Finance (No. 2) Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

As ever, my hon. Friend manages to sum up the Government’s record in a pithy and simple intervention. I had not heard those statistics about the number of people earning more than £20,000, but I shall certainly take a look at the points he makes. We shall perhaps look at those statistics in more detail.

My hon. Friend’s point about living standards is a good one that all Members should intuitively and properly understand. If we do not include everybody in the growth of the economy, if everybody does not have a stake or a share in it, if their consumer capabilities are not stronger, and if we do not tackle the sustainability challenge for growth in the future, we should not be surprised to find that we have an unequal recovery. Britain will only succeed if working people succeed. That is a catchy way of summing that up, and Government Members may well hear it a few more times in the coming weeks, but it is true.

Ultimately, our public finances are not determined in isolation, as though they are frozen in aspic. They cannot simply be dealt with in terms of cuts or changes in revenue: there is a dynamic, strategic set of issues that relate to what is happening in the real economy and the real world. The health of our economy will ultimately determine the health of our public finances. The Prime Minister and others say, “Why are you talking about living standards? Why are you talking about these things? That is not really the economy; it’s not about growth.” Of course it is. Ultimately, these things are related.

The low-wage economy the Chancellor has been heading us towards is a danger to our public finances. We are enduring an epidemic of job insecurity. The number of zero-hours contracts has ballooned by more than 20% in the past year alone. That is a problem for those who cannot plan even for the child care they need for the week ahead, let alone for getting a mortgage. It is also bad because it undermines the tax receipts the Treasury needs to sustain and pay for public services. It means that tax credits need to be higher to subsidise low pay and it is why the social security bill is £25 billion higher than the Chancellor expected.

Those living standards issues come up time and again in surgeries, meetings and encounters that my hon. Friends have with our constituents. Some 900,000 people are using food banks, and some 600,000 people have been hit by the cruelty of the bedroom tax. These issues will come back to haunt Ministers. They have attempted to deal with the deficit by hurting those on the lowest incomes. It has not worked; it has not succeeded; and it is a strategy that will just get worse in the coming years.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I was at a Budget briefing in Dunfermline given by a local accountancy firm, Thomson Cooper, on Friday. It was pointed out that those earning more than £150,000 a year under this Government actually have a lower marginal tax rate than those earning £100,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a really good example of how the Government have got their numbers completely wrong? Those who can afford to pay the most are in fact paying far less.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am, frankly, stunned. I am not entirely sure what is meant to happen in the House of Commons when a Minister is not present. However, I am sure that the Minister would have spoken in favour of the proposals that were introduced in yesterday’s autumn statement—

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As far as I can see, no Minister is present. [Interruption.] I mean that no Treasury Minister is present. Is this normal practice? How can my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) proceed with her speech when there is no Treasury Minister here to respond?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, on the strength of having been in the House for 17 years, that I have from time to time observed quite a lot of things that do not constitute normal practice. Let me also say to him, for the avoidance of doubt, that government is seamless in procedural terms, and any Minister can move the motion on the Order Paper.

Is it commonplace for the Minister who has direct responsibility to be absent at the material moment? It is not, although, in fairness, it having happened now under this Government, I should point out that it did happen on one occasion under the last. It is an irregular state of affairs, but the Minister who should be here will, as I have said, be immensely grateful to the Minister for Pensions, both for his presence and for his quickness of mind and fleetness of foot in taking to the Dispatch Box. I think that we will leave it there for now.

It must be said that this sort of thing is to be deprecated—very strongly deprecated—but it does not happen very often, and I hope that it will not happen again. No doubt words can be had. It is everyone’s responsibility to keep an eye on the Annunciator. The Minister has a duty to be present at the appointed moment, and the appointed moment can be a movable feast. It is the responsibility of the Minister and the Whips to make sure that the Minister is present. He or she was not present, but the Minister for Pensions has helped out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that the hon. Lady would need the leave of the House to proceed in that way, but my strong sense is that the leave of the House would be forthcoming. [Interruption.] I am in receipt of intelligence on this matter—[Interruption.] The Minister is here! I was just about to say he was a minute away. The Minister is with us and we are grateful to the Minister. [Interruption.] Order.

[Thomas Docherty]

Good afternoon!

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Docherty, calm yourself. You are aspiring to be a statesman, but you have got some distance to travel.

