Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker. I agree with Mario Draghi that a reduction in openness would be very bad for the economy of Selsey Bill, and my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. I entirely agree that the best way for the Government to protect the UK’s economy is to argue for the most open possible trading relationship with the European Union after we leave.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The coastal communities of Cumbria were deeply affected by Storm Desmond last December. The River Kent, which meets the sea at Morecambe bay, is one of Britain’s fastest-flowing and shortest rivers, and when it flooded last December, untold damage was caused to communities and the economy throughout the county. In last week’s autumn statement, the Government went back on their word from last December to fund the resilience of bridges to help prevent future flooding. Will the Chancellor apologise to the flood-hit communities of Cumbria for that betrayal, and, even at this late stage, will he change his mind?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am going to come on to speak about the disability benefits and our way forward, but I have made it very clear—I have just said it—that where we have made a mistake, where we have got things wrong, we listen and we learn. That is precisely what we have done. Where is the apology from the Labour party for the things that they got wrong? Why don’t they take a leaf out of that book? Why don’t they get up and apologise for the countless decisions that added to the deficit—that bankrupted our country?

The progress we have made on social justice did not happen by accident. It happened because we in this Government set out to turn our economy around, to control spending, to back business and, yes, to reform welfare.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[Mr Osborne]

I will give way in a moment to my former partner in the coalition Government that undertook many of these welfare reforms. The reform has meant difficult decisions to strengthen the incentives to find work and the sanctions for not doing so; to make sure that every hour extra that people work is rewarded, instead of seeing them trapped in dependency; and to cap benefit payments so that our welfare system is fair both to those who need it and to those who pay for it. It has not been easy, and it has often been opposed, but the truth is that many of the acts of progressive social change that we seek to achieve in government are difficult and they are opposed. In any democracy, you have to fight to make lasting improvements in society, and that is what we have done.

[Tim Farron]

I thank the Chancellor for giving way, and I want to associate myself with the remarks that he made earlier about the appalling situation in Brussels.

Does the Chancellor agree with me that the one thing that is more dangerous for our economy than his remaining Chancellor is that we might leave the European Union; and does he agree that his being called out by his former colleague as acting not in the economic interests of the country, but in a short-term political way, introduces a risk that the referendum will be a referendum on him, not on the future of our role in Europe? Will he act in the national interest and resign?

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind Members that interventions should be brief? We want to hear from both Front Benchers, and I want to hear from dozens of Back Benchers. I repeat that interventions should be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

We supported the welfare cap. I find it ironic that that point is being made on behalf of a Government who are not meeting their own welfare cap. They are breaching it and then moving it up. They are moving the goalposts again.

Let us be clear that the £4.4 billion black hole in the Chancellor’s Budget means either further cuts in departmental budgets and to benefits, or stealth taxes. No solution has been announced today. We are told that all this will be resolved by the autumn. Between now and then, no public sector job, benefit or service will be safe.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Chancellor has a £4.4 billion black hole that needs to be filled by cuts to public services or by stealth taxes, but that is in existence only because the Chancellor has set himself a false target. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real problem at the heart of the Chancellor’s credibility is the fiscal charter?

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and I will come back to that point in due course. I realise we are under pressure of time, Mr Speaker, so I will try to be as brief as I can.

The Chancellor’s political manoeuvring has real consequences. The drama over Budget week has clouded a further astounding revelation about his behaviour. His former Government colleague David Laws revealed at the weekend that the Chancellor pressurised senior officials to reduce their estimates of the funding needed to maintain the NHS. We discovered that the Chancellor had forced through a cut of almost half the funding—this was independently assessed—needed by the NHS. The result is that the NHS and hospital trusts around the country cannot plan. They are facing a crisis: waiting times are rising, staff are under intense pressure and morale is at rock bottom. At the start of the year, the NHS recorded its worst ever performance as services struggled to cope with demand. It is now facing its biggest funding crisis for a generation and that is putting patient care at risk.

