Tax Credits
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mak
This is a national minimum wage that gives 2.5 million hard-working people a salary rise, which is the right approach. We have also increased the tax-free personal allowance and doubled free childcare for working people, while the fuel duty has been cut and council tax has been frozen as well. These reforms are all linked: they go hand in hand; they should not be seen or analysed in isolation. As many hon. Members have said, these are all part of a coherent, long-term economic plan, and it is simply not acceptable to deliver higher wages through the national living wage while at the same time leaving tax credits unreformed when they are such an important part of our reform package.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Mak
No.
The hard truth is that our tax credit system is unaffordable and unsustainable. It required deep reform to make it fair to the working people who pay for it. As I said to the shadow Chief Secretary, the original tax credit cost the Government £1.1 billion; today, it costs £30 billion. We spend more on family benefits than France, Germany and Sweden. Our reforms focus tax credits on the people they were meant to help—the very poorest and those in the lowest possible income brackets. In 2010, tax credits intended to support the lowest income brackets were instead available to nine out of 10 families; under our reformed and properly focused system, it is still available to five out of 10 families—a fairer and much more sustainable approach. These changes to tax credits are not necessarily easy, but they are fair and right. They return real-terms spending on the tax credit system to the level we had in 2007-08.
We must also consider these reforms in the wider economic context in which they sit. The deficit was halved over the last Parliament, but there is still more work to do. We need further savings in spending to make sure that Britain can live within its means. These tax credits go towards 50% of the total savings we are aiming for in this Parliament. They are substantial and important, and deserve our support. As many hon. Members have said, we must not leave our children and grandchildren with ever more debt. The only welfare system that is credible is a welfare system that is sustainable and affordable as part of our long-term plan to save our economy.
This Government can be proud of the fact that we have gone further than any other Government in introducing a living wage of £9 an hour. Some 2.5 million people will have a direct pay rise in their pay packets. At the same time, business has been incentivised to pay workers more. We have heard from the Exchequer Secretary how more than 200 businesses are already making these reforms.
Opposition Members opposed our welfare cap, and they opposed our fiscal charter—eventually. The only welfare system that is sustainable and credible is one that is affordable. We were elected on a mandate to transform our economy, and our reforms put that mantra into practice. I urge all Members to reject the Opposition motion.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I have the greatest concern for anyone who loses out and finds that these measures have an impact on their household budget. I came into this place not to reduce incomes but to see them increase. However, in making good our manifesto commitment, savings in Government spending were always going to have to be made, with a proportion of our population unfortunately being affected by the need to make them.
Ultimately, I feel that it is right to introduce this measure to reduce tax credits for the following reasons. First, it moves the country away from a position in which Government and taxpayers subsidise the wage bills of employers, acting as a disincentive to pay rises. Secondly, as a cost-saving measure it moves the country to a position where the books are balanced and we can reduce the interest bill on Government debt.
Huw Merriman
I will not give way just now.
In 1998, the amount spent by the Labour Government on tax credits was £6 billion. That figure rocketed to £30 billion by 2010. Three of our largest supermarket chains have employees who claim tax credits to the tune of almost £800 million. I contend that it is not for Government or taxpayers as a whole to contribute a portion of pay, but for employers to pay staff all their wages and to pay them properly. Of course, the Government can and should act to incentivise pay—by reducing tax for the employer and employee and not by paying a contribution to the wage packet.
As for balancing the books, last week the House debated the motion for fiscal responsibility and as a result the Government have pledged to deliver a surplus by 2020 and through normal times. This measure is essential to meet that task. I recognise that we need to help those the measure will impact on and I am glad that the Government are doing so in a number of ways, which I shall not repeat. I recognise that these measures do not mitigate the cost of the tax credit changes in full. If they did, the reduction in Government spending would not be delivered, the surplus would remain out of reach and the Government interest bill would continue to be wasted.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend has made a strong point. During the debate on the referendum concerning our possible divorce as nations, businesses piped up very loudly about what was likely to be a very uncertain horizon for them on the far side of the debate. The majority opted for the status quo, because a bird in the hand was worth God knows what in the bush.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was certainly worth two Lords in the Lords.
