remiss of the Government to distribute information only to those on the Conservative Benches.
Earlier, I was struck by the actions of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He had not received the communication, but within seconds of it being passed to him, decided that he was in favour of it. That was a remarkable rush to judgment, I would say, both in terms of the climbdown we have seen on the date of the referendum and of the inadequate thought that has been given to this hasty revocation of the purdah considerations.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Roger Gale Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 1, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent.
(4) The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45 per cent and at 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of—
(a) £150,000 per year; and
(b) £1,000,000 per year.”
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 1 stand part and clauses 2 to 5 stand part.
Shabana Mahmood
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Amendment 1 stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It calls on the Chancellor to produce within three months of the enactment of this Bill a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50%. The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45%—the current higher rate—and at 50% on the amount of income tax currently paid by people with a taxable income of £150,000 and £1 million a year.
As we all know, the 50p rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 was reduced to 45p by this Government in 2012. That was hotly debated at the time and it has been hotly debated ever since. The Minister refers to a debate on the additional rate of tax as an annual event whenever we discuss a Finance Bill. Government Members may groan that the debate is rearing its head again, but I am, if nothing else, an optimistic person and I continue to hope that Government Members will be swayed by my arguments and be persuaded to accept our eminently sensible and reasonable amendment.
Shabana Mahmood
I beg to move amendment 2, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review, within six months of the passing of this Act, of the impact of a cut of one per cent to the main rate of Corporation Tax for financial year 2016, with particular reference to—
(a) the impact on businesses with fewer than 50 employees;
(b) the impact on investment by businesses with fewer than 50 employees; and
(c) alternative tax measures, including non-domestic rates, which would have a greater benefit for businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish the report of the review and lay the report before the House.”.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.
Shabana Mahmood
The review proposed in amendment 2 would give us a better understanding of the factors that are helping small businesses to grow and those that are limiting their expansion. Most small and medium-sized businesses with a smaller number of employees tend to be run from premises that have a rateable value of below £50,000. I should say at the outset—the Minister and I have had this debate before—that Labour does not oppose the recent changes to the rate of corporation tax that have so far come into effect. That is in keeping with our party’s policy over the past 15 years. When Labour left office, Britain had the most competitive rate of corporation tax in the G7. The rate has been cut several times over the past few years. The small business rate for companies whose profits are less than £300,000 now stands at 20%, and the rate for companies earning more than that will be 21% from April—in just a few days.
Wales Bill
Roger Gale Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hywel Williams
I beg to move amendment 36, page 21, line 18, leave out ‘, with the approval of the Treasury,’.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 37, page 21, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
‘(1) On receipt of notice of an appropriate resolution of the Assembly, the Secretary of State shall by order amend subsection (1A) so as to vary, in the manner indicated by the terms of such resolution, the means by which Welsh Ministers may borrow money.”.’.
These amendments would enable the National Assembly to change the way money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including the issuance of bonds, without the need for consent by the Treasury or Resolution of the House of Commons.
Amendment 35, page 21, line 31, at end insert—
‘(6) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for an independent report to be compiled on the issuance of bonds by Welsh Ministers.
(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report specified in subsection (6) before each House of Parliament within three months of this Act being passed.’.
The Scotland Act 2012 enables the Secretary of State, by order and consent of HM Treasury, to change how Scottish Ministers can borrow money for capital purposes, for example, allowing the issue of bonds. Clause 19(5) of the Wales Bill contains the same provisions. This amendment seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds.
Amendment 34, page 21, line 38, at end insert—
‘and if that amount is more than the amount for which it is substituted it shall not thereafter be reduced below that higher amount’.
This amendment would ensure that when the Secretary of State raises the borrowing for investment limit, it cannot subsequently be reduced.
Amendment 5, page 21, line 38, at end insert—
‘(3B) The figure mentioned in inserted subsection (3A) shall be recalculated on an annual basis to maintain its value in real terms against inflation.’.
Clause 19 stand part.
