Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a champion of bringing businesses to Carlisle. I have made a number of visits with him to Carlisle businesses, including a sawmill and construction sites that are providing new homes for people there. He is right that none of those things is possible—people do not build houses and businesses do not expand—if there is no economic security and no confidence in the long-term plan of the Government. We have been able to provide a new enterprise zone for Carlisle, and buried in the detail of the document there is extra support for air routes from Carlisle as well.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I ask the Chancellor to answer this question without any bluster about oil and fiscal frameworks. In fact, I ask for a one-word answer. In real terms, over the course of this Parliament, will the Scottish revenue grant suffer a Tory cut?

[Mr Osborne]

The block grant is going up, and there is a big increase in the capital budget. If the SNP had had its way and Scotland had become independent, there would have been savage cuts, because the OBR has just confirmed a massive fall in oil revenue income, which would have devastated Scotland. Thankfully, Scotland is part of a strong United Kingdom.

The Economy

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a serious issue, and I hope that, as one of the more moderate and sensible members of his party, he will be able to convince those on the Labour Front Bench that this is an important issue to tackle.

The Opposition motion also mentions tax credits.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Minister mentioned the fall in unemployment, but is there not a paradox? We are considering closing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices and reducing the number of people who work for it, when its official figures show a £34 billion tax gap. If we collected that money, it would go a long way towards eating into the deficit. If we then scrapped Trident and the other place we would be nearly there, and we would not need to make cuts.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I would listen more to the advice of the SNP on the economy if it had not projected that the oil price would remain at over $100 forever and fought last year’s referendum on that basis.

Various hon. Members have mentioned tax credits. The British people want to see a lower welfare, lower tax and higher wage economy, and that is what they voted for in May. In the summer Budget, we set out a package of reforms for working people, which included the introduction of the new national living wage, continued increases in the personal allowance and the doubling of free childcare worth up to £5,000 a year for working parents. Of course, we will listen to the concerns raised about the transition period, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out our response to those concerns next week. But make no mistake, creating a low-welfare, low-tax, high-wage economy is one of the most progressive goals a Government can have, and one that we will continue to work towards.

Guaranteed Income for Retirees

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this debate. Although I have grey hair, I want to put it on the record that I am quite a way from pension age.

When I first heard of the Government’s pension freedom scheme, I thought it was a political gimmick. I hope that when the Minister sums up she will be able answer all the important questions raised and prove that it is a well thought out and evidenced policy. Otherwise, it is actually short-term isolated thinking.

If we take a step back, we see that when the original annuity system was introduced in the UK, life expectancy was considerably lower than it is today. Back then the state still felt a responsibility to try to ensure that people had a guaranteed income to look after themselves for the rest of their lives in some form of comfort. Just because the annuity system was not always maximised to the benefit of the saver—as we heard, 80% of people could have got a better deal if they had shopped around—does not mean we should scrap the system altogether. Instead, we should look at ways to improve it.

The recent message from the Government has been that people should save responsibly, and I agree. They have helped to force the issue with auto-enrolment. They have also said that people need to work or wait longer until they get their state pension. We are told that that is justified because life expectancy is much higher. There are contradictory messages: the left hand says, “Save. Be responsible. Understand that you might well have a nice long retirement to look forward to, consider and plan for,” but the right hand is saying, “Well done guys—you’ve worked hard. It’s your money—do what you want with it.” The Government should take cognisance of the fact that those are competing messages.

We have heard about the hidden unintended consequences of the pension freedom policy, one of which relates to the recent increases to the state pension age, which particularly affect women. Members will have been lobbied by Women Against State Pension Inequality. These women feel particularly hard done by: they planned to retire at a certain age, they worked all their lives with that plan in mind, but now they feel the opportunity has been taken away by the Government. Some women are now considering whether to access their pension pot early and effectively burn through it until they reach the increased state pension age. I am concerned for the women who stay on in work and, once they reach state pension age, retire and access their pension pot, who might feel that they have missed out by having to work longer and so be tempted to make best use of the money they have put by in a short time. That will not benefit them in the long run.

