Finance (No. 3) Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I support amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a shareholder in Shell and a vice-chair of the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group.

The key aim of the amendment is to introduce damage limitation and to rebuild the confidence and trust among investors that the country needs if we are to maximise the benefits of our own oil and gas. The oil and gas under the ground does not provide us with any jobs, tax or security of supply. Those are produced only when it comes out of the ground, and, although it belongs to the nation, we can get it out of the ground only through the expertise and skill of people from my constituency and throughout the country. They apply their knowledge by way of the investment provided by risk capital, and the investors must know, as far as possible, in what climate they are operating and what returns they will obtain. The kind of risk that we rely on their taking is illustrated by a field in the North sea where the geology suggested that three platforms would be enough to sustain production and provide all the necessary equipment. Only when they started extracting the oil did they discover that there was much more sulphur in some parts of the field than in others and that they needed to build a fourth platform at a cost of £1 billion. Such extra risk taken by investors—not by the Government or the taxpayer—must be recognised as being of great importance to our country’s success in this regard.

Last week, we held a reception in Parliament for Subsea UK to highlight an industry that has developed into a jewel in the crown of this country, yielding £6 billion in production from under the sea through engineering skill, half of which is exported from this country. The United Kingdom is responsible for one third of the world’s subsea engineering; we therefore have something very important to nurture and build on.

The field allowance discussions are an important means of trying to unlock some of the fields that will be negatively affected by what has been proposed. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon emphasised a longer term risk that needs to be addressed: the risk not to the projects that are unwinding now and in the next two years, which already had the momentum of contracts signed and delivered before the tax was changed, but to those that will be decided in the culture and investment climate prevailing in the aftermath of the tax. That is why these talks are so important in rebuilding trust and a constructive engagement.

I welcome the fact that industry and Government appear to be addressing the need for constructive engagement, and any updates from Ministers as to how we are progressing in rebuilding trust will be very important. We must remember that the reputations of the country managers—the people in this country who work for the multinational companies and the investors abroad—has been damaged by what happened. They have been encouraging their investors to invest in this country in one set of circumstances, only for the goalposts to be shifted. They need trust and confidence in them to be restored if they are going to persuade their investors abroad—in Calgary and elsewhere—to invest again in our country so we can build on the potential that exists.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Gentleman, his party colleague, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). We have heard about contracts and work that is in place already unwinding, with the likelihood of a gap after 2013 when one set of investment decisions has already been made but others have not yet been taken. I ask the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) to carry on the good work he is doing with his own Government on speeding up this review, so we can avoid that investment gap and the real dangers we will face in a couple of years’ time.

Finance Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am not sure that I am surprised that that was the answer from the Minister with responsibility for tourism. I shall come on to the regional development agency in a moment or two.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

For the past 10 minutes, the hon. Lady has been making a very good speech. She has said that virtually every sector in her constituency is under pressure. She was worried that businesses might not even be able to keep going. She spoke about a construction company that is under huge pressure. She described the inflationary impact of the VAT rise. She spoke about the downward spiral for businesses, and the impact of the VAT rise on tourism. Would she please explain, then, why she will not vote tonight for a temporary decrease? Has Labour changed its position? Does the shadow Chancellor not know what he is doing? Is he having a fight with his party’s leader, or is this just the normal Labour shambles?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I can only suppose that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the answer that I gave earlier to his colleague, who made the same point.

Scotland Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We must certainly understand the wider UK consequences of that. That is why there is a cap. In the Government’s judgment, £2.2 billion is the appropriate level at this point.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that that £2.2 billion is a cumulative sum, and that the annual amount is £230 million?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, that is the case, but we must consider the consequences of that borrowing for the UK’s debt position. That is the level that we believe is right.

As I set out in Committee, the £2.2 billion represents a floor, not a ceiling. The Bill provides for the limit to be increased to more than £2.2 billion with the approval of the House, but not for it to be reduced to less than £2.2 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We must remember that any debt service will be financed by the Scottish taxpayer—that is the context.

We should move on. As I said, any loans will be funded from within the Scottish Budget and included in the UK fiscal aggregates. The Bill therefore continues to give Scottish Ministers the power to borrow in the most efficient and sustainable way—from the national loans funds, as recommended by the Calman commission. In addition, should Scottish Ministers choose to do so, the Bill gives them the power to borrow by way of a commercial loan when that represents value for money.

The Government continue to believe that Scottish Ministers should be able to borrow only by way of a loan, but because overall macro-economic policy will continue to be a reserved matter, and because Scottish borrowing will impact on the UK fiscal position, it is right that this House agrees the limits and conditions of borrowing. I therefore ask Opposition Members not to press amendment 2 and amendments 26 to 29 to a Division.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister suggests that various Opposition Members from various parties do not press their amendments. Is it not normally in order to hear the arguments for them before jumping to such a strange and presumptuous conclusion?

[Mr Gauke]

I do not think it an unprecedented statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I have served on many a Committee where that has been suggested. I wait to hear how persuasive the case is, but I suspect that I will not be persuaded, and that, to some extent, the amendments may be probing. We await the arguments, and I look forward to them.

New clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), has two purposes. First, it seeks to legislate for the Chancellor, within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed, to

“lay before the House a report on the formula for allocating funds from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Government, and the alternative ways of calculating the sums to be paid.”

Secondly, it would require that within

“six weeks of laying that report…the Chancellor…lay before the House proposals for a new…formula which would ensure that the funds allocated to the Scottish Government are no more than 5 per cent. below or above the equivalent figure for each of the other nations of the UK.”

As hon. Members know, the formula for allocating funds from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Government is known as the Barnett formula, and as hon. Members will recall, the Bill seeks to increase the accountability of the Scottish Parliament to its people by devolving fiscal powers from Whitehall to Holyrood, and deducting a corresponding amount from Scotland’s block grant.

The Bill does not change the level of funding for Scotland. Future decisions taken by Scottish Ministers will affect the overall funding for Scotland’s public services, because Scottish Ministers will decide whether to increase or decrease devolved taxes relative to the UK. Reforming the Barnett formula is an entirely separate issue from those we are considering in the Bill, and one that the Calman commission did not make any recommendations on. The current formula is an administrative procedure and does not appear in legislation. It is not specific to Scotland, but is a mechanism for allocating funding across all four countries of the UK, so it would not be appropriate to legislate to alter it for Scotland in isolation. The Bill would not be an appropriate place for that

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

But the Calman commission did not say that that was the right way forward at this point. As I have said, some very substantial issues would need to be addressed, not least the opportunity for profit shifting and the impact on the UK Exchequer were Scotland to have a lower rate of corporation tax, as businesses operating in Scotland and England would shift their profits to Scotland, which would disadvantage the UK as a whole.

[Stewart Hosie]

A number of businesses moved to Ireland in the last Parliament to take advantage of lower corporation tax. A number of others moved to continental Europe, to the Netherlands. One of the drivers for this Government reducing corporation tax was to send out that signal. That change will not necessarily be paid for by changes to allowances or spending cuts; it will be paid for in the medium and long term by increased economic growth, which is a consequence of a lower business tax regime. Why has the Minister excluded the potential of growth in Scotland from it having lower corporation tax, and merely highlighted the payment in other ways?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me be clear: I am not making the case against lower corporation tax per se; I am saying that if Scotland had a lower rate of corporation tax, that would have an impact on the Exchequer, and Scotland and the Scottish Government would have to pick up that cost. I do not believe that that is a matter of dispute or that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that. Indeed, we are not even talking about something that we could pursue under European law—I am sure that he will be aware of the details of the Azores judgment. [Interruption.] That point is clear, so I am surprised that there are so many mystified faces on the Opposition Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly anxious to move the debate on, and he makes a perfectly reasonable point. The Treasury and the Government would be quite happy to share our analysis with the Scottish Government, and if that would assist them in their work, we would be pleased to be of assistance.

[Stewart Hosie]

Speaking of sharing information, the Minister has raised the spectre of the Azores ruling, but a comparable and permanent reduction to the block grant in place of the devolution of corporation tax would certainly meet all the state aid rules. The Azores judgment smokescreen that the Minister has thrown up is quite irrelevant.

[Mr Gauke]

The point I was making was that the cost would have to be borne by the Scottish Government, through either increased taxes or a reduction in the block grant. We would clearly have to enter into discussions with the Commission, but I think that he is right in principle, and that such a proposition would comply with the Azores judgment. I am merely making the point that, although the final cost would have to be determined, it would be substantially higher than £2 billion if it was the Scottish Government’s policy to bring the rate of corporation tax down to the level that pertains in the Republic of Ireland.

I shall move on to amendment 18, which seeks to make the date for commencement of all the taxation provisions in the Bill—those relating to the Scottish rate of income tax, the Scottish tax on land transactions and the Scottish tax on disposals to landfill—contingent on the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The process to be used to provide consent is not detailed in the amendment, but I assume that the hon. Member for Dundee East has in mind something akin to the legislative consent motion convention to which the Bill is subject. I consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Similar amendments were tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. We have committed to working closely with the Scottish Government as we move towards full implementation of the measures in the Bill. This engagement will ensure that the Scottish Government can keep the Scottish Parliament apprised of implementation work in good time.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Scottish Parliament voted on the Bill in March, with 121 of the 129 Members voting in favour; this included the Scottish Government. Following the election in May, the Scottish Parliament established a new Scotland Bill Committee to consider amendments to the Bill. This will ensure a further opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to vote on changes to the Bill.

As I said on Report in relation to the taxes to be fully devolved, we made it clear in the Command Paper accompanying the Bill that if the Scottish Parliament was not ready to introduce the smaller taxes in April 2015, we would consider delaying the switch-off of the UK-wide versions of the taxes in Scotland. Should the Scottish Government and Parliament decide that they do not wish to put in place a Scottish version to cover the existing tax base, we will not leave the current landfill tax or stamp duty land tax in place. It will be for the Scottish Government to decide what, if any, arrangements they wish to put in place, once the matter is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I consider this additional requirement to be unnecessary and I am therefore minded to urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, but of course I shall wait with interest to hear his arguments. This has been a somewhat lengthy speech, for which I apologise to the House, but I have attempted to deal with a large number of new clauses and amendments. I hope that that has been helpful, and I look forward to the forthcoming debate.

[Stewart Hosie]

As the Minister has pointed out, there is a large number of new clauses and amendments in this group. I intend to give them a decent airing, not least because I was chastised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) in a recent newspaper article for speaking for barely 14 minutes in a previous debate. I would not want to disappoint her by not providing closely argued contributions on the new clauses and amendments tonight. It is also worth putting it on record that barely three hours for a Report stage is quite inadequate.

Our amendment 29 and new clause 9 deal with corporation tax, about which the Minister went on at some length. This is a tax levied on profits and the Scottish Government are seeking to devolve the competence to use it as key policy lever to promote economic activity in Scotland. It is important to focus not on the dry detail of the amendments, but on what we and any Scottish Government would do with the powers. We believe that corporation tax can be a key element in the country’s overall economic strategy and can promote economic growth and job creation by enhancing international competitiveness and encouraging innovation and investment.

We believe that the case for devolving corporation tax is clear. Over the past 30 years, Scotland’s economy has grown more slowly relative to both the UK and the average of small EU countries than it ought to have done. We believe that for Scotland to fulfil its economic potential, additional levers are required and corporation tax is, I believe, a key mechanism. It can be an important tool in helping to support increased business start-ups, increased business research and development and investment, and in encouraging more firms to locate their headquarters in Scotland—the very reasons, I suspect, why the UK Government announced a lower corporation tax rate and a strategy for reducing it further.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Far be it for me to be a cynic, but could it be that both Governments—the UK and the Scottish Government—wish to reduce corporation tax to appease the big business people who make donations to their political parties?

[Stewart Hosie]

No. That would be extraordinarily cynical, and not something that even the hon. Gentleman in his daftest moments would actually believe to be true—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) says from a sedentary position that the hon. Gentleman does believe it. That worries me even more. I suspect that that kind of attitude from Labour sends a signal that Britain and Scotland are not open for business, which is a dreadful signal to send out.

We also believe that corporation tax can be used to support the development of new industries, which is vital. As it stands, the Bill contains no new effective levers for economic growth. The UK Government have made it clear that the Bill is primarily about improving financial accountability and political governance. There is no problem with either of those things, but we need economic development as well—and the tools to do the job. We are firmly of the view, as are the Scottish Government, that any transfer of powers to Scotland must include real economic levers to promote jobs and growth.

The argument from the UK Government that we cannot have corporation tax powers might appear rather contradictory. Clearly, there is increasing support for the principle of devolving the responsibility for corporation tax—not least to Northern Ireland, where it is currently under active review.

With those points in mind, I back the Scottish Government in seeking devolved competence for corporation tax to be used as a key policy lever to promote economic activity in Scotland. We are seeking the responsibility to vary both the corporation tax base and the tax rate, with the base defining the element that is subject or liable to be taxed—the bulk of profits, netting out allowances and so forth—and the tax rate being the amount of taxable profit required to be paid during each accounting period. At the moment, that is estimated to be about £2.8 billion for Scotland on 2008-09 figures— and for very good reason that excludes North sea corporation tax. It comes in at about 6.5% of the total tax revenue in Scotland. We believe that the full devolution of corporation tax with an appropriate reduction in the block grant, which covers the Azores issue, would provide the Scottish Government with a new lever to promote growth and jobs.

The position of the Scottish Parliament Scotland Bill Committee was established in a very clear conclusion:

“The Committee’s view is that if a scheme to vary corporation tax were to be available in some of the devolved countries of the UK as a tool of the UK Government’s regional economic policy, it should be available as an option for a Scottish Government to use also.”