Clause 20 stand part.
Hywel Williams
Amendments 36 and 37 would enable the National Assembly to change the way that money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including the issuing of bonds, without the need for the consent of the Treasury or a resolution of the House of Commons. Amendment 35 seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds. Amendment 34 would ensure that when the Secretary of State raises the borrowing for investment limit, it cannot subsequently be reduced.
First, on the issuance of bonds, subsection 32(5) of the Scotland Act 2012 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to change the manner in which Scottish Ministers can borrow money for capital purposes—for example, to permit borrowing by the issue of bonds. Subsection (5) of the Wales Bill contains the same provisions. This amendment seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds.
Following the Scotland Act 2012, the legislation left the door open for the Secretary of State to enable the Scottish Government to issue bonds in future. The UK Government later launched a consultation on bond issuance and announced in February of this year that Scotland is to get the power to issue bonds. There is only one problem: it will have that power only in 2015. In the meantime, the small matter of the independence referendum in September might intrude.
Scotland aside, I refer Members to the cross-party Commission on Devolution in Wales. Recommendation 19 ends with the words:
“We also believe that the Welsh Government should be able to issue its own bonds.”
Given that local government throughout the British Isles can issue bonds, it is an anomaly that the devolved nation Governments cannot also do so.
The Silk Commission’s first report stated that
“while bonds may be more expensive at present, a possible future scenario where they may be cheaper or more attractive to the Welsh Government cannot be ruled out. We therefore see no reason in principle for preventing the Welsh Government from being able to issue its own bonds in addition to borrowing from the National Loans Fund and other sources such as commercial banks.”
Our amendment calls for greater clarification and seeks to expedite the ability of the Welsh Government to issue bonds. We need movement on this issue to enable the Government of Wales, should they choose to do so, to drive investment in infrastructure, and so improve our economy.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, page 23, line 17, at end insert—
‘(d) the scrutiny of reductions of, and additions to, the block grant to reflect expenditure and income arising from the provision of certain services in England to people resident or otherwise eligible for such services in Wales and the provision of such services in Wales to people resident or otherwise eligible in England.’.
Amendment 14, page 23, line 24, at end insert—
‘(g) a Welsh Minister responsible for a service falling under section 13(d) (definition of budgetary procedures)’.
Government amendment 29.
Clause 21 stand part.
Amendment 17, in clause 22, page 24, line 46, leave out ‘and’.
Amendment 18, in clause 22, page 24, line 46, at end insert—
‘(ae) an estimate of the costs of providing services in Wales to people resident in England; an estimate of the monies received from HM Treasury to fund such provision; and an assessment of the effectiveness of any relevant agreements in place governing cross-border service provision, and’.
This amendment and amendment 17 to Clause 22 are intended to make the operation of agreements that govern cross-border services, such as the NHS protocol, more transparent to residents of both England and Wales.
Clause 22 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of options for Barnett formula reform—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for a review of options for reforming the Barnett formula in order to meet the objective of calculating the block grant funding for Wales on the basis of need.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report of the review mentioned in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’.
New clause 3—Cross-border health care—
‘After section 1 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, insert—
“1A Duty to have regard to impact on services in certain areas
In exercising functions relating to the health service, the Welsh Ministers must have regard to the likely impact of those decisions on the provision of health services to persons who reside in an area of England that is close to the border with Wales.”.’.
This New Clause places a duty on Welsh Ministers to consider the impact of their decisions on the provision of health services to people who reside in England, analogous to a duty already placed on the NHS Commissioning Board in England to consider the impact of its decisions on people residing in Wales and Scotland.
New clause 10—Welsh Government Finance Department—
‘The Welsh Government may, by resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, rename its finance department and this shall be recognised as its official title in all dealings with the Treasury.’.