This is speculative, but another scenario I have considered is the fact that we currently have a housing shortage, combined with a Government who reinforce the message that home ownership is everything and is something to which families should aspire. If retirees have access to lump sums, they might want to access their pension pots to help their family out by getting them on the housing ladder. In the short term, helping their family looks like a good thing, but it will lock their money up for the future, so might not be right in terms of the long-term financial planning for retirees and their dependents. They are not, though, going to get that financial advice otherwise.

We have heard that the fundamental idea behind pension freedom is that we should trust people, but on balance that is not what the evidence suggests. The Government should look at the evidence from Australia and the United States, which suggests that a large percentage of pension savers spend all their money in a relatively short time. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in Australia there are polar opposites in play: 40% of people use all their savings in just 11 years, while at the other extremity is a group of people who are too cautious and do not access their money to give themselves the high quality of life that they should have after saving responsibly. Reflecting that reality, Australia is now moving towards an annuity scheme. That is the red flag that the Government should be paying attention to. The Australian report was published before the Chancellor introduced the changes, so there is no excuse for not taking that evidence on board sooner.

There is more evidence of how people behave when given pension freedom from the United States, where half of retirees have spent their entire pension pot within 17 years of retirement—in real terms that is a really short amount of time. Overall, I fail to see the wider benefit of people having complete freedom when the evidence shows that pension contributions tend to be exhausted rather quickly. Aside from it giving a short-term feelgood factor for some people and a low-level cash injection to the economy because of the additional spend, I do not think complete freedom is the way to go.

I understand that populist policies are almost a necessary evil for Governments. As politicians, we all want to do things that make us popular, and Governments want to ensure that they are re-elected, but Governments should never forget that they have responsibilities. A default pension income for retirees would fall into the category of responsible governance; otherwise, there is a risk that future Governments will end up paying out more money in pensioner welfare. In all probability there will be a higher burden on the NHS because of the higher healthcare costs associated with retirees who have exhausted their funds—they are out and about less and they are stuck in homes that they might not be able to afford to heat. Those knock-on healthcare effects will have financial implications for the state in the long run. We know that the Government are hellbent on reducing the size of the state for the future, so that is counterintuitive. Again, the messages are contradictory.

There is very limited evidence in the public domain on how the new arrangements are working, but what evidence there is suggests that currently the majority of cash sums paid out go to people under 60 years old, and 80% goes to those under 65—so in many cases people well below state retirement age—yet only one in 10 people are accessing the Pension Wise service. At the very least, the Minister should consider the following. People should be given targeted financial guidance and advice before they access their pension funds. They should be made to think twice about making large cash withdrawals, especially when in some cases people are penalised by having to pay a higher tax rate, which again, is not beneficial in the long run. There should be mid-retirement health checks, although to be honest that might be too late for some, which is why we need reform sooner rather than later.

The Government must look again at what is happening now and come up with a compromise to ensure some form of guaranteed income for the future. They should consider the Australian Murray report and at least try to arrive at a mix of flexibility, which can be good for some people, and security for all retirees, so that they benefit from working hard and putting money by.

Tax Credits

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing the debate. This is the first opportunity that I have had to contribute to the tax credits debate.

The primary aim of this Government is to pay down the deficit, reduce public spending and unshackle the £3,000 that hangs around the neck of every child that is born in the UK. The Prime Minister has lifted thousands of people in my constituency out of income tax altogether, given 30 hours of free childcare and introduced the new living wage. I am proud to associate myself with those measures.

When tax credits were first introduced by Labour, they cost £4 billion a year. This year, I believe, they cost £30 billion, so they clearly need reform.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that working tax credits and tax credits are means-tested welfare benefits, so if the welfare bill has gone up, it is because families’ incomes have not risen significantly? That is the real reason why the bill has increased, so we need to get incomes to rise.