That is incredibly important. Now that it is clear that such a tool is being considered for Northern Ireland in the UK Government’s consultation on “Rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy”, it follows that consideration must now be given to devolving corporation tax to Scotland.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He said that if there were to be a devolution of corporation tax and the ability to vary it, an appropriate change would be made to the level of the block grant. Does he mean that if corporation tax were reduced in Scotland by £1 billion, an equivalent £1 billion reduction would take place in the block grant? Is he talking about a like-for-like reduction?

[Stewart Hosie]

It has to be initially to get this kicked in. At that point, the Scottish Government are rightly responsible for their revenue raising and their tax spending within it. That is normal, grown up and quite appropriate.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I ask a simple question: what does the hon. Gentleman mean by “initially”?

[Stewart Hosie]

A permanent reduction for corporation tax to be devolved and taking responsibility for the income we raise to pay for the services we have.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman let us and Scottish taxpayers know how that financial gap would be met in the period before any economic benefits might arise? Would there be cuts in services, for example, or would the Scottish Government have to consider a rise in income tax for people in Scotland?

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady predicates her argument on failure, as Labour Members tend to do. There is no reason to believe that there would be a net loss of revenue to Scotland. Let me put it to the hon. Lady in a different way. The UK went into the recession with £0.5 trillion of debt; it now sits somewhere close to £1 trillion and it is forecast to rise under this Administration to about £1.5 trillion by 2014-15. Scotland, however, has had a net surplus over many years and it is certainly a surplus relative to the UK even in very recent years. Instead of talking Scotland down, we need to be serious about how to gain the powers to grow the Scottish economy and take responsibility for our own actions, which is vital.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I understand the optimism and do not want to cut through it in any way. However, the hon. Gentleman said that he accepted that there would initially be a reduction in the block grant, which will initially create a financial issue. I was simply asking how it would be met in the short term.

[Stewart Hosie]

It will not be a reduction because we will have the corporation tax yield, which is comparable to the reduction in the block. It is the same amount of money initially and we take responsibility thereafter.

[Mr Donohoe]

rose—

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I have already given way five or six times and I want to make progress. There will be plenty of opportunities for hon. Members to intervene later.

There is a very strong case for additional powers. Evidence shows that corporation tax can be a key element in a country’s overall economic strategy and it has the potential to promote economic growth by enhancing international competitiveness and encouraging innovation and investment. As the Minister said, we have long argued for devolution of corporation tax as a powerful means of addressing the economic challenges facing the Scottish economy. We believe that a centralised and uniform corporation tax structure disadvantages nations such as Scotland to the benefit of London and the south-east of England. To say that is not to be anti-London or anti-south-east; it is just to say that when businesses reach a certain size, they tend, other things being equal, to be attracted to the largest conurbations. In the UK, that of course means London.

The evidence base for devolving corporation tax powers to Scotland is pretty clear. Over the last 30 years, as I said at the beginning, Scotland’s economy has grown more slowly relative to both the UK and the average of other small EU countries. One reason for that relatively weaker economic performance has been the relatively smaller corporate sector in Scotland relative to other parts of the UK. Business birth rates are lower, the business base is smaller and Scottish companies typically engage in less research and development.

As I said, there is also evidence that Scottish headquarters drift south of the border once businesses have reached a certain size. Effective use of corporation tax could serve as a powerful tool to address those trends by improving competitiveness and encouraging investment and expansion. Evidence shows that, at the margin, corporation tax rates can be an important factor in international firms’ decisions about foreign direct investment, which is one of the key objectives of the Scottish Government and Scottish Development International.

At the same time, a number of key sectors in the Scottish economy face tough competition from abroad. Companies abroad receive attractive tax breaks as part of allowances in relation to corporate taxation. The computer games industry, for example, has received a very attractive proposition from Dublin, and receives tax breaks in Montreal that have been denied by our Government despite forceful representations to the Minister by members of all parties. Improvements in those areas will help to boost productivity and, ultimately, the competitiveness of the Scottish economy, which will benefit not just Scotland but the United Kingdom as a whole.

The devolution of corporation tax powers is not solely about making possible the creation of a more competitive environment within the Scottish economy; it also about increasing and promoting accountability. A greater devolution of economic policy levers and tax revenues means that the Scottish Government will have the levers that they need to increase sustainable economic growth, and an opportunity to reinvest the proceeds of that growth—higher long-run tax revenues—in Scotland’s public sector. Having control over corporation tax would also mean that the Scottish Government would bear the risk on the economic levers. We believe that positive reform must be about balancing the revenue and expenditure implications of policy choices, and about giving policy makers the levers to promote economic growth.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, if the power were devolved, the Scottish Government would reduce corporation tax. How would the gap in the Scottish Government’s revenue be plugged? Would that be done by means of higher taxes or a lower standard of services?

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep for the last 14 minutes, because that is precisely the question that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) asked. I am surprised that he did not hear or understand my answer to her question, which was that the corporation tax yield would fill the gap caused by the reduction in block grant.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman made a powerful point a few moments ago, if I heard him aright. He said that, unlike the United Kingdom, which has a significant deficit, Scotland had experienced a surplus over the last few years. Can he tell us how, in reaching that conclusion, he accounted for the bail-out of Royal Bank of Scotland?

[Stewart Hosie]

I have two answers to that question. The first is that in the 40 years before the crisis, Scotland experienced a surplus on average. The second relates directly to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am fed up with the argument that runs “Scottish banks bad, English banks good.” There seems to be a failure of basic understanding. Northern Rock took £20 billion, as did the Lloyds banking group. No one seems to speak about Northern Rock. Bradford & Bingley required £37 billion. RBS required £45 billion, but a large chunk of that related to the asset protection scheme. It was not a question of Scottish banks’ being bad and needing to be bailed out while all other banks were fine.

I do not want to drift too far from the new clause, but the Office for Budget Responsibility made it clear in its assessment earlier this year that the net impact of the financial crisis measures would be a surplus of £3.5 billion for the taxpayer. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to know what the out-turn figure is likely to be.

Amendment 25 provides for powers to charge a tax charged on the profits of companies—

[Mr Reid]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at this point.

New clause 9 would allow for the introduction of an additional devolved tax charged on the profits of companies, and would require such a proposal to be placed before both Houses of Parliament.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, not on that point.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will give way to the Minister.

[Mr Gauke]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to move on from the subject of corporation tax, but I seek clarification, I think with good reason. He said that he understood the Azores judgment and what was necessary for compliance with it. He said that if the yield from corporation tax went to the Scottish Government, the block grant would be reduced and everything would be fine. All that is correct. However, if the Scottish Government reduce corporation tax, there will be a cost. He has not made clear how the Scottish Government would deal with that. Would they do so by spending less or by increasing other taxes?

[Stewart Hosie]

Evidence that I have seen in a significant number of companies suggests that the reductions in block grant would be phased in. We see a trend increase in business tax yield as business tax rates are reduced. I am sure that the Minister has seen similar figures, which may have driven some of his own policy decisions. I suspect that Scotland would be unique if we did not follow a pattern that has been seen time after time in other countries.

[Mr Reid]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will give way one more time to the Minister.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is presenting the Laffer curve argument. He suggests that a corporation tax cut could pay for itself. As he knows, I support that idea and am looking at what the Government are doing in that connection. It is not altogether surprising that there are advantages in reducing corporation tax, but, initially at the very least, it comes at a cost. We had to put that in the Red Book. Does he believe that there would be no cost, or does he believe that the tax cuts would immediately pay for themselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I am glad that the Minister agrees with my direction of travel. What I am saying is that the Scottish Government would have to take responsibility for the consequences of Scottish Government policy, as is right and proper.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

rose—

[Mr Reid]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), but then I shall try to move on to excise duty.

[Mr Reid]

If the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct and reducing corporation tax results in an increased tax yield, that will apply in England and Northern Ireland as much as it will in Scotland. If there are different corporation tax rates in different parts of the United Kingdom and if the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, surely every part of the United Kingdom will enter into a competition to reduce corporation tax, and we will end up with a race to the bottom to the detriment of all parts of the UK.

[Stewart Hosie]

I do not want a race to the bottom, but I do believe in tax competition. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman and his new-found friends do not.

I must now move on from corporation tax to excise duty. Amendment 37 would ensure that provisions relating to alcohol excise came into force two months after the enactment of the Bill. New clause 19 would amend the Scotland Act 1998 so that alcohol duties became an exception to the general reservation in that regard.

All excise duties are currently levied by the UK Government. Alcohol duty is one of the most important excise duties levied in the UK. It is estimated to raise approximately £800 million a year in Scotland, less than 2% of the total tax yield in and on behalf of Scotland. In addition to raising revenues for the Exchequer, one of the key aims of the duty is to reduce excessive consumption of alcohol, which has been proved to lead to a variety of health and social problems. In the current devolution framework, the Scottish budget typically picks up the cost of addressing those problems through police, health and some social welfare costs expenditures. That is done entirely within the Scottish block. Devolving responsibility for excise duty to Scotland would help to ensure that the tax system for alcohol consumption was consistent with the alcohol policy of the Scottish Government and equipped to tackle one of the greatest health and social challenges facing Scotland.

[Jim Sheridan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Stewart Hosie]

Certainly.

[Jim Sheridan]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary Scotch whisky and spirits group, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish whisky industry is deeply concerned about his proposals. What worries the industry are the administration costs. It would be necessary to designate the final destination of the product, and, even more worryingly, Members of Parliament would bear the additional burden of taking carry-outs from London to their constituencies in Glasgow.

[Stewart Hosie]

I suspect that any MP trying to take a carry-out through airport security would immediately be stopped.

The devolution of alcohol excise duties would also enable the Scottish Government to implement a revised alcohol duty structure to offer greater protection to the competitive position of Scotch whisky, something we have tried to do on several occasions in a number of past Finance Bills. On 12 May 2009, the vote on alcohol duty took place at half-past midnight. We were trying to implement a fair rate of duty—which we can achieve through the devolution of excise duties—so that alcoholic beverages were taxed on their alcohol content, and on no other spurious measures. Interestingly, five Conservatives managed to vote with us, yet 268 Labour Members voted against, thereby maintaining the unfair level of duty on Scotch whisky. I am sure the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) is sincere in his view, but it does not stand the scrutiny of the recent voting record.

The devolution of excise duties ought to be handled through the devolution of additional powers as described in the amendment, because alcohol duty is levied on all products consumed in the UK irrespective of their country of origin. As a result, the UK Exchequer collects duty on Scotch whisky only if it is consumed in the UK, as exported whisky is not liable for excise duty. Similarly, imported products such as spirits produced overseas are liable for duty when entering the country to be sold in the UK market. We seek to devolve this power, and the Scottish Government seek the responsibility to vary the rate of duty levied on products in Scotland and to implement a more streamlined and efficient system of alcohol taxation that better targets rates of duty to combat binge drinking and excessive consumption of cheap alcoholic products, and that supports a fairer and less discriminatory system for premium products such as Scotch whisky.

[Mr Donohoe]

Will the hon. Gentleman at least give credence to the fact that over a great number of years previous Governments held back from imposing higher taxes on Scotch whisky, along with all other spirits, and that as a consequence the level playing field he seeks is close to being achieved?

[Stewart Hosie]

I am prepared to recognise that duty did not rise for a number of years, but that is not the point I am making. My point is that alcohol taxation is unfair because it is based on different types of alcoholic drink, and not entirely on alcoholic strength.

[Mr Donohoe]

But it is getting to that point.

[Stewart Hosie]

It is no such thing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s contacts in the Scotch whisky industry will confirm.

There is a strong social case for the devolution of alcohol duty, not least because there is clear evidence that, for alcohol, price is a driver of consumption. There is strong evidence from numerous surveys in Europe, America, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere that levels of alcohol consumption in the population are closely linked to the retail price of alcohol. As it becomes more affordable, consumption increases, and as the relative price increases, consumption falls.

We, and the Scottish Government, are committed to introducing a minimum price for alcohol, and gaining control over the excise duties would provide an additional mechanism to address excessive alcohol consumption. That would help to reduce the annual cost of alcohol misuse in Scotland. Devolving excise duty would enable a future minimum price per unit to be established within the excise system. Under the current system, the introduction of a minimum price is estimated to generate additional revenue for retailers, not the UK or Scottish Government. That was the argument the Labour party made in the Scottish Parliament. Devolving excise duty for alcohol would therefore result in all the additional revenue from increasing the price of low-cost alcohol products accruing to the Scottish Government, and those revenues could then be reinvested in public services in Scotland. The case for devolving alcohol duties is very strong indeed.

[Mr Reid]

I agree with one of the hon. Gentleman’s points: alcoholic drinks should be taxed on alcohol content. There is a practical problem with his amendment, however. It is my understanding that he wants to increase taxes on alcohol in Scotland, but if alcohol is then priced cheaper just across the border in Berwick or Carlisle, surely a lot of revenue will be lost by people nipping across the border to buy their drink?

[Stewart Hosie]

There are always borders. The hon. Gentleman was presumably one of the 28 Lib Dems who backed us in 2009. I am pretty sure some of the Lib Dems in the Scottish Parliament now back minimum pricing. I ask for a wee bit of constituency in terms of the policy therefore, and given there are only five Lib Dem MSPs, it should not be too difficult to do a quick phone around.