David T. C. Davies
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this amendment because I believe in the national health service. I know that I speak for all members of my political party in saying that we believe in having a truly national health service. The changes I am attempting to insert into the Bill would bring back the national health service that we once had but no longer have. At the moment, contrary to what people think, we have a regionalised health service with different systems in Wales, in Scotland, in England, and in Northern Ireland. It is a sad fact that in Wales, under the leadership of members of the Labour party, the Welsh national health service has been failing patients and letting people down. I care about that.
I also care about the patients who come to see in my surgery. They include Mariana Robinson, who has been speaking out in national newspapers over the past few weeks. I did not ask her to go the press; she came to see me to ask how she could tell the story of the scandalous treatment that she has been receiving. She was treated very well in a nearby hospital in England but then told that she could no longer have that treatment because funding was not available and she would have to be treated in Wales.
Only a few weeks ago, I spoke to a patient who had been suffering from cancer. She had been told that she was terminally ill and would not last more than a few months. She believes that she was, in effect, written off by the national health service in Wales. She found out about experimental treatment in England and accessed it. She is still alive. Her cancer appears to be in remission at the moment, and I wish her all the best. She obviously wants to continue to receive this experimental treatment in the same area, Newcastle, yet she too has been told that there will be no further funding for her.
There has always been a problem in getting cross-border funding, but it seems to have got a lot worse in the past 12 months, when a decision was taken somewhere along the line that meant that virtually anyone with an illness in Wales would have to be treated in Wales. I believe that this is part of the whole National Assembly mindset about doing everything in Wales because it feels that it can do it better.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Roger Gale Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson
I beg to move amendment 10, page 2, line 11, at end add—
‘(3) The Chancellor shall produce a report on subsection (1) which shall include an assessment of the impact of changes to taxation on the living standards of basic rate taxpayers which shall be placed in the House of Commons Library within three months of Royal Assent.’.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.
Cathy Jamieson
It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box. Had amendment 4 been selected for debate, we could have engaged in further discussion about the mansion tax and the 10p income tax rate. However, I think that some of the broader issues that I shall raise in relation to clause 3 are relevant to that subject.
Clause 3 sets the 2013-14 basic rate limit for income tax at £32,010. In doing so, it overrides the indexed amount, which would otherwise have been set at £35,300 as announced in the 2012 autumn statement. The explanatory notes on the clause state that it is
“part of a package of measures”.
I shall say something further about the implications of that package of measures as we go on. Effectively, the rise in the personal allowance from £8,105 to £9,440 for this year and the rise to £10,000 from 2014, however welcome they are and regardless of the difficulties raised concerning those who will not necessarily benefit, will in part be clawed back by the measures implemented in this clause and a further reduction in the basic rate limit next year to £31,865.
Air Passenger Duty
Roger Gale Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Most Members have made the point about the value of the aviation industry to the UK as a whole. It is of considerable value to all the UK’s major conurbations, and particularly to the south-east. Historically, Heathrow has been one of the major—if not the major—hub airports in the world. The interlining that has gone on through Heathrow over decades has been worth almost incalculable sums of money, not merely to the aviation industry but to business as a whole through the people who hold business meetings in airport meeting rooms and the people who come through London and spend money doing business in the City or as tourists. That is what is at stake and it is difficult and dangerous to ignore those facts.
At the moment, the United Kingdom is losing business. Not in 10, 15 or 20 years—it is happening now, today. Every day we lose business to Schiphol, to Frankfurt and to Charles de Gaulle. Would not the French, give or take Mr Hollande, like to create in Paris the financial centre of Europe, to replace London? It is not a pipe dream on their part; it could happen if we drive the business travellers away from the south-east of England. I am sorry that this is to some extent a south-east problem, but that happens to be where the City of London is and we cannot change that.
There are two issues: airport capacity and air passenger duty. My friend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) both made the point that people are now travelling short haul to interline and take long-haul flights from Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle. They pay APD on the short-haul flight and get a much cheaper and better deal on the long-haul flight to the far east, Brazil—a developing market—and, of course, the United States. It is happening now.