[Scott Mann]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we are looking to increase the living wage to ensure that people are better off in work than out of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I welcome this debate and, for the most part, I welcome its tone, particularly that of the earlier speeches of Conservative Members. I hope that their speeches are a sign of a mood swing across the whole of the Government Benches, although I must say that recent contributions have been in stark contrast. If I may, I will outline some of the previous actions of the House and the contributions of Members during the past week. The focus of the House has had me scratching my head, as I am sure has been the case with my constituents.

Last Thursday morning, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) said his constituents had suggested setting up a public fund for them to make donations towards the restoration of this House. I find that incredible. I know that if I took that suggestion to my constituents, the only way I would raise money would be by getting them to donate to a swear box when I asked them such a question. On the same day, the Leader of the House showed his usual vision by suggesting there was no need to reform the House of Lords. That afternoon, we had the debate on English votes for English laws. Much of that debate was predicated on the fact that, as many Conservative Members said, EVEL is the No. 1 issue for their constituents. Again, I find that difficult to believe, because there is absolutely no doubt that the No. 1 issue for my constituents is tax credits.

As I was trying to relax over the weekend, I heard that the bill for Trident has gone up to £167 billion. Apparently, the figure of £167 billion still does not make the Government flinch. It is a 67% increase, but they do not flinch. At that point, they still looked hell-bent on taking forward the tax credits proposals. Monday night was a lost opportunity to kill the tax credit changes stone dead, but at least the other place flexed some muscle and caused the Government to think again. Obviously, plenty of suggestions have been made about how to take that forward.

I should add that the previous tone of some of the debates on tax credits has been really unhelpful. I welcome the speech by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who condemned his fellow friends for suggesting that one solution for making up the income lost in tax credits was to take two jobs and just work longer hours. That is not practical, and it is actually one way for someone to work themselves into an early grave.

I have already said this, but I want to put it on the record again. Let me be clear that this is the No. 1 issue for my constituents. I am pleased that the SNP has been very consistent in arguing against the cuts in tax credits. In my constituency, an estimated 3,800 working families are currently in line to be affected by the tax credit proposals unless they are amended. In previous debates, we have heard the mantra about having a high-wage, low-tax, low-welfare system, but that has clearly been blown out of the water by independent analysis.

I again welcome the fact that many Conservative Members have acknowledged that and have called for action to make sure we protect those on the lowest wages. However, we should not forget the people who are not working, but are looking to get into work. They are in line to lose £2,000 a year. It is impossible to lose that money and sustain a family. We must remember that a lot of people move in and out of work. They will not only lose money when they are in work, but if they are out of work and need support—if they are on a zero-hours contract or are unfortunate enough to lose their job—they will find that the support mechanism has been cut drastically.

What should we do? Some good suggestions were made earlier. The first thing that we need is a proper living wage. We need to bring the living wage in line with when the cuts are made to tax credits, so that we can balance cuts in welfare and ensure people’s incomes are protected. I suggest that the Chancellor could provide greater support for small and medium-sized enterprises to enable them to take on new employees and help more people into work. I have mentioned the cost of Trident, which we could easily scrap. Even though we welcome the decision that it made the other day, we are still calling for the other place to be scrapped.

It is perfectly obvious that there should be a cut in tax avoidance and evasion. The other night, the SNP put forward a proposal to close the Mayfair loophole. Unfortunately, the Government would not agree, but that should be revisited. We should scrap the proposed right to buy in relation to social housing, and the obscene subsidies that might go to people who opt to buy under the Government’s plans. There is no way that the taxpayer should pay up to £100,000 for somebody to purchase a home in London.

It would have been helpful if the UK Government had allowed the Scottish Government to have better borrowing powers so that we could use them to invest in infrastructure and capital spend, which would create jobs. The UK Government should be building more houses in Scotland. We are already showing the way in building more social housing, which creates jobs and a better standard of living. Building energy-efficient homes means that families pay less for heating, which makes their lives easier because they no longer have to make the difficult choice between heating and eating.

The SNP has suggested other measures, including the reintroduction of the 50p tax rate. We should not raise the upper threshold so quickly. We could have a bank levy and a mansion tax, and go for the complete abolition of non-dom status. The Government do not have to aim to get a large surplus so quickly; they could easily slow down their measures and adopt a more balanced approach.