In fact, the uncertainty has arisen as a result of our lack of independence. Scotland lost powers under the Energy Act 2013. The Government made a lot of promises on that. Now we are to lose the renewable energy obligation in Scotland because of the uncertainty caused by our losing the referendum. I wanted to put that on record, and to give the hon. Gentleman a bit of clarity.
Stewart Hosie
That is the kind of thing any Opposition politician should say about any set of Tory policy decisions that ends up with the kind of outcomes the hon. Gentleman describes.
The Government also committed to legislating within 100 days of the election to rule out increases in the rates, which is what we are seeing today, but of course serious unintended consequences for spending and for other taxes may flow from this measure. Let me explain. The Government laid out in the summer Budget discretionary consolidation—that is, cuts and tax rises to you and me—amounting to £97 billion in this Parliament. Of that, new draconian cuts to welfare amounted to a full third—£33 billion—but the entire spending plan was predicated on, among other things, NICs bringing in £115 billion this year, £126 billion next year, rising to almost £152 billion in 2021. That is a forecast rise in revenue yield from NICs of 9.6% this year to next, 4.3% the year after, 4.7% in 2017-18 to 20118-19, and a rise of over one third—£37 billion—between last year and the end of the forecast period.
One of the questions the Minister has to answer today is this: given the arbitrary freeze on NICs and some other rates, should the forecast yield be significantly less than expected, will other taxes rise and if so, which ones; and will the Chancellor take the axe to yet further spending, perhaps on pensions, or will borrowing rise and deficit reduction forecasts simply be abandoned, delivering exactly the same failure on debt and deficit we saw in the last Parliament?
Mr MacNeil
Of the options my hon. Friend has given, may I go for option three, which means the Government will borrow? As every schoolboy in Scotland who has been paying attention knows, the UK has not paid its way since 2001; it has borrowed each and every year since then. I would go for option 3 for the UK: in debt, with a black hole.
Stewart Hosie
My hon. Friend is right. Harking back to 2009 and the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, the then Chancellor made great play of legislation to bring down the debt and deficit, and what was the sanction should he fail? “We would just change the targets,” he said. I suspect the current situation is rather similar, and I may come to what the current Chancellor said about that particular legislation shortly.
Helen Goodman
Well, it might or it might not, depending on the circumstances.
This quest for certainty is quite reasonable in regard to small businesses—
Helen Goodman
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman from the Scottish National party.
Mr MacNeil
In any debate about taxes, it is instructive to look at what the OECD tells us about global tax-to-GDP ratios, which is what I have just done. Denmark has a tax-to-GDP ratio of 47.2%. Mexico, at the other extreme, has a tax-to-GDP ratio of 19.7%. The Conservatives’ mantra is “lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes”, but that would appear to be sending us in the direction of Mexico. That is not the sort of society I want; I want a society that is high on the UN human development index such as Denmark. The figure for the UK is 33%. How far do the Government want to go? Do they want to give us a society like that of Mexico, or do they want us to be like Denmark?
Finance Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As a party that believes in low taxation, we welcome a number of measures in the Bill, including those to take more people out of taxation and allow them to hold on to the money they earn. The changes to tax thresholds, the reduction in corporation tax and the tax allowances to encourage businesses to invest in capital or research and development will contribute to the health of the economy and help to close the productivity gap that concerns Members across the House. We will not be voting for the reasoned amendment because we believe there are positive measures in the Bill and because we disagree with some aspects of the amendment anyway.
We do, however, have a few concerns—we discussed some of them yesterday in the welfare reform debate—including about the impact of removing tax credits from people in low-paid jobs and the Government’s misplaced faith in their being compensated by the rise in the national living wage. Rather than making work pay, the measure will act as a disincentive to work for many people, especially young people, to whom the national living wage will not apply and for whom the reduction in tax credits will result in lower incomes. The Government cannot ignore that aspect of their policies.