If the Minister is content, he can now speak to his motion and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), the shadow Minister, can then respond. I think that will be the most orderly way to proceed. I am trying to give the Minister, who has rushed to the Chamber, a chance to recover his breath. In fairness to the Minister, I should say that he came to see me about these matters the other day, displaying his usual courtesy, which was much appreciated by the Chair, and I know that it is inadvertent on his part that he is late. These things happen. We do not need to dwell on it. The Minister is here, and I thank him for that, and in the hope he has now recovered his breath, I look forward to him opening the debate on his own motion.

Money Creation and Society

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered money creation and society.

The methods of money production in society today are profoundly corrupting in ways that would matter to everyone if they were clearly understood. The essence of this debate is: who should be allowed to create money, how and at whose risk? It is no wonder that it has attracted support from across the political spectrum, although, looking around the Chamber, I think that the Rochester and Strood by-election has perhaps taken its toll. None the less, I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Friends from all political parties, including the hon. Members for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), for their support in securing this debate.

One of the most memorable quotes about money and banking is usually attributed to Henry Ford:

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Let us hope we do not have a revolution, as I feel sure we are all conservatives on that issue.

How is it done? The process is so simple that the mind is repelled. It is this:

“Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”

I have been told many times that this is ridiculous, even by one employee who had previously worked for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the United States. The explanation is taken from the Bank of England article “Money creation in the modern economy”, and it seems to me it is rather hard to dismiss.

Today, while the state maintains a monopoly on the creation of notes and coins in central bank reserves, that monopoly has been diluted to give us a hybrid system because private banks can create claims on money, and those claims are precisely equivalent to notes and coins in their economic function. It is a criminal offence to counterfeit bank notes or coins, but a banking licence is formal permission from the Government to create equivalent money at interest.

There is a wide range of perspectives on whether that is legitimate. The Spanish economist Jesús Huerta de Soto explains in his book “Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles” that it is positively a fraud—a fraud that causes the business cycle. Positive Money, a British campaign group, is campaigning for the complete nationalisation of money production. On the other hand, free banking scholars George Selgin, Kevin Dowd and others would argue that although the state might define money in terms of a commodity such as gold, banking should be conducted under the ordinary commercial law without legal privileges of any kind. They would allow the issue of claims on money proper, backed by other assets—provided that the issuer bore all the risk. Some want the complete denationalisation of money. Cryptocurrencies are now performing the task of showing us that that is possible.

The argument that banks should not be allowed to create money has an honourable history. The Bank Charter Act 1844 was enacted because banks’ issue of notes in excess of gold was causing economic chaos, particularly through reckless lending and imprudent speculation. I am once again reminded that the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s debate. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about learning from history. Does he agree with me that we should look seriously at putting this subject on the curriculum so that young people gain a better understanding of the history of this issue?

[Steve Baker]

That is absolutely right. It would be wonderful if the history curriculum covered the Bank Charter Act 1844. I would be full of joy about that, but we would of course need to cover economics, too, in order for people to really understand the issue. Since the hon. Gentleman raises the subject, there were ideas at the time of that Act that would be considered idiocy today, while some ideas rejected then are now part of the economic mainstream. Sir Robert Peel spent some considerable time emphasising that the definition of a pound was a specific quantity and quality of gold. The notion that anyone could reject that was considered ridiculous. How times change.

One problem with the Bank Charter Act 1844 was that it failed to recognise that bank deposits were functioning as equivalent to notes, so it did not succeed in its aim. There was a massive controversy at the time between the so-called currency school and the banking school. It appeared that the currency school had won; in fact, in practice, the banks went on to create deposits drawn by cheque and the ideas of the banking school went forward. The idea that one school or the other won should be rejected; the truth is that we have ended up with something of a mess.

We are in a debt crisis of historic proportions because for far too long profit-maximising banks have been lending money into existence as debt with too few effective restraints on their conduct and all the risks of doing so forced on the taxpayer by the power of the state. A blend of legal privilege, private interest and political necessity has created, over the centuries, a system that today lawfully promotes the excesses for which capitalism is so frequently condemned. It is undermining faith in the market economy on which we rely not merely for our prosperity, but for our lives.

Thankfully, the institution of money is a human, social institution and it can be changed. It has been changed and I believe it should be changed further. The timing of today’s debate is serendipitous, with the Prime Minister explaining that the warning lights are flashing on the dashboard of the world economy, and it looks like quantitative easing is going to be stepped up in Europe and Japan, just as it is being ramped out in America—and, of course, it has stopped in the UK. If anything, we are not at the end of a great experiment in monetary policy; we are at some mid point of it. The experiment will not be over until all the quantitative easing has been unwound, if it ever is.