Overall, we should not be hurting those low-paid workers with families who could lose on average £1,300 a year. There is also the cringeable policy of exempting families who can show that their third child is the result of rape. That has not been mentioned today and I note that Conservative Members have chosen not to intervene on me. It is an obscene policy that nobody can justify or explain.

I ask the Minister to speak to the Chancellor and revisit the whole package, because it will save only £4.6 billion. We need a proper strategic overview, which might get us to a long-term recovery plan based on action, not just the words of those on the Government Benches.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Suella Fernandes]

What I am aware of is that the reforms are part of a package that includes an increase of free childcare to 30 hours, which is worth about £5,000 and will help working families combine work and childcare. That is how we are going to help children. Work, not benefits, is the route out.

Beveridge’s guiding principles were clear—the individual has to take greater responsibility, alongside the state establishing a national minimum standard to ensure that the most vulnerable are looked after and that the system is sustainable. The main problem with the existing welfare system is that it has allowed businesses to act in a way that is both unpalatable and bad for the economy. It has facilitated the underpayment of workers, which has allowed chronic under-training and under-investment in staff. The problem is simple. If a business or an employer knows that low wages will be topped up by the state, what is the point of investing in its workforce? What is the point of investing in training or promotion?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady think it is fair that businesses will get a taper on the increase in wages? She complains that tax credits subsidise businesses, yet the poorest in society will not get a taper—their income will be cut right away in April. How is that fair?

[Suella Fernandes]

The Government are pragmatic and sensible, and they will be responsive. They will make announcements in the autumn statement that will deal adequately with that issue. [Interruption.] I have limited time and I want to make progress. It is important that we make work pay by stopping businesses underpaying their staff.

My next point is that we need to ensure that everybody keeps in mind the fact that the reforms are part of a package. The new measures on free childcare, the rise in the personal allowance, the tax lock on income tax, VAT and national insurance, and the welcome introduction of the national living wage will all ensure that household incomes rise over the course of this Parliament. People will be able to keep more of the money that they earn, rather than pay it in tax, which would just go to more Government expenditure.

Finally, the manner in which the Opposition have behaved is shameful. Prior to the election, there were suggestions that they would back our welfare reforms, acknowledging that welfare had become unsustainable and costly. They equivocated and suggested support. Even in July the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was clear in her support for the reforms. What we have seen now is opportunism and the politicisation of an issue on which consensus is required. That is shameful and underlines the Opposition’s lack of integrity and decency, when we need cross-party support on this difficult issue. I support the clauses as drafted and expect the Opposition to do so too.

Air Passenger Duty: Regional Airports

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir David, for letting me speak even though I had not put in a submission to do so. I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for bringing this issue forward for debate.

We have had some excellent contributions. I will be relatively brief. First, I want to pick up on the contribution by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), who made some excellent points, particularly about APD’s original purpose of changing behaviour and, arguably, getting people to use other forms of transport. Under all Governments of all hues, when a tax is applied, it becomes a revenue stream. It then goes into the big, black hole of revenue and is not used for the purpose it was intended for. There has not therefore been the intended investment in other forms of transport, which would allow greater connectivity.

As we know, APD has had unintended consequences. We have heard from hon. Members about different regional airports that have suffered badly because of APD—none more so than my regional airport, Prestwick, which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) discussed. We have heard it argued that taking away APD can create jobs and additional revenue. At Prestwick, APD has cost jobs and cut tourism, so it has clearly cost the Government money. It stands to reason that taking away APD can reverse that harsh reality.

Another issue, which has not been touched on quite as much, is that passengers using regional airports often have to go via the main London airports. They then suffer a double whammy in terms of APD. A family of four from the States—they could be tourists or expats who want to visit family—would have to pay four times £71 in APD for each flight, or about £560 for the round trip. If they took a further flight to a regional airport, they would then have to pay four times £13 each way, so the APD would be more than £600. It is no surprise that that is off-putting and has caused a decline in passenger numbers.