The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) was optimistic that the gap would be filled by businesses volunteering to pay the national living wage to those not officially covered by it. I sometimes hear Government Members talking about the pressures on small businesses. We cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, we talk about businesses being under pressure and requiring help, including with taxation and business rates, but on the other hand, we say, “By the way, they will volunteer to pay higher wages to those not officially covered by the national living wage.” We cannot gloss over the impact of these changes. I believe the Government are being optimistic about the impact. If it backfires—if many people find themselves less well off in work and work therefore becomes less attractive—one of the key policy objectives of the Budget will not be achieved.
That point is particularly pertinent to places such as Northern Ireland, where, because of low productivity in industry, the preponderance of small businesses and other structural factors, a high proportion of people are employed in low-wage businesses and rely on tax credits to bring them up to a reasonable standard of living.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While we are not political friends, we are at least friendly. He started by saying he was in favour of people keeping more of their tax, but then bemoaned the loss of tax credits. Will the loss of tax credits not enable a lack of redistribution by acting as a cover for the rich to keep more of their money and as further camouflage for inequality, especially with inheritance tax being cut for the very wealthy while the poor are losing out? When we say we want people to keep more of what they earn, we have to be sure what we mean. Quite often it is a cover for growing inequality and an opportunity for the rich to keep even more for themselves.
Sammy Wilson
Of course, some of the measures in the Bill will take people out of tax altogether, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome, and some will take people out of the higher tax brackets, especially people on middle incomes, which I am sure he would welcome too. When I referred to people being able to hold on to their income, I was thinking specifically about some of the measures in the Bill. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have at least recognised the need to find a mechanism to lift those on low incomes out of tax altogether. Administratively, that is a good thing too. Why tax people and then give it back to them in benefits?
The second issue I want to raise is about infrastructure, and the Minister’s answer to me on that was a bit woolly. I do not know how much will be available in the road fund arising from the tax changes to vehicle licence duty applying to cars sold and driven in Northern Ireland, but it is important—and this seems to be an afterthought—that in those parts of the UK not covered by the road fund, which is available as a result of directing vehicle licence duty to infrastructure projects, there be a speedy resolution with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the funding is available to them to develop the road infrastructure in their own areas.
I am also disappointed that the thorny issue of the extension of the hub airport, whether at Heathrow, Gatwick or wherever, is not being addressed in the infrastructure measures in the Bill. Regional connectivity is important for places such as Northern Ireland. That matter cannot be kicked into the long grass. If Britain is to remain competitive and not lose out more and more to Holland, Germany and France, where they are developing hub airports, it is important that we develop our own infrastructure. In Northern Ireland, we are increasingly worried about slots being lost at Heathrow because of the pressure on the runways there. The first places to look at are the flights coming in from other areas of the UK, but that connectivity is vital to the promotion of industry in Northern Ireland and has been part of the secret of our success with inward investment.
Sammy Wilson
That is exactly right, but if we do not have the proper infrastructure to do that, we will be disadvantaged. A continual theme in this Parliament has been the question of how to ensure that growth is spread across the UK and not concentrated in the south-east of England. One way is to ensure that our infrastructure enables the prosperity generated in the south-east of England to be spread across other parts of the UK.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is underlining our friendliness. To build on the point from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), I wish to say that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is absolutely right about the problem of connectivity with the south-east of England, where the airports are being built. It is not by accident. In the 40 years after world war two, there were bilateral air agreements specifying that planes had to fly into London airports, and we have paid for that. He is right about the Netherlands. The London docks lost out to Rotterdam, and it looks like it will happen again with the air infrastructure. As the chief executive of Schiphol said, it would be a good idea—
Mr MacNeil
The chief executive said it would be a good idea to have a long inquiry, and that is what is happening. It is taking too long.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Wilson, have you given way or have you finished your speech? None of us is sure what has happened.
Mr MacNeil
And on my birthday, too. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the gentleman that he is, will of course give way to the Member from the Green party and to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan).