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend is making an articulate case about the impact on the economy of Great Britain, but there is also an impact on overseas economies. For example, the APD banding is so arbitrary and wrong that the APD for somewhere such as the Caribbean is more than for somewhere as far away as Hawaii. Surely that shows the illogicality of this blunt tax.
Sir Roger Gale
If I wanted to use one word to describe the banding, it would be chaotic. That is what it is. We are losing business now.
We have an opportunity—I have a constituency interest in this—in Manston, Kent’s international airport. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is aware, I think, of the opportunity Manston presents. It has one of the longest runways in the country and also one of the widest—three runways wide—because during the war it was used for landing planes one after the other. There is no suggestion that it should ever become a fourth, fifth or sixth London airport, but it could be developed at very modest cost to take the pressure immediately—not in 10 or 15 years’ time—off Gatwick, which in turn, with released capacity, could take the pressure off Heathrow. That would create the breathing space we need while the Government work out whether to have a third runway at Heathrow, a second runway at Gatwick, a second runway at Stansted or Boris island—that is not the purpose of this debate. If we are to develop Manston and use its capacity, we must give it a chance to breathe commercially, and air passenger duty is damaging that chance.
We need a modest investment in infrastructure, and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has responsibility for aviation, will visit us very soon. As long as the air passenger duty element of travel from the United Kingdom is as high as it is, regional airports such as Manston, and the many others that Members across the House have represented this afternoon, will suffer. Because Manston is in the south-east, it will presumably be banded at a south-east price, which in itself is nonsense. We must take into account the nature and capacity of each individual airport. I want air passenger duty to go completely, but I believe that in the interim, as a short-term measure, we have to look seriously at banding, which has been referred to, and at some kind of variation between regional and hub airports.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury might be new to his role, but he is very bright and he can do sums, which is why he got the job. It is very easy to say glibly that something is worth £2 billion, £5 billion or whatever to the Treasury without taking into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) referred to as the downside. The real cost must be calculated in terms not just of aviation lost, but of lost business, tourism and all the other things that flow from being a world-class, international centre, which is what London is, always has been and must be allowed to remain.
There is a Treasury mantra—I am looking to the civil servants’ box—which says that more tax equals more money. That card was played earlier this afternoon with regard to beer duty. It is wrong. A modest amount of tax might raise a modest amount of money, but there comes a point, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary must recognise this, when a tax kills the goose that lays the eggs, whether they are gold, silver, bronze or straightforward eggs. We cannot go on killing this industry, and that is what is happening. Of course, another huge concern has been voiced by holiday travellers. The impact on family holidays is dramatic and costly.
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. It strikes me that at the heart of the debate there is an absence of evidence; there is an evidence-shaped hole at its heart. All the points that have been made, including his points, could be dealt with cleanly and crisply if the review takes place.
Sir Roger Gale
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point leads me swiftly to a conclusion. The sums have not been properly analysed and so we need the review. There is no evidence to support the case that the Treasury is making. In the meantime, United Kingdom Ltd is being damaged. We need the review. I ask the Minister, please can we have it?
Beer Duty Escalator
Roger Gale Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffiths
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that 95% of all Scotch whisky is exported. In the UK, 87% of all the beer that is drunk in this country is brewed in this country. Beer is a great British manufacturing success story, which is why we need to support it.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Shepherd Neame, a Kent family brewer, and Thorley Taverns in Margate are both major employers in one of the areas of highest social deprivation in the south-east. They are both under threat, paying huge amounts of their revenue in tax while companies such as Starbucks pay virtually nothing at all. Putting the beer duty escalator to one side, I remember going to see John Cope—now Lord Cope—when he was a Treasury Minister about 20 years ago, and our parliamentary delegation demonstrated then that the more we tax, the less revenue we take in the end. Is that not the nub of this argument—it is counter-productive?
Andrew Griffiths
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The point about an escalator is that we stop when we get to the top. We have reached the top of the escalator and we are in danger of going off the edge of a cliff. That is why we must do something about the beer duty escalator.