I turn to the topic of capital borrowing and amendments 26 to 29. We all know that infrastructure investment is an essential contributor to productivity and economic growth. That is presumably why the Chancellor of the Exchequer made great play of spending £2 billion more on capital projects in the comprehensive spending review period than the previous Labour Administration had planned to spend. In the short term, such expenditure can boost economic growth, total output and employment. Over the long term, capital investment, both public and private, is a key driver of productivity, competitiveness and long-term economic growth.

Public sector investment that enhances a country’s physical, technological and digital infrastructure can increase the productive capacity of the economy and drive private sector growth and investment. Indeed, we know that direct capital investment would save or create twice as many jobs as the same amount of investment used for a VAT cut, such is the scale of the economic multipliers of direct capital investment.

[Jim Sheridan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this does create jobs. Can he therefore justify his Government’s cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link project?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

Some projects were simply unaffordable, not least because a number of parties—the other three parties represented here now, in fact—voted for half a billion pounds for the Edinburgh tram system, and look at what an overwhelming success that is!

The Scottish Government are responsible for the vast majority of Scotland’s public investment, covering transport, water, health, education, local government, prisons, housing and so forth. There is, I hope, now widespread agreement across the political spectrum that the Scottish Parliament should have full responsibility to determine the pace and scale of Scotland’s infrastructure investment programme, within a prudent and sustainable long-term financial framework. The Scottish Parliament should have substantial capital borrowing powers to fund productive expenditure for the following purposes: for very large, discrete projects or programmes such as the Forth crossing, which the Minister mentioned; to provide medium-term economic stimulus similar to the accelerated capital programme undertaken in 2008-09 and 2009-10; to smooth the profile of investment in key public services; and to help to lever in additional investment, particularly from the private sector.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Given what I understood to be the hon. Gentleman’s party’s green environmental credentials, I am surprised that the capital projects he appears to favour are largely to do with roads, rather than public transport, such as the tram proposal that has been mentioned.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady’s surprise is a matter for her, not me. An investment programme is in place that includes housing, environmental and insulation programmes and a large number of other programmes in Scotland, but we are discussing capital borrowing, not the specific projects for which it might be used. That will be a matter for the current and future Scottish Governments.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I must take the hon. Gentleman up on the point about housing, because I understand—from a recent report by Shelter, for example—that the number of new affordable homes being started in Scotland this year will have fallen from 6,000 to 1,500.

[Stewart Hosie]

That report is probably for the overall statistics. Sadly, because of the banking crisis, the banks’ withholding of cash and the difficulties with Bradford & Bingley, which funded housing associations, the slack has had to be taken up by the Scottish Government, who have been funding as many new housing starts as is humanly possible. I find it extraordinary that, given the thousands of houses that have been contributed to by the Scottish Government, the hon. Lady or anyone else on the Labour Benches can talk about Labour’s record, which, from memory, was not 6,000, 600 or 60, but six council houses being funded by that Scottish Government.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I have given way twice—I am going to carry on.

As I was saying, the Scottish Parliament should have substantial capital borrowing powers for very large, discrete projects, the provision of medium-term economic stimulus, smoothing the profile of investment in key public services and helping to lever in additional private investment.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

Not just now.

However, as a result of the decisions taken by the UK Government in 2010 in the comprehensive spending review, capital budgets available to the Scottish Government are now likely to fall by some 36% in real terms. That represents a cumulative reduction in spending power of around £4.1 billion over the period of the comprehensive spending review. The speed and scale of the cuts by this Government significantly constrain the Scottish Government’s flexibility in managing their infrastructure programme. It is vital that while ensuring the overall sustainability of borrowing—I agree with the Minister on that—Scotland’s capital borrowing facility has sufficient scale and flexibility to enable the funding of productive investments over the long term.

The proposals in the Bill state that from 2015 the controls and limits applied to capital borrowing mean that Scottish Ministers should be allowed to borrow up to 10% of the Scottish capital budget in any year to fund capital expenditure—£230 million in 2014-15—and that the overall stock of capital borrowing could not rise beyond £2.2 billion. They also state that borrowing to finance capital funded by a loan from the national loan fund would be for a maximum of 10 years, but that a longer time frame—for example 25 years—may be negotiated if that better reflected the life span of associated assets such as with the new Forth crossing.

In the written statement of 13 June, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State proposed:

“bringing forward to 2011 pre-payments, a form of cash advance, to allow work on the Forth replacement crossing”

and

“introducing a power in the Scotland Bill that will enable the Government to amend, in future, the way in which Scottish Ministers can borrow”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 58WS.]

including through the provision of bonds. Notwithstanding any of that, the £2.2 billion cumulative limit is unchanged.

I am pleased that there is now established consensus among the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and a number of independent experts that the Scotland Bill’s proposals for capital borrowing require substantial enhancement and improvement. That unanimity was reflected in the motion that was agreed unanimously on 9 June in the Scottish Parliament. I make this criticism of the proposals even with the changes regarding our attempt to have capital borrowing devolved so that limits, bond issuance and all these matters are agreed between the Governments on a statutory basis. At the moment, the Bill is predicated on a framework that appears to have been developed without any explicit discussion about sustainability or affordability and without offering any objective means of testing those essential criteria. The annual borrowing limit of 10% of capital departmental expenditure limit seems arbitrary and the proposed total limit on borrowing, set at £2.2 billion, is believed to be too low to make a meaningful difference. Indeed, I think that the Scottish Parliament Scotland Bill Committee in Holyrood suggested £5 billion. The UK Government have not proposed any objective criteria to determine the path of total capital borrowing capacity over time and that builds uncertainty and discretion into the framework. The arbitrary mechanism that the UK Government have proposed for revising this is inconsistent with the basic principles of devolution. The central assumption of a 10-year repayment period for capital borrowing is inappropriate, as public capital assets will typically have a useful life of perhaps more than 30 years. Although helpful, the early implementation measures will do very little to offset the cumulative £4.1 billion reduction in capital expenditure.

The changes are welcome, but we believe that the UK Government’s proposals still require improvement in four key areas. First, the specification of annual limits on borrowing should be agreed between the Governments and not set arbitrarily. Secondly, the methodology for determining the borrowing capacity that is sustainable in the long term needs to be agreed. Thirdly, the terms of repayment for capital borrowing need to be agreed and, fourthly, the impact of the early implementation measures that are proposed also need to be looked at and agreed properly. We believe that should be done within the framework of a statutory agreement between the two Governments, and that is the purpose of the various amendments and new clauses we have proposed. They include amendment 26, which would allow Scottish Ministers to borrow for the purpose of meeting capital expenditure without requiring the approval of the Treasury and without it being by way of loan, and amendment 27, which would mean that Scottish Ministers and the Treasury must both agree to a code of practice and framework within which these things would be agreed. Our amendment 28 would remove the measure that suggests the cumulative borrowing total should be set at £2.2 billion, so it would become redundant when an agreement was in place.

Amendment 29 would remove subsection (10) of clause 32, which introduces the type E procedure. That subsection would not be necessary because the agreement on how Ministers are to determine and keep under review how much they can afford to borrow, the terms and conditions and the sums that may be borrowed and the limit on aggregate at any time outstanding in respect of the principle would be agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

The Finance Minister in the Scottish Government, John Swinney, was questioned about the proposals on the BBC “Politics Show” on 22 May. He was asked, again five times, how the proposal to devolve excise duty in Scotland would work in practice and what steps would be required to stop the inevitable cross-border traffic if alcohol were suddenly cheaper in Carlisle than in Gretna. It was also pointed out to him that tax is collected not at the point of sale but when it leaves the excise warehouse. Given not only that all Scotch whisky comes from Scotland, but that Scotland accounts for 75% of the UK’s gin and vodka production—indeed, Diageo in Fife produces all the Gordon’s gin and Smirnoff vodka that one may see in shops throughout the UK—there are serious questions about how the proposal would work, the cost of administration and how tax avoidance and evasion would be tackled.

[Stewart Hosie]

Notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s questions, do I take it from her answers that she sees some potential to remove the obstacle that Labour in Scotland found to minimum pricing? The Labour party’s argument was that an increase in only the retail price went straight to the UK Exchequer and did not benefit the economy generally or the Government in tackling some of the consequences of drinking cheap alcohol.

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the serious problem of alcohol consumption in Scotland. As the Labour group in Holyrood pointed out, simply raising the price and allowing supermarkets to retain the surplus—I think that that was the Scottish Government’s first plan—was neither popular nor logical.

However, it is important to note that excise duty is now subject to an escalator above inflation. The Labour Government introduced it before the general election so that excise duty increases above inflation. Although, following the recession, as might have been anticipated, consumption in England dropped, that has not happened in Scotland to the same extent. There is a significant difference between consumption in Scotland and average consumption in England, despite the identical price and range of products.

Price sensitivity does not seem to apply in Scotland to the same extent as it does in England. That suggests that cultural and social issues are predominantly behind the problem. I do not derive any satisfaction from that. It would be much easier if we could say that a simple price escalation would lead to a reduction in consumption. However, the evidence to date has not shown that that would happen. Indeed, the medical evidence shows that the unit cost would have to be considerably higher than that in the Scottish Government’s proposals to make any impact. Obviously, that would have an effect on the drinks industry, particularly given that much of it is located in Scotland.

The subject is serious. The Scottish Government already have a range of levers at their disposal. The one for excise duty is exceptionally complex and I do not think that the argument for it has been made. Certainly, more needs to be done, but it needs to be based on hard evidence. We also need to realise that some of the things that we would like to do and that we think could work might not be sufficiently strong to make an impact. We might have to reconsider our proposals.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government have begun re-examining the issue because I think that they recognise that providing money to supermarkets was not the way forward. However, the issue is much wider and requires several different measures. The power to ban drink discounting, which the Labour group supported, is already on the statute book in Holyrood. That has still to go ahead. I therefore hope that the Scottish Government will enforce the legislation that they already have on the statute book.

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the cost of alcohol has increased by slightly more than inflation over the past 20 or 30 years, when, of course, the increase in incomes has been much greater. The Government’s ability to control that gap is limited.

The other problem is that the total price of alcohol is, to a large extent, made up of different forms of tax. When we increase taxation to more than a certain level, we find that there is an increase in black market sales, as we found when we increased taxation on cigarettes. I do not discount the fact that price can have a bearing on consumption, but the evidence to date in Scotland presents us with a much more complex problem, much of which is about cultural and social values. They are the only things that can explain the difference in consumption north and south of the border. The regimes of alcohol selling are more or less the same, but there is increased drinking at home rather than in public houses. The problem is complex, and a range of measures must be put in place to deal with it. My Labour colleagues certainly want to make changes that will make an impact, and they are prepared to have a serious debate.

[Stewart Hosie]

Finally on that point, and for the sake of completeness, I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would want to confirm that all 17 of Scotland’s public health directors supported minimum pricing, as did the four UK chief medical officers, the British Medical Association, the royal colleges, the Association of Chief Police Officers and many others, including Tennent’s, Molson Coors and Tesco. They saw minimum pricing as an important part of the solution to the problems in Scotland.

[Ann McKechin]

The supermarkets might well have supported minimum pricing because they would receive a good degree of financial benefit from it. However, some medical experts said that on the evidence, the price per unit would have to be a great deal higher than that proposed by the Scottish Government to have an impact. As I said, although the increase in the excise duty escalator, which the UK Labour Government introduced, has had an impact south of the border in reducing consumption, it has not had the same impact in Scotland. Price sensitivity seems to be different north and south of the border, and there are different patterns of consumption. The focus must be on cultural and social values as much as on simple economic values.

On that basis, there are considerable complexities in any such proposals. The Government’s proposals would have an adverse impact on the drinks industry, which has a substantial bearing on the Scottish economy, but the argument for them has not been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

It is very difficult to summarise several months of work in three minutes. I commend the Scottish Affairs Committee report to the House, and I hope everyone will read it carefully.

A number of points are worth repeating at the conclusion of our debate. Although I recognise that this is not the end of the story and that discussion will continue, the question of transparency in the figures is vital; that cannot be over-emphasised. If amendments from the Scottish Parliament are to be debated, they must be scrutinised as the proposals from Professor Hughes Hallett and Professor Scott were scrutinised—and, of course, in the end those proposals fell by the wayside because they were found to be wanting.

We must also recognise that financial pressures on the Scottish Parliament are likely to result in pressures for decisions in areas that did not previously have to be addressed. Hard choices are going to have to be made, so it is therefore again essential that the necessary information and arguments are put forward.

We must also be clear about what the verdict of the Scottish people was. Some 50% of the people in Scotland did not vote in the election. [Interruption.] Of those who did vote, fewer than half voted for separation. [Interruption.] We must remember that more people voted for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) to be Prime Minister than voted for Alex Salmond to be First Minister.

Not everything the Scottish National party proposes is accepted, therefore. We must remember that Alex Salmond called clearly for a yes vote in the alternative vote referendum and was roundly defeated. [Interruption.] I notice that efforts are being made to shout me down. That is what has traditionally happened in Scotland when people have challenged the nationalists, and those of us who want to challenge the narrow neo-fascism of the nationalists have got to be prepared to have discussions—

[Stewart Hosie]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope it is a point of order.

[Stewart Hosie]

The use of this neo-fascist description is absurd, offensive and wrong in every single regard. What powers, Sir, do you have to ensure that this nonsense is not said or repeated?