The hon. Gentleman might find that one of the reasons why fossil fuel is so cheap is the low price of carbon, as a result of which the theory of “the polluter pays” does not apply to fossil fuels. Carbon is priced neutrally at the moment, and when that changes, the real price of fossil fuels versus renewables will become apparent. He mentions the change in the regime, but planning is a large part of that. Finally—this is my final point, Mr Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman talks about the cost of energy in the UK, and the cost of the UK’s energy is actually about the highest in Europe, minus taxes.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Mr Wilson was very worried about the amount of time we are taking—we can go to any hour—and I think Mr MacNeil is trying to see whether we can get to that hour. However, as he knows, as much as I appreciate that it is his birthday, he blew out all his candles on his first intervention. We now want shorter interventions.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I promise not to take as much time as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), but I enjoyed his take on things.
I rise to speak in support of the Bill because the recent Budget set out clearly a better future for this country. In the last Parliament the coalition Government had to turn around the economy that they inherited by turning around a record Budget deficit, public sector net borrowing at a high of 10.2% of GDP and a benefits system which accounted for nearly a quarter of all public spending, which left less money for public services such as our NHS, our schools and our infrastructure. The Budget and the Bill build on that progress. This is a Budget for ordinary people up and down this country, despite what others might say. This is a Budget for workers.
Four key elements support that claim. The Bill reduces personal taxation, so that people can keep more of the money that they earn. It ensures, again despite what others may say, that work actually pays; it is crazy that we inherited a system in which people are better off on benefits than in work. The Bill delivers on housing, and will make it easier for many people to have a place of their own. It also helps businesses, so that we have a thriving economy to pay for our much-needed public services. The Bill supports all those aims.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady said that she would like work to pay. Is she saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is wrong when it says that the bottom four, five or six deciles of earners will actually be worse off as a result of the Budget? Surely if work is to pay, it should be paying more, not less.
Maria Caulfield
I wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday. I take his point, but what has been missed from the argument is the raising of tax thresholds that will benefit people, especially those on the lowest wages. I shall come to that in a minute.
The Bill will make important differences to ordinary families. First, it will reduce personal taxation. During the last decade, under the Labour Government, more than 1.6 million people were dragged into the higher rate of tax, including hundreds of thousands of nurses, teachers, police officers, and other public sector workers. Our measures to raise the higher-rate threshold to £43,000 will make a difference to those people and their families. All in all, a basic rate taxpayer will be £905 a year better off. The families who will benefit from those changes are not wealthy; many of them work long hours and commute long distances, and deserve to keep more of the money that they earn.
The Opposition parties believe that the way to reward hard work is not to increase wages or reduce the tax that people pay, but to increase benefits in the form of tax credits. That is what Labour did in government, to such an extent that the welfare bill rocketed, accounting for about a quarter of all public spending. That meant that there was less money for our hospitals, our schools and our infrastructure.
Why are Opposition Members so adamant that the only way to improve people’s lives is to increase their benefits? I will tell you why: because they do not believe in aspiration. They do not believe in the fundamental principle that if people work hard enough, no matter what their background, they can achieve anything in life. A life on benefits is not inevitable, nor should it be the only way forward for working families. Conservative Members support workers by not only increasing the national living wage, which I cannot believe Opposition Members actually—
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
First, as this is the last day of term—or at least it has the feel of the last day of term—may I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the team in the Speaker’s Office for their warm welcome to all us new Members? That has made a huge difference to the beginning of what I hope is a long parliamentary career.
When I saw that today’s business would be a Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill with such exciting Ministers giving their remarks I thought it might be a bit dry, but in fact it has been stimulating and interesting, in particular the discussion of wages. I am glad we have got on to the question of low pay; that came up in the election and I am very pleased that the Treasury team has given it some thought. However, as somebody who worked hard on the living wage at local government level, I am a little concerned that it took a long time to introduce it in a meaningful way; the current living wage is £9.15 in London and introducing that in inner London takes an enormous amount of work for a large organisation such as a local authority or a business.