Budget Changes

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been strong support from small businesses for the contents of this Budget. This is a Government who are backing small businesses and ensuring that they can provide the growth and employment opportunities that the British people need.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I regret the chaos that one tends to get with these unstable single-party Governments, but not half as much as I regret the failure of the Chancellor to be here to answer for himself. His Budget will leave the richest 10% of people £260 better off, and, until he was found out this weekend, that was going to be paid for by punishing the disabled. Does not all that conjuring just show that the Chancellor’s choices are driven by cynical politics, and not by economic necessity? Should not the fiscal charter, which is now utterly discredited, be scrapped?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me point out to the House that 28% of income tax was paid by 1% of taxpayers in 2013-14. Under the policies that we are pursuing, the highest earning 20% will now be paying more than half of all tax revenues. That would not have happened had we stuck with the tax system that we inherited in 2010.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

My party—the Liberal Democrats, or those of us who are left—still feels very proud of the part it played in getting this country this far. The Chancellor said he wanted to abolish the Liberal Democrats, and given that he has failed to meet every other Budget target, that is the best news I have heard in months. In his more generous moments—I am sure he has some—he will acknowledge that Britain is in a stronger economic position today because of the choices we made.

Britain is now at a crossroads. The structural deficit will be gone next year, so the Chancellor is choosing to make unnecessary cuts to meet an unnecessary target. It is his choice to remove support from people with disabilities. It is his choice to cut universal credit. It is his choice to stand by as child poverty increases. The Liberal Democrats got this country to the crossroads, with the Government now, but the Chancellor has chosen the path into the mire.

An awful lot of what the Chancellor said today we have heard before: big promises from the Dispatch Box that are never met—less long-term plan, more short-term scam. This is a microwave Budget reheated again. We have transport projects delayed and abandoned, and housing projects stalled and unfunded.

Not only are flood-hit communities such as mine left desperately holding out their hands for urgent support, but the Chancellor is asking flood victims to pay, through their premiums, for the defences he should have built in the first place. Actions speak louder than words.

The cost to Cumbria of the infrastructure destruction from the floods in December is £500 million—the Government have given £2 million. The main road that connects the whole Lake District is still closed. Never mind that it costs small businesses and big businesses across the Lake District £1 million every day the A591 is shut—this Government care little about the north. They will make grand announcements, but they will achieve nothing.

Not a penny of the £125 million in EU solidarity funding the Government were dragged kicking and screaming to apply for has been dedicated today to the north or to any of the communities that are reeling and recovering from the floods that hit us in December. There has been no mention at all of fully funding any of the flood relief projects mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech.

The Chancellor says that this is a Budget to help young people. He says he wants to increase the length of the school day, but what good is a longer school day when there is no one at the front to teach? Those of us who do not have tens of thousands of pounds to send our children to private schools have more sympathy for those working in the state sector—more sympathy for the teachers who teach our children. I do not want my children’s teachers to be put under ever greater pressure. I want more teachers. I want them to be paid a fair wage. I want them to have the time and the space to create, to inspire and to teach. If the Chancellor wants schools to lengthen the school day, he must give teachers the money they need to do that properly.

This is a repeat of the seven-day-a-week NHS. What the Health Secretary is doing to junior doctors, the Chancellor now wants to do to teachers—teachers who are underpaid, overworked and undervalued by the Government. Every school knows that there is a massive recruitment and retention crisis, which is absolutely and totally ignored by the Chancellor.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

As a former teacher, I agree very much with what my hon. Friend says. How will the drive towards academies enhance teacher confidence and, indeed, standards in schools?

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, based on real, first-hand experience. We know that the drive to compulsorily move all schools to academies is about centralisation, not localisation; it is about rearranging the deckchairs, making life harder for headteachers and teachers, and listening to special advisers, rather than teachers. It is hugely damaging for our educational system and our children.

The fundamental problem in schools across the country at the moment is the recruitment and retention crisis, and the Government are today choosing to put teachers under extra pressure. Instead, the Chancellor should pay our teachers more.

Perhaps the Chancellor knows young people who have the ability to save £4,000 a year, but I do not, so let me enlighten him: the lack of an ISA scheme is not the reason young people are not saving; it is the debt and soaring house prices that he is heaping on them.

This Chancellor’s ambition is not to devolve power but to devolve debt. His decision on business rates is a good one for business and one that we have been calling for, but he refuses to pay for the devolution of business rates, and that will be disastrous for the communities in which these businesses are located. He is moving his tough decisions on to local government. Social care, local transport and rubbish collections will all be under much greater threat. With his changes to public sector pensions, our schools and hospitals face a further bill of £2 billion. That is a stealth tax on education and health—not a headline for the Chancellor but a massive headache for headteachers, doctors, and nurses.