[Mr Speaker]

My powers do not extend to the refutation of nonsense.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend will be aware that these are matters for the Greek Government, but I would say this. When money has been lent to the IMF, that does not reduce the amount of money available for public spending. We get interest on the balances that we lend to the IMF, and it has never defaulted on a programme yet. We need to recognise the importance of support provided through the IMF, although I do not really think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should withdraw from it. On fiscal consolidation, let me reiterate to my hon. Friends and to the Opposition, who have ignored this crucial fact, that if we had not taken the tough action that we took a year ago in our emergency Budget, it would be the UK, not Greece, in the firing line.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Nobody wants to see Greece default, but that is most certainly possible. Were it to happen, there would be an immediate shock to the eurozone and, more widely, to the EU, our largest trading partner. That would have an impact on the UK. I am glad that the Minister said that the situation was being monitored, but the House and the public deserve more detailed information. If he has not already done so, will he ensure that the Treasury asks the Office for Budget Responsibility to assess the impact on UK growth of a potential Greek default, and publish that assessment quickly, so that we can understand precisely what the consequences might be?

[Mr Hoban]

The OBR will take into account the state of the eurozone economy in its normal forecasting. However, let me be clear to the House that the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority work closely to monitor the strength of the financial system, and the exposure of UK banks to the Greek Government and the wider eurozone economy. The actions taken to date have ensured that our banks are well capitalised, have strong balance sheets and are less exposed to the Greek economy than, say, French or German banks. British banks can still access funding in international markets, which is a sign of the UK banking system’s strength.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I know that my hon. Friend is a trenchant supporter of his constituency and a promoter of green industry there. He has raised the issue with me on a number of occasions. I know that Plymouth has put forward a bid for the second round of enterprise zones. An announcement will be made later this summer, in July, and I am afraid he will just have to wait until then, but as I say, he has certainly brought to my attention the potential for the green economy in the city that he represents.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

May I offer my condolences to the friends, family and colleagues of David Cairns? He was a man who always argued his corner with intelligence and humour, and carried the rare gift of being liked and respected across the Scottish political divide. We will all miss him.

I am sure the House is pleased that both Santander and RBS have access to European Investment Bank funds to issue discounted loans into the economy—£150 million in the case of Santander, and a third tranche of £300 million in the case of RBS. Can the Chancellor confirm that this is new, additional money, or will it be rolled into the gross lending figures already agreed?

[Mr Osborne]

Let me write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific issue of the Santander loan and the application to the European funds. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Scottish National party on its victory in the Scottish parliamentary elections and say that we respect their outcome. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister contacted the Scottish First Minister to congratulate him personally. I hope that we can work together in the next few months and years to deliver what we both want to see, which is jobs and prosperity in Scotland.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

My right hon. Friend is quite right that the Government are looking for a derogation in some rural areas, but only a very limited number. When the House last discussed the proposal, considerable representations were made by Government Members who argued that if there was to be a derogation, other areas should also benefit from it and that it was unfair that just a few remote islands should see the benefit.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The argument that a derogation in remote and rural areas is somehow an increase elsewhere is an interesting one. Should we take it from that that the hon. Lady is opposed to the road equivalent tariff being implemented in the Western Isles as well?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was making was that if taxes are to be cut for some people somewhere, but the same amount of revenue has to be raised, that means that someone else is subsidising it. That is a fairly simple point to take on board.

As I was saying, it is not just rising fuel prices that are hitting people. Rises in fuel prices feed through to higher food prices and higher energy prices for household bills. Despite a recent up-tick, the OECD estimates that food prices in the first quarter of this year were nearly 6% higher than they were last year, and energy prices more than 9% higher. As real incomes fall, spending on basic items, such as food—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him for that intervention.

We voted against the measure to put up VAT because it was not right to increase pressure on prices in the shops that everybody pays no matter what their income.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison McGovern]

And that is a fundamental principle that Labour Members hold dear.

[Stewart Hosie]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. It is entirely up to the hon. Lady to give way as she sees fit, but when the Scottish National party moved to strike out the VAT rise, Labour most certainly did not vote for it. Could she correct herself—

[The Chairman]

Order. As Mr Hosie knows, that is not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

No. I have listened carefully to the case Ministers have made, and it is important to acknowledge that Ministers are looking at a very high spot price and saying, “This is in excess of what the industry planned for, and there is a case that it should make a contribution to the economy.” I do not find that a totally unacceptable proposition, but I am concerned about it being introduced in a sudden bite from 20% to 32% and with no consultation or warning. What I am proposing is not an ideal; this is, perhaps, not where I would start from, but given where we are, it would be greatly preferable if it were to change in easily managed stages up and down, as that would enable the industry to predict where it would be and what level of taxes it would face. The alternative, which would not be very acceptable to the Treasury to pursue, is that it would go up on the basis of the $75 reference price to 32%. Are the Government really going to be comfortable, if the price falls to $69.95, to take it all off? I suspect not, and the industry suspects not. Even if the escalator up is not very well received by the Government, it is important that they try to ensure that it comes down on a predictable basis, because I think many in the industry feel it might never come down.

[Stewart Hosie]

I take it the right hon. Gentleman is not unhappy that tax levels are sensitive to profit, and I think that is perfectly reasonable, but why does he think that Ministers fail to understand that investment decisions are sensitive to tax, and why does he think Ministers fail to understand, notwithstanding the spot price, that the cost of extraction varies depending on the depth of the water, where we are in the North sea and even the type of oil that is being brought up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Again, that is a very good intervention by my hon. Friend. The industry needs stability and long-term investment, because we cannot dig an oil well or develop an oilfield overnight, yet the Government are creating uncertainty that will send investors off to other countries where the tax regime is more stable.

The Government have also completely damaged the trust between themselves and the industry, and that is why we have tabled our amendment. We simply call on the Government to do what they said they would do before making major tax changes: carry out a proper assessment of the impact, so that we can scrutinise it and have transparency. The Government were right to look towards North sea oil and gas to ensure that the burden of taxation was fairly spread, but without stability tens of thousands of jobs could be at risk. For the Opposition, that is not a price worth paying for short-term political gain.

[Stewart Hosie]

The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said in his opening remarks that the Government wanted the UK to be seen to be open for business. That is a very good objective, but the problem is that an 81% marginal rate of tax on anything, and the instability caused by a shock 60% increase, puts at risk their stated aim of promoting the UK in that way.

The right hon. Gentleman made the point about investment, and investment levels are unchanged generally, but there is now less focus on frontier developments than on investment in the mature North sea, and that is a huge concern. The 60% rise in the supplementary charge that was created, it is told, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—whom I see leaving the Chamber barely at the start of the debate—was the most damaging thing that the Government did in the Budget.

The Government will take £2 billion a year extra in tax from the sector, on top of the £4 billion windfall that they got last year, to which the right hon. Member for Gordon referred, and on top of the windfall that they will get this year—2011-12—over the 2010 forecast. All that runs counter to the Chancellor’s stated objectives of tax stability, delivering a growth agenda and production here in lieu of imports.

Let us remember that when that bombshell was announced, leading industry members reportedly met in a state of disbelief about the Government’s plans. There were immediate reports about the threat to some 40,000 jobs. Statoil immediately announced the suspension of the Mariner and, possibly, Bressay investments, and it was argued that a slowdown in North sea activity would increase the UK’s reliance on imported oil and gas, with the consequence of an even higher balance of payments deficit and the corresponding impact of a suppression of GDP growth.

On tax receipts, Alan Booth, the chief executive of EnCore Oil, rightly said:

“Undeveloped and undiscovered oil and gas pays no taxes,”

and it got worse, of course, because Valiant immediately announced that it was not going to invest in its £100 million project, saying that it was

“no longer viable because of the surprise Budget move.”

Chevron warned that there would be “unintended consequences”, and let us remember that Oil & Gas UK was very clear when it said that the measure had

“shaken investor confidence to the core.”

The right hon. Member for Gordon said at one stage that Ministers had robustly defended their position. I do not believe that they have. When these fears and concerns were put to the Chancellor, a Treasury spokeswoman said:

“Mr Osborne did not expect investment to be damaged.”

That is not a robust defence of a position; it is intransigence and a failure to understand the consequences of the actions that the Government had undertaken.

There are other consequences. Jim Hannon from Hannon Westwood, the drilling analysts, said that 30,000 people could lose their jobs if exploration activity dropped by merely 15%. The detailed work by Professor Alex Kemp—I will not go through it in detail but it is well worth everybody in the House reading it—has warned that up to 2 billion barrels of oil and the equivalent amount of gas could be left in the North sea, untaxed and unused. Derek Leith from Ernst and Young has warned of projects being delayed and cancelled, saying that the Statoil decision was

“only the tip of the iceberg…There are a lot of companies that will not pursue projects but will not go public about it.”

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) about the national security implications of this? At a time when other mature oilfields around the world have investment going in to extract the last bits of oil, leaving large reserves of untapped oil in mature fields is not only financially incompetent but dangerous in terms of national security.

[Stewart Hosie]

In terms of energy security it is very foolish indeed.

This is about not only the increase in the supplementary charge but restricting access to decommissioning tax relief, and that could accelerate the decommissioning of essential infrastructure. Had these ludicrous plans been in place in the past, the Forties field might not have been passed on to provide a decade or more of additional oil. Had the infrastructure which will now be decommissioned more quickly been decommissioned at that speed in the past, the new entrants, the new technology, the sideways drilling and the ability not to take 30%, 40% or 50% of a well would not exist. Once the wells are capped and the infrastructure is gone, it is gone for good.

As well as energy security, there is the question of the future of carbon capture and storage. The last Government failed to make a decision quickly enough on the Peterhead CCS scheme, which was going to use the decommissioned Miller plumbing to pump the carbon dioxide into holes in the ground. If we restrict access to decommissioning relief, we risk being unable to use that plumbing and infrastructure not only for oil extraction but for other purposes.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to investments in the UK continental shelf falling by 24% overnight at the time of the decision. The scale of the impact was also explained in the recent research by Professor Alex Kemp in which he revealed that the tax increase could reduce UK oil and gas investment by up to £30 billion and production by up to a quarter over the next three decades. For last week’s Second Reading debate, we had additional information from Centrica that provided a detailed assessment of the problem in relation to gas. It said that the annual cost to the UK economy could be up to £8 billion per annum by 2013, that the decision could influence investor sentiment in other sectors, and that up to £100 billion of energy investments and associated jobs could be put at risk. That would be catastrophic if even a fraction of it came true. The UK needs sustained and sustainable above-trend growth, and we will not get it if we undermine the main investing industry in the UK. That would be incredibly stupid.

As I said on Second Reading, we should listen to Oil & Gas UK, Statoil, Valiant, EnCore, Chevron, Hannon Westwood, Professor Kemp, Ernst and Young, and Centrica. Those warnings did not start the day after the Budget and then stop; they kept on coming. It is inconceivable that all those major players and analysts in the sector are wrong, and that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary, uniquely, are right. That is almost impossible to believe. Of course the warnings have not stopped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman has made a superb point about the Morecambe Bay gas field. Is it not crazy economics that that investment will be lost to north-west England, which has some of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom? We need to nurture the investment in the Morecambe bay gas field, not drive it away and import gas from abroad.

[Stewart Hosie]

I could not agree more. This is not just about Scotland, but about the entire UK continental shelf and the 440,000 people who are employed throughout the UK, including in East Anglia, off the north-west coast and elsewhere.

As I said—this is important—the warnings did not end a day or two after the Budget; they kept on coming. The most comprehensive analysis of the problem is in the 2011 international annual energy survey, which will be launched at the offshore technology conference in Houston, Texas this weekend. It is conducted by Maxwell Drummond, the industry employment specialist, which covers 100 international directors from all energy sectors. It says:

“the Coalition Government’s ‘supplementary charge’ on oil and gas production, projected to add an extra £2 billion to Treasury coffers, significantly and immediately impacted on global perceptions of the already challenging North Sea environment.”

If the international energy markets are warning of significant and immediate impacts, if there is a threat to tens of thousands of jobs, and if there is a threat to tens of billions of pounds of investment, the decision is clearly wrong.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that because the UK continental shelf is now a mature province, many of the decisions on investment in the province are no longer taken in Scotland or London, but in Houston, Calgary or elsewhere in the world, and that the international perception of the tax regime is therefore crucial when such decisions are being made?

[Stewart Hosie]

That is absolutely right. I said when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Gordon that of course taxation needs to be sensitive to profitability, but that Ministers also need to understand that investment decisions are sensitive to tax and other costs. Although the field is mature, some of it is unexplored. If the perception is that it is expensive and that there is tax instability—which has been said—we will lose the ability not only to continue work in some of the mature fields, but to explore as yet untapped reserves, albeit in a mature sector.

As I have said, this is the most damaging measure in the Budget for economic growth. Although I respect the attempts to amend it and the tabling of amendments for the Government to discuss, we think that it is so damaging that we hope Mr Hoyle will be able to call on hon. Members from across the Committee to resist clause 7 very vigorously indeed.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a shareholder in Shell, and of my wider interests in the oil and gas industry.

The oil and gas in the North sea belongs to the nation, but unless we have a regime that attracts experts with the finance and knowledge we need, we will not benefit from it. One of the amendments before us would restrict the tax raid to a year, to ensure that the Government and industry can engage in constructive dialogue that will encourage investment. It is important to restore confidence in the tax regime. Following previous supplemental changes, Governments had to work very hard to restore confidence and bring back investment, with field allowances and other incentives. They engaged with the industry and provided assurances that once the tax change had been made at the beginning of a Parliament, it would not be revisited until the next election. There is scope for restoring confidence, but some hard work will have to be done.