That is why there should be a reduction in APD. I welcome the fact that responsibility for the issue will be devolved to Scotland, and I welcome the Scottish Government’s plans to reduce the duty. If it is reduced, it will give our regional airports a chance to create their own routes, which will then generate competition with, say, the London airports. If we can get away from having to do the double hat on APD—with people flying from one airport to another and then onwards, as I have just outlined—that would give us a better chance of opening up new routes and new connectivity.

For me, that is the nub of the issue on APD: it is off-putting in the first place, and it is doubly off-putting if people have to make another flight from a regional airport. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s plans. We have had excellent contributions today, and I hope the Government will take note of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I shall come on to my party’s position in due course.

I was saying that the possibility of powers to determine APD being devolved to Wales could lead to an impact on airports in the north of England and the south-west. York Aviation has predicted that, with Cardiff airport no longer subject to air passenger duty, Bristol airport would lose 440,000 passengers, up to 33 routes, 1,500 jobs and more than £800 million from local GDP. That concern has been cemented by a warning from Ryanair’s commercial chief that the company could double its profits per passenger by flying from Cardiff instead, should APD rates be set to zero there. It is therefore clear that the devolution of powers to set air passenger duty will have a profound effect on England’s regional airports, so I am glad that the Conservatives heeded the advice of my colleagues the then shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) when they wrote to the Government in September last year, calling on the Treasury to start work on a mechanism to prevent English regional airports from being disadvantaged by devolution to Scotland or anywhere else.

I welcome the Government’s publication of a discussion paper outlining three possible options for tackling the issues affecting our regional airports. I have a few specific concerns about the consultation, on which I am sure the Minister will be able to put me at ease, but first I ask the Minister for an update on the progress of the consultation as a whole. It is my understanding that the closing date for submissions was 8 September, but as yet there has been no published evidence and no conclusions from the Government. Will the Minister say when the Government’s response will be published? More specifically, one solution discussed in the paper is to devolve the power to set rates of air passenger duty to local or combined authorities, either partially or fully. That seems to have implications for our compliance with EU state aid rules. The Labour party supports reform of the EU state aid rules, which would be a much better subject for renegotiation that those chosen by the Prime Minister. None the less, the current rules will apply.

One problem is that the Government cannot vary national tax rates in a way that is more favourable to specific regions. For that reason funding for the relevant local authority would be reduced by the full value of air passenger duty receipts in that area. HMRC research indicates that full devolution to a local authority containing one medium-sized airport would require a staggering reduction in funding of £45 million a year. The point of devolving the powers is to allow regional airports to avoid undercutting by rivals. Can the Minister confirm that under that option a local authority that took that course would receive no extra funding from central Government and would have to deal with a cut of £45 million? He will understand our concern that even the devolution package the Chancellor proposes will not contain much in the way of revenue-raising powers, nor anything like the scope that the devolved Administrations have to make savings elsewhere. Also, does he share my concern that if local authorities are able to set their own levels of APD, it will start a race to the bottom, which, taken to its logical conclusion, would result in an overall loss to the Treasury of £3.2 billion?

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Lady talks about a race to the bottom and says that different regional airports cutting APD could result in a net decrease overall. Does that not run contrary to the argument I have just been making, which is that cutting APD increases passenger numbers, jobs and revenue? Does she therefore agree that her argument could be flawed?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. Hopefully, when the Minister responds about the progress of the report, he will be able to shed some light on those issues specifically.

The third option outlined in the discussion paper is to provide aid to regional airports that will be particularly affected by the devolution of APD, but I am particularly concerned that that would do little to neutralise the effects at the airports that will feel the greatest impact. Airports such as Manchester and Newcastle would be too large to be eligible for such aid under the proposal, so the measure would be ineffective in tackling the problem where doing so will have the biggest impact. Furthermore, providing direct aid has an obvious fiscal implication for the Exchequer, so it would be helpful to clarify whether that would be provided by the Treasury or would again involve corresponding cuts to other local authority funding.