This is the Chancellor’s sweet and sour Budget. He makes bold claims that never materialise, masking real pain. There is no serious immediate investment in transport, broadband, housing or green energy, just far-off plans that exist only on a Whitehall spreadsheet—plans written by political advisers no doubt high-fiving each other in the boardroom over grand announcements that will never actually materialise, ignorant of their impact on real people.

The Chancellor talks about fixing the roof when the sun is shining. There are 0% interest rates. The sun is shining yet he chooses to knock holes in the roof. This would be the moment to be ambitious and to invest in the infrastructure for the long-term economic future of our country. On the one side, we have a Government choosing to attack the very fabric of our communities, and sadly, on the other, an Opposition too focused on themselves to be able to stand up for the real people in this country. We owe our constituents, and we owe Britain, better than this. It is time that we had a Government who showed a little more respect to the people in this country who care for us, who teach our children, and who keep us safe. Britain deserves better.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

UK Film Investment (Tax Relief)

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that this policy was a success and that one can visibly judge the tangible uplift in small film producing in Britain during the period that the tax relief existed. I think that the then Chancellor was right in March 2004 when he observed—this is widely recognised—that a minority of partnerships were abusing the tax relief, but they were a minority. This is the point: it is completely inexplicable and totally unacceptable that 10 years later, HMRC is treating the whole lot of them as though they were crooks, and when the Prime Minister gets up to respond at Prime Minister’s questions, he has in his folder a brief that says that all those involved were involved in abuse, and that they knew at the time that they were engaged in it. That is completely different from the experience of the Movision partners to whom I have talked and of my own constituent on whose behalf I have taken an interest in the subject.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the important thing is to consider the future of the film industry and particularly the young people who are involved in it? Whatever is the case, it is certainly not the fault of young people looking for a future in the film industry. I spoke to a young man—a Kendal college film student—called Emilio Methven on Friday. He did a survey of his fellow students over the weekend, and they want investment in the film industry going forward and more apprenticeships. They want the UK Government to demonstrate that in backing the UK film industry, they are going to back UK film students. They do not want a sense of there being a retrospective potential attack on the film industry that makes their future much harder to establish.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes a series of very good points. These small films are something that Britain is good at. We have an international reputation in it and the developing creative industries in this country are something that we should celebrate, and yet investment in film is an inherently precarious thing to do. If it had not been, it would not have been necessary to contemplate these sorts of tax reliefs in the first place. The reality is that this scheme was almost too much of a success. It ended up costing more in tax reliefs than had been anticipated at the outset. However, as my hon. Friend says, young people up and down the country are engaged as students and as workers in the early stages of careers in the creative industries, and it would be a very backward step if the UK Government, the Treasury and HMRC were seen to be having a crusade against this industry at the very time when we should be encouraging it further and trying to ensure that more jobs are created in this area in years to come.

Anyone who has looked at this matter will understand that a minority of those involved had, arguably, been seeking to avoid tax rather than to invest in film. There are companies—for example, Icebreaker and Eclipse 35—that have been ruled to have abused the reliefs. Rulings have been made and money has been clawed back. However, I believe that the majority, including Movision, acted in good faith, and they are now being tarred with the same brush in the eyes of HMRC, which is refusing to give them the reliefs and challenging the availability of them to those that claimed them.

HMRC’s current position is that all compliant Movision partners who entered into investment in terms of their tax returns are under inquiry for all years ending from 5 April 2003 onwards. Hon. Members will be aware of how rarely retrospective legislation is passed, yet in effect that is what HMRC is doing by applying regulations in such a way that they are having a retrospective impact on these genuine film partnerships, as they were formed and invested in before 2007, and the abolition of section 42 and 48 relief. However, the sticking point is that HMRC will not engage with the partnerships either to discuss the rationale behind its position or to engage in any meaningful settlement talks. Many of its actions could even be viewed as obstructive. HMRC’s inquiries into Movision have been going on for 10 years—since 2004. When HMRC asked Movision how it incurred 100% production expenditure on films, Movision responded in detail on 11 December 2006. HMRC did not respond to that until June 2013—more than six years later. That is completely unacceptable.

It subsequently transpired that HMRC had had a resolution discussion embargo in place from 2010 to 2013, but had chosen not to inform anyone about that; none of the partnerships was aware of it. Why was that? What was the purpose of the embargo? What benefit did it afford to HMRC or the taxpayer?

In 2013, HMRC trialled an alternative dispute resolution and found it to be successful. Following that, it offered a 55% settlement to all partners. Many phoned back and at first were told that HMRC would get back to them after 10 days. Those who phoned later were told six weeks and then two months, and those who rang after that were told that the settlement team had been disbanded—with no explanation.