We cannot really understand the effect of money production on society without remembering that our society is founded on the division of labour. We have to share the burden of providing for one another, and we must therefore have money as a means of exchange and final payment of debts, and also as a store of value and unit of account. It is through the price system that money allows us to reckon profit and loss, guiding entrepreneurs and investors to allocate resources in the way that best meets the needs of society. That is why every party in the House now accepts the market economy. The question is whether our society is vulnerable to false signals through that price system, and I believe that it is. That is why any flaws in our monetary arrangements feed into the price system and permeate the whole of society. In their own ways, Keynes and Mises—two economists who never particularly agreed with one another—were both able to say that currency debasement was the best way in which to overturn the existing basis of society.

Even before quantitative easing began, we lived in an era of chronic monetary inflation, unprecedented in the industrial age. Between 1991 and 2009, the money supply increased fourfold. It tripled between 1997 and 2010, from £700 billion to £2.2 trillion, and that accelerated into the crisis. It is simply not possible to increase the money supply at such a rate without profound consequences, and they are the consequences that are with us today, but it goes back further. The House of Commons Library and the Office for National Statistics produced a paper tracing consumer price inflation back to 1750. It shows that there was a flat line until about the 20th century, when there was some inflation over the wars, but from 1971 onwards, the value of money collapsed. What had happened? The Bretton Woods agreement had come to an end. The last link to gold had been severed, and that removed one of the most effective restraints on credit expansion. Perhaps in another debate we might consider why.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility should be enhanced to allow it to independently audit the spending and tax commitments in the general election manifestos of the main political parties, and calls for legislative proposals to enable this to be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.

Over the past four years, the Office for Budget Responsibility has become an established part of the framework for British economic policy-making with broad-based and cross-party support. It is vital that the OBR’s impartiality and independence is preserved. That was a point made by Members from all parts of the House when the OBR was established, and it is why there remains a consensus, which is reflected in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, that the OBR should not be drawn into party politics by commenting on the merits of individual policies or examining alternative policy scenarios.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early, but I have just realised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are not here for this debate. Will he perhaps tell the House where they are today?

[Ed Balls]

I believe that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is on a visit to the United States. It may be that the Chancellor is engaged in rather more immediate and urgent matters that have cropped up in the past 24 hours, or it may be that he will arrive in the next few minutes to respond to this debate. I had assumed that the Chancellor would respond to this debate. I do not know whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have had any other guidance. Anyway, let us hope that he turns up.

In the meantime, and fully consistent with that consensus, it is our view that now is the right time to take a further step to enhance the role of the OBR. I will come on to explain our strategy and seek the views of the Chancellor, so he has about 10 minutes to get here.

Fairness and Inequality

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that observation from such a distinguished Member. I do not want to bore the House too much, but I want to give a mention to D.J. Davies, who is my political hero, and who was born in the same industrial valley as me, the Amman valley. In particular, I want to mention his masterpiece, “The Economics of Welsh Self-Government”, published in 1931. In that book, he made the case that the crusade for social justice for working people and the political empowerment for Wales—my country—were intrinsically intertwined. That position continues to be central to the position of my party, and to my personal political beliefs.

The national movements in these isles and the crusade to tackle inequalities in our communities are one and the same. In ignoring the founding principles of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish political traditions—and in its inability to tackle the gaping inequalities that exist in both individual and geographical terms—the Westminster élite is directly undermining the case for a United Kingdom, and furthering the aims of national freedom in Wales and Scotland. I should add that the Irish proclamation of independence contains an explicit commitment to equality.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I am sure that he is absolutely sincere, but I am baffled by his statement that the Scottish nationalists believe in reducing inequality at a time when they want to slash corporation tax for big business. Will he explain how the two fit together?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I do not want to become too involved in the Scottish independence debate. I have colleagues who are better qualified to do that. I will say, however, that the case for the creation of a more equal society is based on the generation of prosperity, and that the job-creating levers resulting from fiscal devolution would clearly allow the Welsh and Scottish Governments to achieve that aim.

In my eyes, the case for the creation of that more equal society is crystal clear, and should be the overriding priority of our politics. Equality improves the well-being of citizens, reduces social tensions, and creates a fairer and more democratic society. Democracy, in its wider sense, is about far more than voting; it is about creating a fully participatory society in which everyone has an opportunity to contribute.