The Government need to address some of the arguments that are being made, particularly the one advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) about what individual investors are getting for their investment. It has been put to me that people made a decision to invest last June, but now the price of oil is $125 a barrel. If they decided to invest and then hedged for this year at $88, they are not getting $125, because the hedge fund is getting the profit. I do not see a tax being brought in on hedge funds; instead, it is being imposed on the people on the ground doing the hard work, on the skilled labour and on the knowledge and risk-taking.

When we talk about windfalls, we have to be slightly careful in the case of an industry with a fluctuating commodity price. When the price goes up it makes more profit and when the price goes down it makes less, but Governments tend not to say, “We’re a bit concerned that the price has fallen, so we’re going to cut the tax.” If there is a one-way ratchet, that causes uncertainty and concern in the minds of investors.

Amendment 13 suggests that if there is a desire to have a profit-related tax that varies with the price of oil, there should be some predictability to it. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said that it would cause complication, but that complication could be factored into new financial modelling. If there were a variable rate of profits tax, any company making an investment decision could factor that in and know where they stood in the fiscal regime.

It has been put to us that other countries, such as Norway, have different fiscal regimes for investment. However, Norway has had a stable long-term fiscal regime with very little change, and it has also had the attraction of less mature, bigger finds with more upside for investors. It is important to understand the confidence element.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee has seen evidence on the wider future of our electricity and gas network. This country wants to attract £200 billion of investment in its energy infrastructure, but if investors are being asked to build a massive offshore wind farm that will bring in more profits if the price of carbon goes the way they are betting, they will look across and see what has happened to the oil industry. They will not want the Treasury to come along and say, “Electricity bills are rising, so we’re going to put a windfall tax on the offshore wind farm,” which would undermine that investment decision. There is a read-across from gas and oil to wider investment in energy and big infrastructure projects in this country.

This is not just a constituency matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and myself, who have many constituents who work in the industry, have jobs related to it or are economically affected by it. As has been said, it also affects East Anglia, Morecambe bay and other areas. The supply chain permeates the whole of the UK economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

Let me make a bit more progress, because Members have raised some real concerns and I want to ensure that I respond.

The Government recognise that we need to act as a good custodian of the UK’s natural mineral wealth; at the same time, we need to manage a tax regime that tailors the level of tax to the level of profits available from the UK continental shelf. The UK’s oil and gas reserves are a finite resource that belongs to the nation. Current oil production was not sanctioned on the basis of the high prices from which the industry benefits today. Those unexpectedly high prices and profits have arisen due to geopolitical events in the middle east and north Africa, as we have heard, and the Government must ensure that they secure a fair return for the UK taxpayer, particularly given the impact that oil prices are having on the broader economy outside the oil and gas exploration industry.

[Stewart Hosie]

But the tax rate was 50% before. Although clause 19 has been agreed to, it ought to have been paid for by the windfall that the Government got because of last year’s rise in the barrel price and by the windfall over and above the 2010 forecast that the Government are going to get this year. The problem is that what the Government have done with this tax grab, this 60% hike in the supplementary charge, is likely to damage investment and jobs and weaken economic recovery. It is not necessary to pay for clause 19—the money was already banked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point that because of the high oil price there is continued investment in the North sea. Interestingly, Professor Kemp’s optimistic scenario is $90 a barrel and 70p per therm, but as I just said, the OBR has projected independently that oil prices over the next five years could be more than $100. That is $10 higher than the most optimistic scenario in Professor Kemp’s analysis.

[Stewart Hosie]

It is worth pointing out the Professor Kemp states that his projections are all in real terms, so they increase yearly with general inflation, and he gives three different scenarios for a barrel-of-oil price plus the therm price. In each instance—I will be very accurate here—field investment is reduced by £19.2 billion, by £19.5 billion or by £29.1 billion. Those are 30-year forecasts. For the sake of accuracy and completeness, therefore, I am sure that the Minister will agree that Professor Kemp and Linda Stephen’s work points to reduced investment over all the scenarios investigated.

[Justine Greening]

I just said that we accept that there will be a marginal impact; however, Wood Mackenzie has said that it does not expect that marginal impact to be high. If we look at Professor Kemp’s optimistic scenario of $90, which is less optimistic than what the OBR is projecting, and then use the hurdle rate most commonly used by most companies, we see that in the high-price scenario, total future projects are expected to fall from 1,099 to 1,074—a 2% reduction. We are saying that we recognise that. We therefore believe that the challenge is now for us to work with the industry to ensure that we can mitigate the risk to that 2% of investment.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. Clearly, the amendments enabled them to make the points they wanted to make, but I think they would accept that the way in which their proposals would operate could mean that the supplementary charge rise started later and lasted potentially for a finite time. It might also have a staged approach. All those things would mean that the funding would not be in place to fund the package we want to introduce for motorists. I stress, however, that as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said at the end of this comments, the way through this is to ensure that we work with the industry. I am pleased with the engagement we have now had with the industry. We have got through our first meeting with industry representatives after the Budget, which was a chance for them to set out their reaction to a tax rise we did not anticipate they would welcome.

The Government amendments demonstrate that we are engaged with the industry and are listening to its concerns. In fact, as a result of that engagement we wanted to address a technical issue that had arisen involving the basis proposed for the apportionment of profits. The Government’s amendments seek to address that. The legislation provides for how profits in an accounting period that straddles the date of the rate increase are to be split, so that the two tax rates can be applied to the appropriate amounts of profits. Government amendment 11 provides that a company may elect for a just and reasonable basis to be used where a time apportionment would give an unjust or unreasonable result.

We have proposed amendment 11 to take account of the concerns of industry. The amendment has an Exchequer cost of £40 million in 2011-12 only. We feel that the change is worth while because it ensures, for example, that the tax change does not affect the tax liability due in respect of transactions that were wholly completed before the Budget and that should not, therefore, have been affected by the rate change. The change follows an approach that the industry has suggested and shows that the Government are willing to change the detail of the delivery of their stated policy aims where evidence of unforeseen effects is presented by the industry. I urge hon. Members to accept the change.

This Government will carry on working with the industry on providing certainty in respect of decommissioning tax relief. Industry and officials will be engaging closely on that important piece of work in the coming months, and as previously mentioned, officials and Ministers are closely engaging with the industry in relation to the marginal field developments. We explicitly said that we would do that in the Budget, and we are now following up on that desire to ensure that investment continues to be unlocked. The concerns of gas producers are also being discussed with them. As I have mentioned, the Government are also seeking the views of oil companies and motoring groups about the level of the trigger price for the supplementary charge, and how the oil price for that purpose is to be determined. That informal consultation will be take place shortly, and we expect to be able to clarify the policy mechanism in the autumn.

We want to ensure that the Exchequer obtains a fair share of the value of our natural resource wealth while ensuring that the tax regime does not impede the development of the basin’s potential. The impacts of the measure are understood, so no further assessment is required, and I urge the Opposition not to press the amendment. It is impossible not to note that they voted—[Interruption.] I was actually referring to amendment 10, which I would have thought Labour Members would recognise, having proposed it—although I suppose that anyone who has voted for a tax cut on fuel duty, even though they have no way of paying for it because they have set out their stall against getting the funding mechanism from the oil companies, might be expected not to have followed the arguments that I have set out.

The amendments proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon are well intentioned. Let me reassure him once again that we are listening to representations from the industry and acting to ameliorate unforeseen effects. I therefore urge hon. Members to accept the Government amendments. The clause puts in place a fair fuel stabiliser, ensuring that we can pay for much needed help for motorists up and down the country. The clause also ensures that motorists and businesses suffer less pain from high prices at the petrol pump as a result of higher oil prices that would otherwise simply increase the profits of oil companies.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

As the hon. Lady knows, the price of gas has also been on an upward path. However, we have discussed the matter with representatives of the industry, including Centrica, which has raised it directly with me and with other Ministers. We said in the Budget that we were willing to consider extensions of the field allowance regime to provide breaks for particular fields in the event of particular problems, and we are doing that at the moment. Existing rules allow breaks for very deep oil wells and heavy oil, for example. The discussion continues. It is right for us to engage with the industry openly, in recognition of the issue raised by the hon. Lady.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must make progress once I have heard his intervention.

[Stewart Hosie]

The right hon. Gentleman says that the price of gas is rising. It will be driven up by, possibly, a third because the $75 trigger point established by the Government is equivalent to about 80p a therm. The gas price is currently about 57p a therm. The Government’s actions will drive the price up to an extraordinary extent. Did they not understand that before they set their Budget?

[Danny Alexander]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. As he will know, we are currently consulting and engaging with the industry on precisely that question of the trigger price.

I am sure Members in all parts of the House agree that on the road to sustainable growth, access to finance is also a critical issue. For that reason, clause 42 increases the relief available for the enterprise investment scheme to 30%, encouraging further investment in small and growing businesses; clause 9 doubles the lifetime limit on entrepreneurs’ relief from £5 million to £10 million; and clause 43 raises the rate of research and development tax credits for small and medium-sized enterprises to 200%. As we announced in the Budget, from next year it will rise again to 225%, providing real support for small firms investing in research and development.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are the driving force behind the recovery. They employ 60% of Britain’s work force, and contribute to about 50% of all output. Their success will help to define the future of our economy. The last Government planned to increase the small profits rate of corporation tax, but we have chosen to do the opposite. Clause 6 will reduce the rate paid by small businesses to just 20%. The Budget also revealed that we would continue to provide business rate relief for small firms for another year, which will support growing businesses up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Finance Bill follows the Budget in March. On the opening day of the Budget debate, I laid out the SNP’s opposition to a large number of the measures in the Bill. Today, I will take the lead from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and concentrate on the most damaging single proposal: the Chancellor's and the Chief Secretary’s determination to see a 60% increase in the corporation tax supplementary charge on oil and gas production in the North sea from 20% to 32%. The proposal will take about an extra £2 billion a year in tax from the sector, and that is on top of last year’s £4 billion windfall as a result of the rising oil price and this year’s windfall, which is over and above the 2010 forecast as a result of oil trading at about $120 a barrel.

The proposal also runs counter to the Chancellor’s stated objectives: his objective in 2010 of providing tax stability for the North sea; his objective of delivering a growth agenda, which was meant to be at the heart of this year’s Budget; and his objective to see production here in lieu of imports. The proposal will drive a coach and horses through those worthy objectives laid out over the past year by the Government.

When the tax raid was announced, it was reported almost immediately that the leading figures in Oil and Gas UK, the sector’s trade body, gathered in a state of disbelief over the Government’s plans. It was reported almost immediately that oil companies were preparing to cancel and suspend investment plans, and that up to 40,000 new and existing jobs were at risk. It was reported that Statoil was suspending the development of the heavy crude Mariner field, putting the development of its sister field, Bressay, at risk. That led Jeremy Cresswell, the editor of The Press and Journal’s “Energy” supplement, to say:

“Statoil’s decision to stop the massive Mariner development and probably Bressay too represents a huge blow to future investment in the North Sea.”

That is significant. For those who are unaware, The Press and Journal in Aberdeen covers oil and gas in a way that no other newspaper in the UK can or does. When its energy correspondents and editors view what is going on, they do so with huge experience of the sector and of the implications that tax changes might bring.

To help us understand the impact of the Chancellor’s decision on his own strategy, a senior UK oil executive has warned that a slowdown in North sea activity will increase the country’s reliance on imported oil and gas, with the consequence of an even higher balance of payments deficit and a corresponding suppression of GDP growth. On tax receipts, Alan Booth, the chief executive of EnCore oil said:

“Undeveloped and undiscovered oil and gas pays no taxes”.

Of course, he is absolutely right. He was talking about future development and revenues. However, Valiant Petroleum acted immediately and said that its near £100 million project was no longer viable because of the surprise Budget move. Even the oil giant Chevron, the second largest US oil company, has warned that there will be unintended consequences from this move. Oil and Gas UK is clear that it has

“shaken investor confidence to the core.”

All we have from the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary is complacency. The Press and Journal reported that when the concerns had been put to the Chancellor, a Treasury spokeswoman said:

“Mr Osborne did not expect investment to be damaged.”

I am not sure who he was listening to, but that quotation proves that he is complacent, and I think that he is wrong.

Jim Hannon, a founding partner of the drilling analysts Hannon Westwood, warned that 30,000 people could lose their jobs if exploration activity drops by only 15%. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North quoted Professor Alex Kemp and Linda Stephen at length. I was delighted to hear all the various scenarios described in detail, because it is important that nothing is ignored, and that was particularly helpful. Professor Kemp and Linda Stephen have warned that 2 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent could be left in the North sea because of this decision. Derek Leith, the oil and gas partner at Ernst and Young, has warned of projects being delayed and cancelled:

“I think Statoil is only the tip of the iceberg…There are a lot of companies that will not pursue projects but will not go public about it.”

He repeated the point that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary clearly fail to grasp:

“barrels left in the ground do not provide energy, do not pay tax and do not support jobs”.

Oil and Gas UK tells me that the tax increase announced in the Budget saw the value of investments in the UK continental shelf fall by 24% overnight. That is bound to have an impact on activity. This is a global industry and the ability of the UK to compete for capital to explore and develop new fields and, importantly, to extend existing fields will be impacted significantly. The level of the impact is explained in the research by Professor Kemp, who revealed, as we heard in some detail, that the tax increase could reduce UK oil and gas investment by up to £30 billion and production by up to a quarter over the next three decades.