Movision has made two settlement offers to HMRC: one for £2.4 million and another for £3.95 million. It was told by HMRC that its offers were unsatisfactory, but not why, which obviously makes it very difficult for it to negotiate. The latest development, in the last fortnight, is that HMRC has issued a new embargo on discussions with film partnerships if the partnership has investment in films via anything similar to sale and leaseback. Sale and leaseback is a perfectly conventional method of generating financing whereby the owner of an asset sells the asset but then leases the asset back from the inquirer, thus freeing up some capital. It is commonly used in financing films, and HMRC recognises it in its own business manuals. It is unclear why the embargo has been issued, but it will certainly delay even further any meaningful discussions.

As I said at the outset, there remains a misapprehension about film tax relief. I fully understand the importance and, indeed, the necessity of putting a stop to tax avoidance. That is more pressing than ever in the current financial climate. It is clear that a light needs to be shone on these partnerships. HMRC needs to take immediate steps to identify those who were genuine investors as opposed to those who cynically abused the tax system. The Treasury must be clear that film partnerships that applied the correct legal procedures before 2007 are and remain eligible for the tax reliefs that they were promised by Her Majesty’s Government. With 65,000 cases of tax avoidance identified and a record 27,000 tax disputes waiting to be heard at tribunal, it seems clear that HMRC should be either prosecuting or moving towards a settlement with partnerships.

As I said, for the 500 partners involved in the Movision scheme, the average individual subscription was just £50,000. We are not talking about the super-rich; we are not talking about pop stars and footballers, who are advised on how to seek opportunities for aggressive tax avoidance. With every year that passes, the impact on some of the partners, with the HMRC sword of Damocles hanging over them, will worsen. Many have already become ill, suffering nervous breakdowns and stress-induced illnesses, and have seen marriages and businesses fail. That is a very high price to pay for responding to the call of “Cool Britannia”. Furthermore, it will no doubt make investors less likely to make use of current tax reliefs to invest in industries that the Government want to grow, of the sort that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) suggested, and let us not forget that that is how this whole business started.

HMRC should stop prevaricating and engage with the film partnerships to resolve the inquiries. That should include the aim of either settling or prosecuting within two years, because this has already gone on long enough. I hope that the Minister will consider the steps needed to bring clarity out of the current chaos and rectify unfairness caused to genuine partnerships and investors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Housing starts are now at their highest since 2007, and we have seen an increase in housing starts and planning permissions this year. I was with the hon. Gentleman in his constituency just the other day, talking about what we could do to get more housing going in his part of London on a brownfield site that he knows has been left derelict for many years. He was working very co-operatively with me then, but perhaps the Chamber of the House of Commons brings out a more adversarial encounter.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to say that meeting demand with supply is absolutely critical. Given that meeting that demand means 3 million new homes over the next 10 years and that the private sector built only 180,000 houses a year, at best, during the height of the housing boom in the 1990s, does he agree that public investment is needed in social rented housing, in the private sector and in the public sector, if we are to meet the 3 million target?

[Mr Osborne]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. We need to ensure that planning is reformed, and we have done that. It was a controversial decision, but as a Government we have pushed that through, and planning permissions are up. We need to create incentives for the private sector to build homes, and Help to Buy has done that. But we also need to go on building social housing, and as he well knows, the coalition Government are delivering the largest programme of social housing for a generation.

Tourism (VAT)

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Other countries in the EU, including Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, have much more competitive rates. In France, for example, there is a banking agreement between the Government and the industry. Such measures help to attract visitors and ensure that the money they spend is invested in the local economy.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this incredibly important debate. She mentioned the possibility that a VAT rate reduction for the tourism industry would lead to increased job creation. Would she recognise that many people in the tourism industry—particularly in places such as my constituency, the Lake district, and the Yorkshire dales—are desperate not only to create more jobs but to ensure that jobs are better paid and that a living wage can be paid to people working in the tourism industry? Does she acknowledge that a cut to a fairer level of VAT would help to make tourism a more high-wage industry?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with him. Many jobs in the tourism sector are quite low paid, but if there was a level playing field in taxation rates, that would afford the opportunity for employers to pay better rates. It would also ensure that people have confidence and trust, and would allow them to do a better job in promoting their local areas.