Is it any wonder that voting levels are so disgracefully low? Why would those at the bottom of the pile have any interest in participating in electoral events when the main protagonists have a common vision of preserving the status of the élites that currently rule? The Huffington Post reports today that a generation of Londoners have given up all hope of owning their own homes. I certainly felt like that in my twenties, when I had a relatively well-paid job but house prices were rocketing out of control. I can assure Members that that situation is completely demoralising. It is no wonder that young people in particular feel completely disfranchised: their overriding feeling is that the world is passing them by.

Respected academics and commentators have declared that the UK is the fourth most unequal country in the developed world, and that, given current trends, it could even end up being the most unequal. It is certainly the most unequal in terms of individual and geographical disparity anywhere in the European Union, according to last year’s EUROSTAT figures.

National Infrastructure Plan

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend has played a very important role in scrutinising and making public many of the most appalling features of PFI under the previous regime, and I congratulate him on that work. As he will know, a few months back, we announced the new private finance 2 model, which strips out an awful lot of the things that he is concerned about. We are also engaged in a detailed cost review of PFI projects to try to make sure that, where we can, we reduce cost pressures, as we did successfully with the Romford hospital PFI.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say a little more about what will be the benefits for Scotland as a result of his announcement?

Trident Alternatives Review

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are always outliers in polling—[Interruption.] I reflect on the fact that the Scottish National party is the only majority Government in the United Kingdom, receiving more votes than all of the three UK parties combined on the second vote. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) can laugh, but he represents a party that is the worst-performing centre-right party in the industrialised world. That is how badly it performs in Scotland. Even when his friend Lord Ashcroft polled in Scotland, he found that in principle 48% of Scottish respondents oppose the UK having nuclear weapons.

The Liberal Democrat review would have been worthy, as the former Defence Secretary the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) suggested, if it had taken evidence and spoken with other people—people outside the Ministry of Defence, people outside government. The Lib Dem spokesman could have met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and spoken to its general secretary, Grahame Smith, who said that renewing Trident “will cost Scotland jobs”. We might not all agree with those views, but they are views of important people, and if we are going to have a review that looks into alternatives, surely the relevant people should be spoken to.

Did the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress? No, he did not. Did he meet Unison, whose Scottish general secretary condemned the Government’s decision to replace Britain’s Trident nuclear fleet?

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

No, I want to make some progress.

Did the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey look at the STUC report, published in November 2012, which said:

“Given that Scottish trade unionists appear to strongly support the removal of Trident, the question of the ‘Better Together’ parties is how else can Scotland and the UK be freed of Trident other than through a vote for independence?”

That is the trade union view, but what about other important actors in public life in Scotland?

What about the Churches, for example? What of the views of the Moderator of the General Assembly and of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland? I quote:

“On behalf of the two largest churches in Scotland, from where the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons are currently deployed…This planned renewal of Trident is contrary to international law and opposed by the majority of people in Scotland…Scotland’s churches have a long history of opposition to nuclear weapons. In April 2006 the Catholic Bishops of Scotland called for Trident to be decommissioned rather than renewed, and urged that the money saved should instead be spent on aid and development…In May 2006, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland reiterated its strongly-held view on the immorality of nuclear weapons and called on the Government not to renew Trident, stating that:

‘To replace Trident would represent a further announcement to the world that safety and security can only be achieved by threatening mass destruction; this is to encourage others to believe the same, and thus to hasten proliferation.’”

Apparently, the Liberal Democrat review did not deem it important enough to speak to the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Muslim community in Scotland or other faith leaders, all of whom oppose the renewal of Trident.

We are aware of the view of democratic representatives in Scotland, the view of the voting public, the view of the Churches and the view of the trade unions, so what about the voluntary sector? The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations says:

“Let’s call time on outdated Trident. They are an outdated hang-up from a past that bears little resemblance to the present political climate, yet Trident missiles still remain armed and dangerous in their silos in Faslane.”

Did the review speak to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations? No, it did not. There are real alternatives, and we disagree on what they might be. My alternatives—the ones I prefer—would be to take Scotland’s share of the Trident nuclear missile system and spend it on something that is, frankly, useful. The Scottish taxpayers’ annual contribution is £163 million. That could train nearly 4,000 junior Royal Navy officers, or nearly 2,000 Royal Marine officers. It could train nearly 4,000 nurses, or more than 4,500 teachers. It could build between 13 and 20 single-stream primary schools, or between five or eight secondary schools, or between five and eight community hospitals. The list goes on. Those are real alternatives, but they were not considered in the review.