I have spoken mainly about oil, but one of the biggest casualties is gas, which accounts for 46% of UK continental shelf production, and yet trades at prices substantially below the $75 trigger price proposed by the Government. Gas production is not seeing the same price increases, and the tax change will result only in less investment and lower recovery of this important asset. It is worth noting that although I am concentrating on the increase in the supplementary charge, the Government have also decided to reduce decommissioning relief, which might accelerate the decommissioning of essential infrastructure and make the extension of fields by the new entrants that we have heard about more difficult. The combination of those proposals leads to an 81% marginal tax rate for mature fields—not just the 62% proposed under the supplementary charge increase.

I am indebted to Centrica for its detailed assessment of the problem in relation to gas. It makes the point that gas projects are highly marginal and that gas economics are very different from oil economics. Brent crude trades at about $120 per barrel, whereas UK wholesale gas trades at about $57 per barrel equivalent. Centrica is convinced that the proposed increase will result in the decline of the North sea, as gas projects become uneconomic, which is likely to have a direct impact on jobs in the sector, the regional economy and the wider economy.

Centrica has a broader concern that the increase will add to existing upward pressures on customers’ energy bills. It makes the technical point that oil markets are deep and global in their nature, whereas gas markets are regionally priced and shallow. Increases in UK tax costs that result in reduced UK investment will therefore mean that lower-priced North sea gas production will be replaced by higher-priced gas imports. That leads to the conclusion that there may well be further increases in prices for gas and power consumers in the UK, with increasing wholesale energy costs adding to existing upward pressures. That was alluded to earlier by the Chief Secretary when he said that gas prices are rising in line with oil prices. We do not want to see the gas price hit the oil price. That would be the equivalent of an increase of a third in the cost of gas, which would be catastrophic for families and heavy energy-using businesses.

Centrica argues that the tax increase should apply to gas, but not at the equivalent trigger price to that for oil. The $75 a barrel trigger for oil proposed by the Chancellor is the equivalent of 80p a therm, which is much higher than the 60p a therm or so at which gas is currently trading. Centrica’s overall warnings are actually starker than those from the oil sector. It believes that the tax changes will result in an annual cost to the UK economy of up to £8 billion a year by 2013, undermining the Government’s intention to reduce the deficit. It believes that that will influence investor sentiment in other sectors as well, because of the global nature of energy companies. There will be an impact on the low-carbon agenda and the security of supply and jobs, and up to £100 billion-worth of energy investments and associated jobs will be put at risk. Those are frightening figures.

Of course, the warnings did not just appear for a day or two after the Budget when the industry was in shock; they have continued almost daily for a month. PricewaterhouseCoopers has said today that the increase in North sea oil taxation could cut offshore investment. It argues that whereas mergers and acquisitions in the oil and gas sector worldwide in the first quarter were not down on last year, the emphasis in deals was on frontier territories such as India rather than mature provinces such as the North sea. The chief executive and chairman of ConocoPhillips, Jim Mulva, has joined the chorus of condemnation and said that the “unexpected nature and scale” of the increase has damaged investor confidence and will hamper investment. He has said:

“Although the chancellor has shown an appetite to consider granting companies tax relief for new field developments, these can be rendered ineffective by tax increases…The industry has lost confidence in the UK’s fiscal landscape. With three major tax increases in less than 10 years, it is now a difficult place for future investments.”

Instead of being complacent, the Government ought to heed the warnings. I cannot believe that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary are right and Oil and Gas UK, Statoil, EnCore, Valiant, Chevron, Professor Kemp, Ernst and Young, Hannon Westwood, Centrica, PricewaterhouseCoopers and ConocoPhillips are all wrong. It strikes me as inconceivable that a month of warnings should be ignored simply to fill a hole in the Government’s books.

I hope that the Government will think again. They have an opportunity on the first day of Committee, as early as next week, to bring forward sensible amendments that recognise the difference between gas and oil and the dangers to investment and jobs. They can do so before the investment profile of this country becomes so bad that we begin to lose not only investment but many new and existing jobs, as has been warned about for more than a month since the announcement in the Budget.

Amendment of the Law

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I would love to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), but instead I will restrict myself to saying that I agree with him entirely that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made a very good maiden speech indeed. It is certainly a pleasure to follow him, if not the hon. Member for Southend West. [Interruption.] The Economic Secretary to the Treasury says from a sedentary position that that is harsh. It is only a little harsh.

The Budget was billed as a Budget for growth, and by goodness, we need it, so let us test that. In his statement and in the Red Book the Chancellor gave us a great deal of information. Our national debt for 2010-11 was expected last year to be £932 billion. It is now forecast to be £909 billion for that year. It was expected to be £1.6 trillion next year, but it is coming in at £1.46 trillion. The deficit was expected to be £149 billion for last year. That seems to be coming in at £146 billion. But the figure for 2011-12 was forecast to be £116 billion and that is now up to £122 billion, if the numbers are to be believed. That tells us that the Chancellor may have had a little room for manoeuvre, but growth is essential if the figures are to remain on target and if we are to have any chance at all of protecting jobs and services.

I welcome the direction of travel on corporation tax but, because the Budget was so thin and fiscally neutral—the entire Budget barely shifted £10 million in total—it effectively confirms that the cuts, which were forecast last year at £99 billion and revised down to £81 billion in the comprehensive spending review, are still there. It confirms that £29 billion of tax rises announced last year are effectively still there. It confirms the swingeing benefit cuts of £11 billion announced last year and confirmed in the CSR. It also confirms the changes in some of the pension component, particularly the RPI-CPI switch, which will yield the Exchequer £1.2 billion this year, rising to nearly £6 billion in 2014-15.

On pensions, the Chancellor spoke about a single-tier pension. That is similar to the citizens pension concept that many of us support, but to deliver that with savings predicated on changing not just the state pension, but all public sector pensions, which are contracted and paid into, in some cases, for many, many years, cannot be right. He also said in relation to pensions that he would accept all the Hutton recommendations. It may well be that all of us have to save a little more a little longer for the pension that we expect at the end, but let the Government be in no doubt that a 3% hike in pension contributions now will put some of our constituents—indeed, many of our constituents—in serious financial difficulties in the short term. I hope that the implementation of that is carefully considered.

On PFI—the Labour party’s worst legacy—the figures are truly frightening. The value of the capital projects is some £56 billion. The cost of the outstanding repayment liability is £214 billion. The average repayment each year until 2047-48 will be £6 billion, and that will peak at more than £9 billion in 2017-18. The Chancellor said nothing about that, or about how we would replace the PFI system. Throughout his speech he spoke of encouraging private investment, and some of that is to be welcomed, but he said nothing about how we would replace PFI by means of public capital investment. We know how vital that is, given that the economic impact multiplier for capital expenditure is 1:1. It is the most significant thing we can invest in and, more dangerously, the worse possible thing we can cut.

The Chancellor had a great deal to say about oil, which is not surprising given that the forecast for 2011-12 shows that the North sea will generate an additional £4 billion. He is right to take immediate action because households and businesses are struggling. The price of a gallon of petrol in rural Scotland is routinely £6.50, and we know that in the past four or five weeks the price increase in diesel has added £1,000 to the annual cost of running a truck. That is unsustainable and inflationary. I welcome the 1p cut and the fact that the proposed increase has been stopped, but the Government said that they had introduced a stabiliser, and I have re-read his speech any number of times. The stabiliser seems to me to suggest that when the barrel price increases it is merely the escalator that is cancelled, leaving the indexed rise in place. I always understood that the stabiliser would reduce the duty level when the price rose so that we could temper out some of spikes in rising prices. By only including the escalator, we do not have a stabiliser at all and will still see many of the spikes that we have been trying to smooth out to bring some stability back into the economy, particularly in the haulage sector.

The Chancellor said surprisingly little about the banks, so I will go back to what he said in February. He announced that the banks would lend more, especially to small businesses, pay more taxes, bring responsibility and restraint to the sector, pay less in bonuses, be more transparent and make a greater contribution to the regional economy. That is all fine, but in order to thrive and grow companies need access to affordable and flexible funding, and they need it now. That remains a huge hurdle for many of our businesses.

The lack of new lending in particular is continuing to have an adverse impact on individual companies as well as on the economy as a whole. Business investment, as the Minister knows, will remain some 20% below pre-recession levels. Indeed, there was a 0.5% fall in gross fixed capital formation in the last quarter of 2010, which is extremely worrying, given that this is supposed to be a business growth and export-driven recovery.

All the evidence I have seen highlights the importance of expanding sustainable lending. Although we welcome the lending commitments agreed between the Government and the banks, it is important to ensure that they move quickly on the issue. I would have thought that the Chancellor had much more to say today about how the banking community would increase even gross lending to businesses across the country. Instead, although he did increase enterprise investment scheme limits to encourage private investment, which I welcome, he said nothing about bank lending. It is the retail banks on the high street that most of our small businesses depend upon for both capital and cash flow.

The two key issues of oil and access to finance are not just about economic recovery, but about fairness, as is alcohol duty, and there were a few changes on that today. However, the Government brought forward no measure whatsoever to tax alcoholic drinks by alcohol content. Whisky is still penalised and we still have the ludicrous situation where 4% beer is taxed more heavily than 7.5% cider, which does nothing to promote public health or address the wider social and economic consequences of excessive drinking. Picking up the tab for those costs is estimated to equate to a tax of some £3.5 billion in Scotland alone. I am surprised that the Chancellor did not use the Budget to take measures to deal with that problem.

There are also huge dangers in the Budget, as it confirms the cut to the Scottish budget and threatens recovery there. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the recent reduction in unemployment. The figures for March show that unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 16,000 and employment has risen by 8,000, the eighth consecutive reported rise in employment. That is all good news, and we have to drive it forward, but cutting the Scottish budget, particularly £800 million from the capital budget, will have a huge impact on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to drive forward many of the initiatives that were making a difference as we came out of the recession.

Given the economic backdrop, particularly the fourth quarter figures for the whole UK and the need to continue to support growth, the Scottish Government and, indeed, the UK Government need a Budget that supports clear, targeted resources. Given also that the Chancellor had some flexibility, I am surprised that he did not offer up a targeted measure to increase capital expenditure, because it has the most significant impact of any public spending.

What the Chancellor did talk about was enterprise zones, of course, and we certainly welcome those as a concept. They could be used in Moray, for example, given the closure of RAF Kinloss, but the Budget offered little detail beyond suggesting some business rate reductions and streamlined planning measures, both of which the Chancellor rightly said are devolved. For enterprise zones to work properly, they should revert to the old form, which included the significant use of capital resources, but, given that there is only £80 million in four years’ time, or £4 million per site, much of which I suspect will be used to offset business rates for local authorities, it strikes me as inconceivable that the Government have planned and prepared for the significant use of capital allowances to deliver their potential.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The amount is actually less than that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because, although page 42 of the Red Book cites £80 million in year four, over the period, if we spread the amount across the 21 proposed enterprise zones, we find that it works out at less than £1 million per zone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done the four-year forecast and the average for me, but the point is the same: there is very little money in what ought to be an initiative with the potential, at least, to deliver some significant economic investment.

We need targeted measures, and one measure that the Chancellor could have introduced today was targeted help for the computer games industry. A targeted tax break was suggested previously but pulled from the previous Budget. Debates in the Scottish Parliament have backed it, and debates in Westminster have had all-party support, but he rejected the idea in 2010 and rejected it today. He did say, however, that he would improve the intellectual property regime and increase the small companies R and D tax credit, and I look to understand from the Government at some point whether there is a specific way in which the video games industry and other growing high-tech industries might access it, and access it in an appropriate way that protects them and grows them in future.

In terms of targeted measures, we also believe that there was a compelling case for the Scottish Government to be given responsibility for the administration and revenues of the Crown Estate in Scotland, given the focus in Scotland and the UK on driving a low-carbon economy and the existing responsibilities for marine planning and economic development. This Budget provided the Chancellor with the opportunity to indicate that he was prepared to do that through Government amendments to the Scotland Bill, but no commitment was made.

The Chancellor could also have demonstrated—another small targeted measure—that he was prepared to adjust the tax treatment of participants and sponsors at the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in 2014 so that there was equality of treatment with participants and sponsors at the Olympic games in 2012. I know that the Scottish Government and others have contacted him on the matter, because it is important to the overall success of the 2014 games and to the economic regeneration of the east end of Glasgow, so I am deeply disappointed that, in a Budget when he had the opportunity to talk about parity of tax treatment, he did not take it.

I know also that, following the abolition of the end-year flexibility agreements with the devolved Administrations, a new system was to be introduced and the Chancellor intended to set out details in this Budget. They might be tucked away in a document I have not read, but there was no mention made of that at all, or of whether a new end-year cash reserve could be established so that end-year flexibility was maintained in a way that was beneficial not just to the Scottish Administration, but to Wales and to Northern Ireland.

The Chancellor spoke a lot about the green economy and about several measures that he intends to take, and, as the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor know, there is still accrued £195 million of fossil fuel levy that only the Scottish Government can use. It ought to be released, but under the current rules it cannot without a comparable claw-back from the block grant. This was the opportunity for the Chancellor to release those funds, but he missed it.

That is particularly disappointing in relation to the announcement about the green investment bank, which was supposed to be the alternative. In November 2010, in the Treasury Committee, I asked the Chancellor what the timing was for its establishment, and he said that he wanted to get it up and running as soon as possible. He said that he hoped to come forward with proposals on how it was going to be structured between now and Christmas and that he would have set aside money to go into the bank in the comprehensive spending review. It is therefore hugely depressing that we have to wait another year, until 2012, before it can start to function. Given the press coverage that I am sure we have all seen, it looks as though it will be 2015 before it is fully operational.