Finally, it would be helpful if the Minister touched on the environmental implications of air passenger duty generally. I have had a number of queries regarding that, particularly from my own constituents. Aviation is, of course, covered by the EU emissions trading scheme, and we anticipate that the fifth carbon budget will address the sector later this year, but it would be helpful if he were to outline how the proposals under consideration will interact with our obligation to decarbonise, especially if we are moving towards little or no APD, and how a devolved settlement will work alongside nationally set targets.

In conclusion, there is a degree of consensus that this matter must be addressed urgently, and we welcome both the Government’s consultation and today’s debate. There are a number of points on which we would welcome further clarification, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that I made a few moments ago. In accordance with the St David’s day package, we are considering the case and options for devolving air passenger duty to Wales. That consideration is ongoing. Once a conclusion has been reached, I am sure that he will be looking very closely at our response.

If I may, I will respond to some points that have been made in this afternoon’s debate. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raised the issue of whether APD is a good tax or whether we should just scrap it. It is worth bearing in mind that it raises £3.2 billion each year, which is an important part of the Government’s overall revenues. We consider that APD is a fair and efficient tax that ensures that the aviation sector contributes to the public finances. The amount of tax paid by people who can afford business class travel or luxury jets is much more than that paid by a passenger going to the same destination in economy class.

In recent years, we have reduced long-haul rates of APD and frozen short-haul rates for five years, and we are exempting children. APD is the main way in which the aviation sector is taxed. International treaty agreement means that there is no tax on international aviation fuel and no VAT on international flights. Unlike many countries, the UK does not charge VAT on domestic flights. It is also worth pointing out that the aviation sector is performing strongly. Passenger numbers grew by 4% in 2014 compared with 2013.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) referred in an intervention to a PwC report arguing that abolishing APD would boost GDP, create jobs and pay for itself. We do not agree with the assumptions behind the 2013 and 2015 PwC reports on APD. Our view remains that abolition would have a limited effect on GDP and cause a net loss of tax receipts. As I said, APD makes a contribution towards the public finances. Abolishing it would put pressure on the Government to increase less efficient and more regressive taxes.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister makes the point that APD is one way of taxing the aviation industry and he thinks that it is a fair tax, but will he acknowledge that the UK charges a much higher rate? The UK’s short-haul rate in economy is more than double the EU average; in terms of the medium-haul rate, the UK charges €90, whereas the EU average is €24. The UK is aggressively taxing the aviation industry, and that is what the whole thrust of the debate is about. The Government may want to tax the aviation industry, but we are arguing that our industry is heavily over-taxed compared with those in other countries.

[Mr Gauke]

Our rates are higher than those in many other countries; I am not disputing that. I am arguing that we are not convinced that abolition of APD would pay for itself. Presumably the Scottish Government are also not convinced, because they have not brought forward proposals to abolish APD. It may be an aspiration for the long term—when finances allow—but that does suggest that there would be a loss of revenue.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire referred to the experience of Prestwick airport and the effect on tourism—a perfectly legitimate point to raise. As I said, we accept that APD rates are high on an international comparison. However, we think that APD is a very small component of a tourist’s overall spending on a trip to the UK. Some analysis done by Treasury officials over the summer suggests that depending on how long a long-haul passenger stays in the UK, APD probably makes up less than 2% of total spending on travel, hotels and subsistence, so although I accept the point, we have to put it into the context of the wider costs that may apply.

Tax Credits

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I and my SNP colleagues oppose the UK Government’s continued attack on low-income and vulnerable working families. It will have a devastating impact on the majority of the 11,300 children from more than 6,000 families in Airdrie and Shotts who are in receipt of tax credits.

The very first lines of the July report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies state:

“A package of changes to the tax, tax credit and benefit system has been announced for implementation in the current parliament…These will reduce household incomes significantly, particularly for those towards the bottom of the income distribution.”

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Tory manifesto mentioned tax credits only twice and that it did not mention the scale of the proposed cuts? Conservative Members are lining up to say that they have a mandate to cut tax credits, but they have no such mandate, especially considering that fewer than one in four of the electorate voted for this Government.