People need not hear that only from the Scottish National party. This is a rare occurrence, but let me quote from Scotland’s great Labour-supporting newspaper, the Daily Record. Today’s editorial, headed “People do not want Trident”, states that

“the one option not put forward was the one most would prefer—scrapping the weapons… It was left to the SNP and the Greens to give the majority view from Scotland.

Writing for today’s Record, SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson says we should and could scrap Trident.”—(Laughter.)

The irony that is surely lost on the representatives of the three United Kingdom parties in the House is the fact that the strongest Labour-supporting newspaper in Scotland is endorsing the view of the Scottish National party. The editorial ends with the words

“It’s hard to disagree.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I wish to begin by paying a couple of tributes, the first of which is to the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who, despite my disagreements with him on this issue, was a superb Defence Minister. It baffles me why the Deputy Prime Minister sacrificed a Liberal Democrat voice in defence and foreign affairs in order to play some pavement politics for the next general election. I hope to dismantle some of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments in a little while, but it is worth noting that he was a very good Minister.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will not take it as an insult when I say that my hon. Friend has demonstrated again why he is now the House’s leading expert on the importance of the deterrent. All Labour colleagues would acknowledge that he has been a champion at ensuring that Labour Members fully understand the importance of the role his yards play in securing our nation’s future.

The hon. Member for North Devon claimed that the world was safer now than it was during the cold war, but I have absolutely to disagree with him. We are in a multipolar world where there will be emerging powers in the next 40 years, and the certainties we had in the cold war about the Soviet bloc no longer exist. It has been said several times, so I will not labour the point, but we are being asked to try to guess what the situation may be in 30 or 40 years’ time. It is not a criticism of the national security strategy from 2010 that it could not see the Arab spring coming less than 12 months ahead. Can he honestly tell us why he is so confident about the state of the world in 30 or 40 years’ time?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has scuttled off, I suspect to cry somewhere in the corner, has claimed that this is a comprehensive document. I tabled about 35 parliamentary questions to the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this year and was astonished at some of the answers that were revealed. There was no discussion with the United States, at any level, about the role of CASD. The Chief Secretary quoted President Obama at length, but he did not even have the courtesy to approach the United States embassy, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House. There was no discussion with our NATO colleagues. There was no discussion with the French or any other international allies, and there were no discussions with the defence industry, save for cursory visits, I think, to Aldermaston and Barrow. There were no discussions with the local authorities that would be affected, and none with the Defence Secretary, except on one occasion during the two-year process. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not even have a pass for Main Building, which goes to show how little credibility he had. It is worth noting that he was flanked at all times by two heavies from the Ministry of Defence to ensure that he did not stray too far—[Interruption.] I think that they were heavies, albeit in the nicest possible way.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Has my hon. Friend heard the rumour—it might be untrue—that the Chief Secretary was not given access to the UK’s targeting policy?

[Thomas Docherty]

If that were true, I would be absolutely astonished, but then nothing in this review and the work that was carried out by Liberal Democrat Ministers is credible.

The hon. Member for North Devon set out an argument that I have heard before that neither Russia nor China operates a CASD policy. I accept the premise of his argument, but he failed to mention—I am sure that it was inadvertent, not misleading—that both those countries have other platforms, so they maintain a continuous deterrent. We are the only one of the five that operates a single platform, so CASD is a continuous deterrent for us—there is no back-up plan.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman because after spending two and half years telling us why the Astute boat option would be sensible, he has at least had the courage to come to the Chamber and face up to the fact that he called that wrong. He argues that the problem was not a technical issue, but if his defence— pardon the pun—is that this is something that would cost billions and take decades to introduce, how is it not a technical problem?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

It was not a technical problem in the sense that technically it would work; it was a financial and a time issue. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the option is clearly not a runner, but not because it technically would not work.

[Thomas Docherty]

If the hon. Gentleman is not splitting hairs, he is splitting something or other, because if the option would cost billions of pounds and take decades to develop, the problem is technical. Any solution can be reaped with sufficient money and time.

The hon. Gentleman talked about how money could be circulated back into the MOD programme. We heard from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that the debate ends up being about things such as nurses and welfare, but the idea that the 4% lifetime cost savings as a result of having three boats would somehow be pumped back into the MOD’s conventional programme is not credible. The hon. Member for North Devon talked about how we could solve the challenges on the wider equipment programme, but we will have to do more with allies, whether on the joint strike fighter, interoperability or the remotely piloted air system. Work such as that started by the former Defence Secretary under the Lancaster House agreement is the way forward.