A further green disappointment is that there was no mention whatsoever of green individual savings accounts—a key Tory policy to be introduced within two years as a way of helping savers to benefit from the growth of the green economy, because the billions raised from their sale would fund the state-backed green investment bank. Yet it seems that because of objections they are to be dropped, choking off a funding stream that would have channelled an estimated £2 billion a year into green technologies. I do not know if the shutdown of green ISAs is part of a wider move to curtail the potential operations of the green bank before it is even set up, but it is extremely worrying. Finally on green issues, the carbon floor price was mentioned. I understand from those who know more about that than I do that it is, in effect, a secret subsidy to the nuclear industry, which is anything but green.

The Chancellor said that this was a Budget for growth, but growth will be stifled if the banks do not lend, and if he takes no action on alcohol duty. Growth will be restricted by his failure to reassess the cuts in capital expenditure, and the opportunity of enterprise zones will be squandered without the proper application of capital allowances. Growth sectors such as the games industry will be damaged by the refusal to introduce tax breaks. Growth in the green economy will be slowed because of the refusal to release funds from the fossil fuel levy, and investment in our green future will be reduced because of delays in setting up the green bank. The Chancellor took an hour to shuffle £10 million. It was a profoundly wasted opportunity when he could have done so much more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until tomorrow’s Budget, but he will recognise that in the emergency Budget last year we left beer duty frozen.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Chancellor knows that the long-term solution to the spikes in fuel prices is a stabiliser or a regulator, and hopefully we will hear about that tomorrow. However, is he aware that the price rises in fuel over the past four of five weeks equate to an additional £1,000 a year for running every truck in the country? Does he not agree that that is hugely inflationary and utterly unsustainable?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, the very sharp rise in the world oil price has posed a challenge to lots of economies—all but the oil-exporting economies. That is one of the headwinds currently facing the global economy. Specifically on fuel duty and other issues, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Budget.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the point of our amendment. It would, in essence, ensure that the charter for budget responsibility had a wide enough definition to give the new Office for Budget Responsibility, if it is indeed an independent body, more latitude to look across the wider set of economic indices and make its analysis and assessment of the impact of the Treasury’s policy on the ground—in the real world and the real economy—instead of looking merely at the desiccated issue of deficit reduction.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants this provision, and I am not unsupportive. I am worried that he would conflate the work of the OBR with that of the Financial Policy Committee. We should remember that the FPC is charged with looking at the macro economy, which may well mean looking beyond monetary policy—the responsibility of the Monetary Policy Committee—and the macro-prudential. It might be able to look at the other aspects that he is expecting the OBR to look at, and that could muddy the waters even further. Does he see the potential for conflict between the OBR, with the role that he wants to set, and the FPC, with the role it is likely to have?

[Chris Leslie]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. As I understand it, however, the Government, in creating the Financial Policy Committee at the Bank of England, propose to give it a particular responsibility for macro-prudential regulation. That is quite different from the role of the OBR, which, as an analytical and assessing independent body, will have a duty to provide comment and analysis on, and a degree of scrutiny of, the proposals of the Treasury and, more narrowly, the Treasury’s policy in relation to the accounting aspects of fiscal policy alone. If we are to have an Office for Budget Responsibility—or, as some hon. Members have suggested, the equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office, with some kind of parliamentary Budget office, which we will discuss later—it must be an independent body, so it must have the indisputable right to comment on the Treasury’s policies writ large on macro-economic and fiscal policy. I do not feel that there is necessarily a conflict with the Government proposals on changing financial services regulation, although we have not yet seen their proposals, and we do not really know what powers they intend to vest with the Bank of England on macro-prudential regulation. We will come to that another day.

I will explain why I think it is important that we focus on the concept of a growth mandate. It is not something that was just dreamed up by the Opposition. The Engineering Employers Federation has also called for a growth mandate to supplement the fiscal mandate in the charter for budget responsibility and in the Budget. It states that a growth mandate would

“send a powerful signal to business in the forthcoming Budget that government has a clear strategy to address the barriers to growth”

and calls for

“a Parliament long programme to deliver on it.”

Terry Scuoler, the chief executive of the EEF, has said that a growth mandate should be introduced to

“report on the progress at each Budget in the same way it does with the Fiscal Mandate.”

The EEF also states that

“like the Fiscal Mandate, the Growth Mandate should span the lifetime of a parliament with each subsequent Budget and policy announcement showing further incremental progress.”

The EEF makes a good point about the impact on the industries that it represents, which are in the real economy. Ultimately, that is what matters to our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Possibly, but in a more tragic and important way that affects real lives and real people. It does not really matter what happens to the Liberal Democrat poll rating, but growth falling behind and diminishing as unemployment rises is a really important issue in the real world.

[Stewart Hosie]

May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the amendment for a second? I am sure he is not suggesting that the OBR should have any role in setting the fiscal mandate. I understand why he wants the consideration of growth to be part of its mandate, but the Treasury Committee stated that the OBR’s commentary function

“should be one of informing public debate through disseminating better understanding of fiscal policy and long-term economic trends, identifying possible risks”

and so on. Those long-term trends would inevitably include growth. Although none of us would want the OBR to comment on individual policy measures, even the Government’s response—I certainly do not defend them—states that the OBR would be

“examining and reporting on…the long-term impact of the Government’s decisions.”

Again, that would include their impact on growth. Does the OBR not already have the ability that he is looking to give it?

[Chris Leslie]

I suspect that the Economic Secretary will make that point in her retort, when she eloquently resists all amendments, as is her usual pattern of behaviour. However, it is not clear enough that growth and employment are matters that the OBR can comment on and analyse. I absolutely would not want to give it the power to determine the mandate, but the Treasury should be big enough and ugly enough to withstand commentary from such an independent body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed, and we should pay tribute to the previous Prime Minister for maintaining and establishing those freedoms and that independence. However, you would rule me out of order, Mr Speaker, if we departed too much from the amendments.

A growth mandate is necessary on the four principal components of growth. The Government’s strategy on consumer spending is falling apart by the day. The nationwide consumer confidence index published this week showed a record low among the general public. One reason consumers are losing confidence is the possibility of VAT going to 20%. Real disposal incomes are falling back to the 2008 level, and median income is falling more than at any time since the 1980s. John Lewis reported falls in sales last week, Debenhams is saying that trading conditions are tough, credit levels are contracting, and from April onwards, of course, some of the tax credit changes and other changes will take money out of the pockets of consumers. We know therefore that on the consumer spending components of growth the Government have already lost control of a decent growth strategy.

On business investment, banks are still slow to lend to high-growth businesses. More than 20% of commercial real estate loans are in default or in breach of their covenants, and the much-trumpeted national insurance holiday that Ministers offered to new start-up businesses has not been taken up to the extent predicted by Ministers, owing to the complexities they have imposed on the arrangements. The Government’s growth strategy currently seems to depend on a number of odd assumptions, including that it is the fault of employee rights, which need to be eroded to boost growth. That is the kernel of their growth strategy.

On planning law, the Government are sometimes localist and sometimes not; sometimes they devolve powers but sometimes they do not want to give certain powers to councils. Their approach on planning is confused. Will they relax Sunday trading laws? There is speculation all over the place. There is even confusion over business rates. The Minister’s colleagues in HMRC have issued 40 different consultations, discussion documents, updates and responses on tax changes since the previous Budget, which, as many businesses complain, brings uncertainty and confusion. And to cap it all, with the abolition of the regional development agencies, they have created these local enterprise partnerships, with no clarity about their role or budget. We will see tomorrow about the enterprise zones, but on business investment the growth strategy is very deficient.

The Government are relying totally on an export-driven miracle to be the salvation of their growth strategy, yet if the Treasury predictions are correct we would need the highest export growth every year for the next three years, which last occurred in 1974, I think. That means, for example, that our exports to the USA would have to triple or our exports to China would have to grow twentyfold. That is not a growth strategy, but a prayer for a miracle.

To cap it all, we know what is happening with public sector expenditure. The rush to reduce the deficit so deep and so fast is causing great harm to the growth prospects of the economy and taking out a number of posts, particularly in parts of the country that are least resilient.

Amendment 3 would add to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s duties the requirement to assess the impact of Treasury policy on jobs and economic growth. Defining responsibility as such a purist, accountancy-type concept is to take a slightly dry and aloof approach, which seems to us irresponsible, given the real-world impact on people, jobs and society. We need to ensure that the OBR is a more rounded organisation that is grounded in the real economy, not just a narrow, bean-counting institution that looks at statistics or just one aspect of economic policy. It needs to be strategic, predictive, competent and authoritative, and it can do that only by having a duty to analyse the Treasury’s impact across the board. That would be one way of creating longer-term sustainability for the Office for Budget Responsibility, beyond the Government’s current plans for deficit reduction.

Amendment 4 would give the OBR a duty to assess the impact of growth in our regions and nations. We know that the Government’s spending cuts are hitting less prosperous parts of the country disproportionately. The disparities in our economy are growing as a result of the Government’s policies, and clearly that is harmful. Indeed, we saw that in the unemployment statistics this week, for example, with 27,000 more people made redundant in the west midlands and 8% unemployment in my region of the east midlands.

[Stewart Hosie]

We have indeed seen unemployment statistics, which show unemployment in Scotland falling for three months in a row, employment rising for three months in a row and construction up massively, specifically because of decisions taken by the Scottish Government to re-profile capital expenditure. How would the OBR relate, for example, to the Scottish Government on the different routes that they had taken over the same period? How would that technically work?

[Chris Leslie]

If the OBR could explicitly comment on employment and growth policy, it would be able to look at the different tactics employed in the economic policies of the different regions and nations. If there were good or poor policies in different corners of the country, the OBR would be able to analyse and pass comment on them.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way, but I am quite keen to probe on this issue. What he has said makes perfect logical sense, but at that point the OBR would be commenting not on UK policy, but on regional or national policy. If it were commenting on a micro-policy, rather than policy at the UK level, would that not put it in difficult political territory?

[Chris Leslie]

If a policy were having a significantly adverse effect on jobs, such as some of the policies pursued by the current, Tory-led Government, it would be useful to have an independent, authoritative budget office to comment on that and to flag it up—to put out a red alert, as it were—as something that parliamentarians ought to comment on. I would not have a problem with that level of commentary. We should be big enough to cope with that level of challenge, audit and scrutiny. We would not be giving the OBR any power to make decisions; the point is simply to shine a spotlight on Treasury and Government policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

One would have thought that the three interventions I have taken were scripted across the Chamber, because the hon. Gentleman leads me to the second point in this part of my speech. I was talking about the deficit and the national debt, so let us dispel some of the propaganda in the OBR’s reports. He is welcome to read both them and the fantastic summary of performance indicators in the economy that the Library has produced. This point shows why it is incredibly important that the OBR should examine a wider set of figures, rather than just fiscal and national debt. Public sector net debt was down to 36.5% of gross domestic product in 2007-08, compared with the 42.5% that was inherited in 1996-97. Most of that borrowing was to do with financing capital investment, and not day-to-day expenditure as the Conservatives claim.

[Stewart Hosie]

Unfortunately that is not quite true, because the bulk of the capital expenditure took place through the private finance initiative. If memory serves, the outstanding balance on the credit card for that is £200 billion—of which, under the Labour Government, two thirds was off the balance sheet.

[Ian Murray]

The figures are there for people to see. I am delighted that we have had a contribution from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) on this subject, because in the past four years of Scottish National party government not one brick has been laid to build new infrastructure in Scotland. They have refused even to set up anything to do with building public infrastructure.

[Stewart Hosie]

rose—

[Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not going to be drawn into the party politics of Scotland. Let us stick to the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I have set out this rather crude point in the past, but I shall do so again. If there is the option of employing a 20-year-old Slovakian—or even a 21-year-old; perhaps a graduate—or a 57-year-old person who has not worked for 10 years, and therefore has no record of recent employment or testimony from recent employers, who will the rational employer be more likely to employ? The previous Labour Government failed to get their head fully around that conundrum, which was why there was an imbalance in the growth of the economy that caused London and the south-east to overheat. That overheating led to social consequences, not least in the housing market, and the public policy response was a demand that more public money should be thrown at those social consequences to try to adjust the housing market and build more housing. Such social policy was perfectly reasonable and rational, but it had implications for the public finances, which is why information about the precise nature of the jobs is critical not only to economic decision making, but to social policy making.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the nature of employment, but I am not sure whether the growth mandate to which amendment 1 refers would help. There were years under Labour in which there was net growth, but the Labour Government still managed to lose 1 million manufacturing jobs in those years—this was before the recession—and I am not sure how the growth mandate would have helped to inform us that we had lost those jobs, given that net growth was being identified and, presumably, reported on, as it would be by the OBR.

[John Mann]

We, like other countries in the western world, are losing manufacturing jobs because of our refusal to deal with Chinese imports and the consumer myth of buying ever cheaper from China. The inherent trade imbalances and problems that accrue as a result will come back to haunt us, and while I know that the Government will want to allocate time to discuss that vital subject in the near future, it is slightly outside our present debate.

The hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly wrong. While it would be wrong to discuss policy issues relating to the economy now, if the statistics had been broken down at that time to allow his assessment to be made more accurately, it is rational to assume that the situation could have been debated more regularly and in a more informed way. That might have had a positive impact for Opposition Members such as him as well as Labour Back Benchers. Indeed, such information might also have informed the previous Government’s policy making, which explains why amendment 1 is in the Government’s favour.