I would like to make a little progress. Will the Minister robustly consider the case for a reduction in VAT on hotel accommodation and visitor attractions from 20% to 5%? Would he also consider broadening that out in future to the wider hospitality sector, including to food served in pubs and restaurants? That would encourage many more foreign visitors and provide an incentive for staycations in the domestic market. It would boost coastal resorts, rural retreats and cities and towns that have been hit hard by the economic downturn since 2008.

The industry is significantly constrained by its lack of price competitiveness. The Chancellor is not long back from Davos. While there, he may have learned that the World Economic Forum places the UK in 138th place for price competitiveness for tourism, out of 140 countries. The UK sits at the bottom of the international league table, with businesses facing the challenge of the highest rates in the world for VAT, air passenger duty and visa charges. The purpose of today’s debate is not to rehearse the arguments on issues such as air passenger duty, but that placing shows that the Government’s lack of action on VAT forms part of a broader lethargy when it comes to supporting the tourism industry.

The Government say that visitor numbers remain strong, but I would suggest that that is in spite of the current pricing policy, rather than because of it. The UK’s balance of payments for tourist products has declined steeply in the past 15 years, making it clear that tourism growth has not been what it could have been in recent years, and that we are not maximising the industry’s enormous potential to deliver revenue and jobs. I would argue that the blame for that lies with the policy regime, which is holding back the industry’s potential. Any argument from the Government based on the cost of a VAT cut being prohibitive is highly dubious.

There is strong evidence from the Treasury’s own economic modelling, as used by Professor Adam Blake in a study for the British Hospitality Association, that a VAT cut for the sector would benefit the whole economy. Yes, there might be a loss of some £640 million in the first year, but that would be comfortably offset by years 2 and 3 of the programme. Figures show that a 15% cut in tourism VAT would quickly become revenue-neutral and would result in a radically increased tax take of £2.6 billion over 10 years, delivering a £4 billion boost to the gross domestic product. I repeat: those figures do not come from the industry or lobbying consultants. They are derived from the Treasury’s own internal economic models.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Cumbria’s health service is under immense pressure because of PFI deals going back a decade and more. What can the Chancellor do to go toe-to-toe with the private sector to renegotiate existing PFI deals to ensure that more money goes to front-line health services?

[Mr Osborne]

We are seeking to renegotiate existing contracts to get better value for money for taxpayers and local communities. I have a figure here showing that in north Cumbria the public were being charged £466 to replace a light fitting under the PFI contract that was signed. That is completely unacceptable—it is people being ripped off. That is what we are seeking to end.

Fuel Prices

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

Let me carry on for a moment.

Big oil firms should not hide behind currency fluctuations. Statistics from the UK Petroleum Industry Association, which is funded by the major oil companies, show that in early 2010 the price of crude oil fell steadily, and yet retail fuel prices stayed high for months. Why was that? Ultimately, the only way to resolve this is through open-book accounting. If the big oil companies want to prove their innocence, why do not they volunteer to publish the financial data?

I want to turn to the financial impacts. Since 2008, our consumption of diesel and petrol has declined, and the Government forecast that it will continue to plummet next year.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

I give way to the president of the Liberal Democrats.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend is being unfathomably but characteristically generous with his time. He says that consumption has gone down. Does he agree that consumption in rural areas has probably gone down as far as it is going to? Demand for petrol is so inelastic because people have only one way of getting to work, and that is by driving, even if they are on the minimum wage. This is now no longer an issue of environmental concern—it is about social justice.

[Robert Halfon]

I am pleased to say that I was also in the constituency of my hon. Friend for my holidays; it is such a wonderful part of the world. There is absolutely no doubt that fuel prices are threatening rural communities and preventing people from meeting and gathering together. Petrol is now so astronomically expensive that it is driving people off the roads and costing the Exchequer money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I said to the hon. Member for Ealing North, we are carefully considering the request. I am clear that security comes first. Of course the Treasury has to apply due diligence to any request from a Department or devolved authority, but she should take it from me that we put security first.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Our mountain rescue teams are staffed by outstanding volunteers doing professional work, but outrageously they have to pay VAT and vehicle excise duty on life-saving equipment. Is it not time that this Government put an end to this and refunded that VAT?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is quite right to celebrate the work of the mountain rescue teams. Of course they face additional equipment costs, and that is why we allocated funds in the spending review to help to support mountain rescue teams with those costs. The Department concerned, the Department for Transport, will make an announcement on this in due course.