I noticed that the clock froze for two or three minutes while the hon. Member for Moray was speaking, but having listened to his speech, I felt that his argument had been frozen for 25 years. I was conscious that he did not want to use up his time by taking my intervention, so let me say that although he talked about the trade unions that could have been consulted, he could have spoken to the trade unions I met with my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). If he spoke to trade union leaders at Faslane—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) is in the Chamber but, surprisingly, he has not indicated that he wishes to speak—they would say that their future depends on this. I am sure that it was an oversight that the hon. Member for Moray did not suggest that those trade union leaders should have been consulted.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who I notice has not shown the usual courtesy by staying to hear the following two speeches before leaving the Chamber, made the rather bizarre claim that CASD could be guaranteed only by having a Conservative Government. If he was here, I would remind him that it was his Conservative Government who signed up to this review in the first place. I think that they need to hang their heads in shame for wasting taxpayers’ money and civil servants’ time—they have not wasted Defence Ministers’ time, because apparently they were not asked for their views—and there is absolutely no guarantee that they would not have a fudge at the next general election. The only way to guarantee a future for Barrow and for the Clyde is to send a clear message at the next general election by voting for my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and other hon. Friends.

[Mr Reid]

Labour Members have stated a few times that Labour might go down to three boats, so what would the hon. Gentleman say to workers about the jobs that would be lost as a result?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has reiterated the point made by my party leader and the shadow Defence Secretary: we will maintain a continuous-at-sea deterrent. That is the exact policy adopted by the Defence Secretary. The only way we would not have a four-boat solution is if the technology moves on, which of course would completely change the configuration and the industrial strategy. I must say that the hon. Gentleman’s question was a classic Liberal Democrat last-minute jump-up. When he speaks, as I am sure he intends to, he can set out his argument. The reality is that the two-boat solution that he and his party support would devastate the community in Faslane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to shift the terms of the debate. I do not want to pursue the fallacy of an independent deterrent, although let us be very clear that it is a fallacy: our so-called nuclear deterrent is not independent—we would need agreement from the US to do almost anything with it—and there is not very much evidence that it is a deterrent, either.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to make some progress.

Rather than pursuing that particular argument, I want to argue that it is now time to shift the emphasis of the defence debate and that the best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to solve global threats such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking of weapons and drugs, and the poverty and desperation that fuel conflict, hunger and violence around the world.

That is why it is deeply worrying and, indeed, the height of irresponsibility that both the 2010 strategic defence and security review and this review of an alternative to Trident have not explored the full range of options. The Prime Minister trumpeted the review as “neutral” and “factual”, but I would argue that it is biased and empty of essential facts. That means that there is a risk that any parliamentary votes taken in 2016 will be ill-informed and hung up on a cold war era that has long gone.

The decision that should be taken is one based on what would genuinely contribute most to the security of the British people. There is a real argument that says that by not replacing Trident we could improve national security and allow the Ministry of Defence to spend the more than £100 billion saved over the lifetime of any successor nuclear weapon system on an appropriate response to the real security threats and challenges of the 21st century. The 2010 national security strategy identified these as organised crime, cyber-warfare, pandemics and, of course, climate change. Scientists, former US Presidents and, indeed, former UK Prime Ministers, among others, have all agreed that climate change is in fact the greatest threat facing humankind, and every pound spent on Trident is a pound not spent on more appropriate responses to the real dangers linked to climate change.

If that is the case, let us explore how that money could have been better spent. The £80 billion to £100 billion price tag for Trident could have been spent on energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy, all of which represent an investment in a positive future and the opportunity to be world leaders in an area of rapidly advancing technology, as opposed to a cold war past. Just £16 billion would insulate the 16 million homes in Britain that are currently uninsulated, saving 4% of UK carbon emissions and helping to prevent 20,000 annual cold-related deaths, and £30 billion would provide 3,500 offshore turbines, supplying 15% of UK electricity use. Crucially, positive investment in a greener future would make us more secure by reducing the impacts of climate change and ending our dependence on foreign oil—a key root cause of global terrorism.

The national security strategy also highlights the ongoing need to tackle terrorism, but as Tony Blair himself said in October 2005:

“I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 841.]