We need to know about job creation and what jobs are available not only in London and the south-east, but in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have talked about immigration, but there is an equally vital factor for economic and social policy: the blurring, albeit for rational reasons, of retirement age. We have to consider early retirement, late retirement and the retirement age itself, as well as the vital question of pensions. Some employers in areas such as mine have deliberately targeted getting the over-60s back into employment. That is perfectly rational, and it is good for those people, for the social economy and, perhaps, for the economy overall. We need the information, however; not because that is a bad thing, but because we need to know whether the new jobs in our regions and constituencies are getting those people who are deemed to be retired into the labour market, as opposed to people who are not working—whether they want to work or not. If we are to crack the problem of those who choose not to work, or who are incapable of getting work—again, the rational employer goes for the person with work history—such understanding will be vital to our economic and social policy. I put it to hon. Members that the rational employer is far more likely to employ a 67-year-old with an excellent work history who is re-entering the labour market, perhaps in a part-time job, than a 57-year-old who has been unemployed for 10 years.

The decisions taken by employers and those individuals who wish to re-enter the labour market are not necessarily matters for us, but the consequences of their decisions are important to us, and especially to economic policy making. An understanding of the precise breakdown of new jobs and job losses is fundamental to economic policy making. Several of the economic assumptions that can be made about consumer behaviour, pensioners and wage demands flow from such analysis. That is why, as a slight aside, it would be foolhardy not to give the Treasury Committee a role in all five OBR appointments, because such a role would ensure that if a Chancellor were so foolish as to skew the appointment process towards people with a certain mindset or from a certain discipline in economics, as opposed to trying to achieve a balance, that Chancellor could be corrected through appropriate cross-party decision making. I am talking about any Chancellor—the present one, whoever replaces him in future reshuffles and our Chancellor, when we are in power. It is vital that there is an evidence base that stands independent of the Government so that we can all decide how to vote on the various measures that the Government bring forward. How can we possibly make an informed decision otherwise, except by political instinct, which is important but insufficient compared with having all the information?

I am therefore puzzled by why the Government are not leaping to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East for tabling the amendment. Labour Members might see the fact that his approach would help out such a Tory Government as somewhat treacherous, but this is clearly the new politics. It is coalition gone mad when a Labour Front Bencher is putting forward a proposal that would help Conservative Back Benchers, the handful—a tiny number—of Liberals who are anywhere near government and the Government themselves.

Let me give another example about policy making. Who knows what will be determined about petrol policy tomorrow, but that is a good example of something that should be covered by the OBR’s analysis. We need to know what has happened, including in the past, so that we can assess the impact of VAT on petrol, as well as on petrol duty, and the changes to petrol duty itself. The Chancellor might decide not to cut the price of petrol and yet not to increase it further, even though the price paid by drivers such as myself has gone up by ten quid since he became Chancellor. If he decides not to increase the price further, we will need to see a breakdown of the relevant information. We could go back through history, although I can guarantee that such a consideration will not be in the report that the OBR produces tomorrow. I could assist the office, however, because I have statistics that demonstrate that 70% of the existing tax on petrol was brought in by Conservative Chancellors since 1973. One might ask why Conservative Chancellors pick on the motorist to such an extent, but that is a debate for tomorrow rather than today, although I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others in the rural community will want to know why that is the case.

The point, in the context of the amendment, is that we must know precisely what is going on. I imagine that Conservative Back Benchers would be shocked to find out that Conservative Chancellors are responsible, as of today, for 70% of the tax on petrol. If the OBR had the mandate, however, those statistics could be laid out for us at every Budget and the pressure would be on. The pressure would, of course, be on Labour if the reverse had been the case and Labour Chancellors such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) had been responsible for the rise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Having complete discretion is useful, but the word discretion means that something remains a matter of discretion—these things do not have to be done. The OBR has the discretion to go around looking at whatever it likes, but the amendment is saying something different—that the centrepiece of our economic future is economic growth. That has belatedly been recognised by the Chancellor, as we will see in tomorrow’s Budget, when he will say, “I have done all the tax and spend, but, oh no, everything is going wrong because growth is going down the chute, so I had better belatedly do something about it.” The previous Government had sent us on a trajectory of positive growth, albeit that it was a fragile recovery after a financial crisis. The Chancellor has seen that we are going into negativity, so he has scratched his head and realised that growth has something to do with the public finances.

We have been lambasted by Conservative Members who say that the deficit is terrible and Labour left the cupboard bare. They conveniently forget that, as reported by all the economic forecasters, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, two thirds of the £84 billion deficit came from the international financial crisis. That was not Labour’s fault. When Conservative Members suggest, “Oh, well, we should have had more regulation”, they seem to forget that when we created the Financial Services Authority to introduce more regulation, they said they wanted self-regulation and complained about red tape. In fact, it would have been much worse had it not been for the Labour Government. Furthermore, that regulatory hole in the armoury was commonplace across the globe. That is why Governments in Greece, America, Spain and elsewhere have had problems dealing with the financial deficits they inherited. Obviously, we were more vulnerable to sub-prime debt, as we know because the financial sector is larger in Britain.

Let us get away from the myths about why we have the deficit and deal with the challenge of how to get rid of it. We get rid of it by striking a proper balance between growth, making savings over time and ensuring that the bankers pay their fair share. It is convenient for the Conservatives to say that there is only one way of achieving the task. Instead of having a balanced approach to maximising growth, making the bankers pay their fair share and making credible savings that are realistic over time and would halve the deficit in four years, Conservative Members say, “No. We don’t want to halve the deficit in four years; we want to get rid of it in four years, and we do not want to use growth or involve the bankers. The bankers are our mates after all, so they can have some more money. What we will do is make the cuts twice as fast in just one way—through savaging public sector jobs and services.”

Then, remarkably, growth starts to recede so that the sums no longer add up, as there is obviously an interrelationship between private sector growth and public sector funding. Thus they suddenly realise that they have to do something about growth. The amendment is about recognising that the centrepiece of macro-economic planning and fiscal responsibility is growth. It is all very well for the Minister to say, “Oh well, the OBR will have absolute discretion; it can look at growth if it likes, but if it doesn’t want to, it doesn’t have to.” That is the problem; its eye is off the ball. We need to get the finances in proper balance without destroying communities, which is what Labour Members stand for.

[Stewart Hosie]

If I may take the hon. Gentleman back, he mentioned Greece and banking regulation. Can he explain to the House how the failure of Greek banking regulation had anything to do with the sovereign debt crisis, and what on earth the amendment, which is about a growth mandate, has to do with that?

[Geraint Davies]

I will try and speak more slowly. My point was that the international financial crisis affected all countries’ debt, not least that of Greece. Obviously, it has its own banking system, underneath the European Central Bank. There was a common cause for many of the deficit problems around the globe. It was not uniquely Labour’s fault, as the Government make out. The amendment seeks to clarify the factors that are generating the fiscal future, including growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

No, in Welsh. I was in Dusseldorf, talking on behalf of the Welsh Affairs Committee. This is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. UKTI had been marketing Britain, and various German companies had been saying, for example, “We want to invest in a food and drinks factory. We want these skills and this site, and ideally these grants and these communications.” That would have been put on a computer platform and pulled down by regional development agencies to encourage inward investment. I asked what was happening now, and was told, “All these bids are coming forward for creating jobs in the UK, and the RDAs are not pulling them down because they have been abolished.”

That is a simple example of how the cuts in administration and red tape are stopping quality jobs being created in Britain. The cuts undermine growth and are false economics. To answer the question about where we would cut the deficit, Labour would reduce the deficit by encouraging growth and jobs. I was talking to a business man last week in Swansea. He said, “I run a business. Why are the Government always talking about cuts? If I was making a loss and wanted to cut my costs, I would not sell my tools. Yes, I’d keep my costs down, but I’d invest in sales.” The Government’s position is like paying off the mortgage by selling the furniture, rather than getting a job. That is ludicrous.

That is why growth as the centrepiece of the Office for Budget Responsibility is so important. To release the entrepreneurial spirit and focus it on export-driven growth is the primary aim of Labour, but not of Government Members, who have let down business.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am trying to understand the amendment. To have a growth mandate in the OBR would have allowed it to explain precisely where the £57 billion of cuts every year under Labour from 2013-14 onwards would have come from. Is that correct? The growth mandate would have explained where the £57 billion of fiscal consolidation would have come from. Is that correct?

[Geraint Davies]

I really am speaking too fast, aren’t I?

--- Later in debate ---

If we are in an era when the Office for Budget Responsibility is truly impartial and does not help one political party, or the governing party of the day, more than it would the Opposition, I am sure that we could come to some arrangement whereby the official Opposition would happily respect any market-sensitive data contained within the OBR reports—but we should have access to them at the same time. The Chancellor suggested, I think, during his interview with Andrew Marr at the weekend, that he knew what the OBR’s growth forecasts would be when it downgraded those forecasts. He has days and days to prepare his case and the Budget, but of course the rest of Parliament does not have that time. If the legislature is as important as the Executive—as I believe it is—there is a reasonable case to be made for the legislature to have access to the reports from the independent OBR simultaneously when the Treasury receives them. That is the essential point about amendment 6. The amendments embody two simple requests to help to improve transparency and access for Parliament.

[Stewart Hosie]

Amendment 2 calls for the OBR’s reports to be published. The Treasury Committee said:

“The OBR should have discretion in the models it uses in drawing up its forecasts. It is a matter for the organisation itself as to whether it is content to use is the Treasury models, or wishes to make changes. Whatever course the OBR takes, there would be benefits in it being as transparent as possible about the models it uses.”

I assume that that would also include the assumptions that underpin those models. The Government’s response was positive. They said that they would

“provide the OBR with full access to Treasury and other forecasting models, as well as support to scrutinise and develop these models.”

Again, I assume that that means the assumptions that underpin the Treasury models and whatever other modelling it wishes to undertake. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said that the OBR could take those models and assumptions from the Treasury, and he is absolutely right about that.

The OBR currently publishes a number of assumptions. For example, the impact multipliers were included in the June 2010 report, showing the one-for-one impact of capital expenditure cuts. Reports at the time of the Labour Government published assumptions about oil prices, and North sea corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax was used to calculate those yields. Given that several such assumptions are already published, and that the OBR can take all those assumptions, models and changes and create new ones, does it have the discretion to publish what it sees fit? Would it not be better to have a guarantee from the Minister that it will not unnecessarily withhold assumptions where it is important for us all to have transparency? Instead of the Treasury putting the material in the Library, we should ensure that the OBR has the ability to do that, so that we have the information and can come to a proper, reasoned view on whether we believe its figures.

That is a simple question, and I am sure that the answer is yes; I certainly hope so. There is no reason why we should not have that transparency so that we can all guarantee the efficacy of the reports that the OBR produces.

[Justine Greening]

On amendment 2, the Government are committed to increasing transparency in public life. That transparency is essential to good fiscal policy, as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said. In fact, the Government already provide the costing methods and assumptions for policy proposals. Those were made available in policy costings documents at the last Budget and spending review, and copies were made available to the House. That is a step change in transparency in fiscal policy making. Specifically in relation to the OBR, the additional transparency referred to in the amendment is already required by the statutory charter for budget responsibility, which says at paragraph 3.9:

“The Budget Report shall provide, at a minimum: an explanation and costing of the impact of all significant fiscal policy measures introduced by the Government since the last Budget and an explanation of the methodology used to cost the fiscal impact of each of those measures”.

In relation to the Bill, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 4(6), which explicitly refers to the OBR’s reports being clear in explaining the factors that it took into account when preparing the report—not only the assumptions that he mentioned but the main risks that it considered to be relevant. So there is a safeguard not only in the charter but in the Bill to ensure that there is transparency about how the official forecasts have been arrived at.

On amendment 6, the OBR is accountable to Parliament in order to enhance Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account for fiscal policy. The OBR’s forecasts and analysis will be laid directly before the House. The budget responsibility committee will be appointed with the consent of the Treasury Committee, and will be available for scrutiny. There will be separate reporting to Parliament of the OBR’s expenditure, and, as many Members have already discovered, relevant written questions will be answered by the OBR. The OBR is also accountable to the Chancellor, reflecting its role in producing the official forecast, which will form the basis of the Chancellor’s Budget decisions.

Herein lies the challenge to Labour Members. The OBR will provide the Government with timely access to the information necessary to reach policy decisions ahead of fiscal policy events. The Treasury Committee recognised that in its report last year, when it said:

“Involvement In the Budget process necessarily involves close contact between the Treasury and the OBR”.

Close working also means that the OBR has access to all Government information to ensure that its conclusions reflect the most accurate and up-to-date information. It is therefore right that the OBR provides the Government with pre-release access to its forecast in order to ensure the accuracy of both it and the Budget documents, which are published simultaneously.

It is also right that there is transparency in the approach to the sharing of information. The OBR has chosen to follow the well-established pre-release practices put in place by the Office for National Statistics. I can assure the House that this arrangement does not compromise the OBR’s independence. It is an approach that has worked well for the ONS. The OBR has been transparent about when reports have been shared. It confirmed in its November “Economic and fiscal outlook”:

“We have come under no pressure from ministers, advisers or officials to change any of our conclusions.”

The OBR’s access to Government information distinguishes it from other UK forecasting organisations, and ensures that the Chancellor and Parliament are provided with the most up-to-date information regarding the latest UK economy and public finance figures.

I understand the rationale behind amendment 6. However, given the practicalities of the OBR’s accountability to the Chancellor and its role in producing the official forecasts, we feel that it is better for it to act on its own decision to follow the ONS pre-release guidelines. I will resist both amendments.