A group of senior military officers, including the former head of the armed forces, Field Marshall Lord Bramall, reached much the same conclusion in a letter to The Times in 2009:

“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of the violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism.”

As one commentator has recently put it,

“confronting the threats of today with nuclear weapons is as archaic as attempting to fight tanks with a blade attached to the barrel of a rifle would have been 70 years ago.”

The bottom line is that the UK does not need Trident; nor can we afford it. An independent and strategic assessment of risk does not justify spending tens of billions of pounds on Trident when we have, for example, troops on the front line who are not getting the equipment they need. Alternatively, and in this time of austerity, we might also question whether or not the initial estimated £25 billion could pay instead for 60,000 newly qualified nurses or 60,000 new secondary school teachers for the next 10 years. That is why I say that to use the amount of money suggested on a project that will make Britain and the world less, not more, safe is politically irresponsible, morally bankrupt and economically obscene.

Moreover, this Government, like the last, have committed themselves under the non-proliferation treaty to

“make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.”

The UK committed to multilateral disarmament when it signed the NPT in 1968 and agreed to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons. So far, Britain has not played a particularly constructive role in that process.

Margaret Thatcher Day Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

You cannot object; I am within the time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the support of my Whips in this—

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Government Whips if they were to read “Erskine May” to see how the process works.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but it might have been helpful if they had struggled a little longer to get through the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

This had better be a serious point of order, Mr Docherty, because we are interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s speech for the third time. Are you serious or are you not?

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend can go first.

[Mr Bone]

This was a politician with such courage and conviction—

Air Passenger Duty

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that have been made so eloquently by several hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) about the impact on Scotland and the wider aviation industry. Like colleagues on both sides of the House, I have had hundreds of e-mails on this subject, and I am delighted that it would appear that the Treasury is beginning to take heed of the arguments.

The issue that I wish to raise is one with which you are familiar, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was first raised with me at last year’s Commonwealth parliamentary conference by many of our colleagues from elsewhere in the Commonwealth, especially the Caribbean. You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the excellent work that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) has been doing as the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to highlight to the Treasury the damaging impact that the current APD rules have on the Caribbean.

It is worth noting that some Caribbean countries, particularly our overseas territories, have not yet moved to a fully mature local economy, and in some the percentage of gross domestic product coming from tourism is astounding. In Antigua, it is 75%; in Anguilla, one of our overseas territories, it is 65%; and in the British Virgin Islands—I am the chair of that APPG—is 58%. The way in which APD is structured has a negative impact on those Caribbean countries, because their rather larger neighbour, the United States, is classed as single zone for travel, so regardless of whether someone is going to Washington DC or Honolulu they pay the same rate of APD. That has a significant impact on the Caribbean’s ability to compete. Of course, it is not just about tourism or business going from the UK to the Caribbean. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) tells me that she has a vast number of constituents originally from Anguilla and that for those who wish to travel home to see relatives, loved-ones and friends the cost is prohibitive.

The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden has previously made representations to the Treasury about this matter, and the Economic Secretary, whom I welcome to his place, will be familiar with the representations made earlier this year by the Caribbean Council of Ministers. I would be grateful, however, if he could indicate whether in the near future he would be prepared to meet a cross-party delegation of Members with an interest in the Caribbean, led by me and the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden—I am sure that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and others would be keen to take part too—to discuss the impact of APD on the Caribbean, particularly the overseas territories. I would also be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether the Treasury plans to meet the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the Caribbean overseas territories affected when the overseas territories council meeting, which the Foreign Office holds every year, takes place in December.

Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this excellent debate. Almost every Member has been thoughtful and added something to the debate, and I look forward to hearing further contributions from other colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention. I was just going on to talk about the effects not only on families, which is often devastating, but on commercial organisations, and not just those in this country, but, to continue with an earlier example, in the Caribbean as well. I got to meet the Caribbean Tourism Organisation and Ministers from Caribbean countries—sadly, it was here rather than there, but there it is. We share a long historical tradition and we have not just family and cultural ties, but economic ties with the Caribbean. There was and still is a strong feeling that this country was letting the Caribbean down. It came up in many debates under the last Government, particularly during the passage of what became the Finance Act 2009. I found myself in the unusual and uncomfortable position of agreeing with the then Opposition Front-Bench team more than my own. I went to see the then Chancellor with a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who took a strong stand on this issue. When we debated the Finance Bill, I was perplexed that the then Opposition did not push the issue to a vote, as I thought they might have won. I was a little suspicious about why they did not press it then.

Let me remind the present Government Front Benchers what their equivalent numbers were saying at the time, as it bears repetition. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who was a shadow Transport Minister, gave an interview to The Daily Telegraph in late 2009. He said that his party supported

“a per plane tax rather than the existing one based on passengers”

and that

“whatever tax is employed if the Conservative Party wins the next General Election, the ‘absurd capital cities rule’ of APD banding would be abolished.”

On 15 April 2010—some three weeks before the election—the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) gave a fuller interview to the Travel Trade Gazette, in which he outlined details of the plans for the first time. He said that the Conservative Government

“would scrap the much criticised system of distance bands, which have led to people travelling to the Caribbean paying more than those to the west coast of the US, which is further from Britain. A replacement system possibly using more bands and based on actual distance rather than distance between capital cities…would be introduced.”

He said:

“the reform would change APD to tax aircraft rather than passengers, apply to transfer passengers who are now exempt, and charge a lower rate for newer, more fuel efficient aircraft.”

Finally, he said the aim of the reform was to

“properly tax the environmental impact of aviation, not raise more revenue.”

Let us have a look at how many of those promises, made just three weeks before polling day, have been kept. Those same promises appeared in the manifestos of both coalition parties and in the coalition agreement. We are perhaps used to over-promising, particularly from this Government, but this is over-promising on a tuition fees scale. What happened as a consequence? We had the review during the Government’s moratorium on an increase, but after a year of engagement with the industry, the Government decided not to change the tax’s banding structure in regard to different classes of flights or in respect of the application of APD to the regions. The Government’s only proposed reform was to extend APD to business aviation from 1 April 2013. That may be welcome, but it will raise only about £5 million a year, without addressing the central issue that all hon. Members who have spoken today would, I think, wish to see addressed. The dismay that this has caused to those who lobbied so hard and were promised so much is very clear from a press release put out at the time the consultation was published by the Caribbean Tourism Organisation. It said:

“Today’s announcement on the APD is a slap in the face for all Caribbean people. It dismisses all of the research and information CTO has provided to the British Government over the past three years, and it contradicts the message sent by the UK Chancellor…in March 2011 when he cited the discrepancy between the USA and Caribbean APD rates as one of the reasons for holding a consultation on reform of UK APD. The Caribbean is the most tourism-dependent region of the world and the British Government’s decision totally ignores the negative effect that APD is having on our economies and the Caribbean’s business partners in the…travel industry.”

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is presenting a compelling argument. He may be interested to know that in the last three years the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union has seen a 20% drop in the number of people travelling to the area.

[Mr Slaughter]

That is a good point.

The fair tax on flying campaign was organised very efficiently, but I do not think that the 200,000 UK residents and about half that number of people living abroad who have written to the Chancellor, either via their Members of Parliament or directly, have been treated terribly well. I have received letters from more than 500 constituents, and I note that the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) has received 1,281. Perhaps there is some justice, as that is only 10 shy of the highest number received by any MP.

I have seen the standard replies sent by the Treasury and by Conservative MPs, and I am dismayed by them. They are positively insulting to the people who wrote those letters. They do not deal with the issues at all; they simply mention that VAT is not charged on domestic flights, which is almost entirely irrelevant when long-haul flights are the issue, and that the business jet loophole will be closed, which, as I have already explained, goes nowhere near dealing with the problem. I feel that my constituents and those of many others have been treated with contempt. They have been betrayed by the Government’s broken promises, and they have received a wholly inadequate response to the campaign that they mounted.

The demands made in the motion are very modest, and an economic case has also been presented. I urge the Minister to accept the proposals in the motion, and I urge the House to vote for it in the event of a Division. I hope that there will be a review which, unlike the consultation that has taken place so far, will enable us to address the real problems that air passenger duty is causing, not only for my constituents—and not only for the poorer constituents mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden—but for the economy of this country, and the economies of many regions with which we trade.

Beer Duty Escalator

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the choice that young people are making, Dunfermline Round Table recently held a beer festival that raised more than £20,000 for local good causes and charities, and I assure him that very many young people came along to support that event and had a very good evening drinking beer.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for making that important point—I agree that the pub offers a safe environment particularly for young people to be introduced to alcohol—but for the work that he has done on behalf of the all-party beer group, as have other colleagues in the Chamber, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who, with the all-party save the pub group, has done such a lot to champion our pub industry.