I am also a little worried about there being a cliff-edge in respect of the removal of working tax credits from those on low pay. We need a sliding scale to cover the fact that we have such a flexible workforce, which many say is a good thing. The trouble with that is that people can be in and out of work, on varying rates of pay in different sorts of employment, and have numerous different employment situations. Working tax credits tend, therefore, to be a safety net for people on low incomes, so, although this debate about low pay is to be welcomed, I am concerned that we will end up with less security for low-paid people. It may even create a perverse incentive: people may not want to take risks in the workplace and may even turn back to benefits. They may be worried that over the long term they will not be able to sustain themselves on what the Government call a living wage but which, in fact, is just an increase in the minimum wage.
Mr MacNeil
I hope the hon. Lady agrees that the Chancellor, in his description of the new wage that he has earmarked, has tried to downgrade what we all know as the living wage. That is reprehensible.
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wish him a happy birthday. I am sure it is wonderful to be 21 again.
I understand that there are many examples of the living wage up in Caledonia, and many London authorities and others are trying their darnedest to introduce the living wage, which is a good and positive step.
Clause 45, on the climate change levy, removes the levy exemption for renewable source electricity generated on or after 1 August 2015. Unhappily, that is an example of the Tories undermining investor confidence in renewable energy. They have already tried to halt the development of the cheapest form of clean energy, by pulling the plug on onshore wind, and that comes hot on the heels of the rather flat green deal. I am not sure whether any Members know about the green deal. It was introduced back in 2010, it was heralded and much money was spent on it. The promotion money probably helped a few public relations companies to keep going, but the number of households that took up the deal was very low.
Catherine West
I am very concerned about those people who are on that level. Indeed, many people in the financial sector, a large percentage of whom live in my constituency, work very long hours and are on low pay. I welcome some of the new tax changes, which is why I will abstain rather than vote against Second Reading tonight. However, we also know that certain others who go in on the tube with those lower paid workers, or ride their bikes in with them, might, in a good year, be earning between £1.2 million to £15 million or more. Using the private equity industry’s own statistics, we estimate that the “Mayfair” loophole may be sacrificing UK tax revenues of between £280 million to £700 million every year. That is likely to be a conservative estimate as it does not take into account forgone national insurance contributions, or the effects of some fund managers qualifying for additional entrepreneurs’ relief. Given that the Chancellor’s smaller plans are predicted to raise more than £350 million a year, we can be confident that a further tightening of the rules will raise substantially more. A simple legislative change, similar to those already achieved in our neighbouring European countries— I make no apologies for mentioning the word “Europe” in this Chamber—could ensure that some of the highest earners of the financial sector start to pay a fairer share in tax. That could be introduced as early as in this Bill, with a small change to the proposed legislation.
In conclusion, let me make some general points about productivity. The first relates to childcare, and this Budget and Bill and the various elements of productivity that need to accompany them. I understand from press reports this morning that various Departments face a difficult time on their savings targets, and I am worried that some of the good things that have come out of this Budget, small though they be in number, will be undermined by things such as the lack of childcare provision. In particular, I am thinking about cuts to local authorities, which are trying to introduce the Government’s 30-hour pledge on childcare. Children’s centres and Sure Start centres will once more be facing terrible cuts. We know that it is crucial to get women, and parents in general, back into the workforce, and that that is key to proper growth in the economy. Many economists have estimated that if we can return women to the workforce within two years after the birth of their first child—and indeed after the birth of subsequent children—the economy can take off exponentially. In many local authority areas, however, children’s centres and nurseries are closing, whereas they should be remaining open to provide that crucial childcare.
Mr MacNeil
I fully support what the hon. Lady is saying, and she had no less an authority than Tim Harford in the Financial Times writing, about seven or eight weeks ago, on exactly the same point. He highlighted how Sweden has done exactly what she is describing: enabled women to go back into the workplace, to develop their skills and to go further—and of course this yielded higher taxes—unlike in the UK, where they decide to stay at home and the taxman and mothers lose out.
Catherine West
I agree. There are many positive examples of universal free childcare in other European countries and I wonder whether that is the sort of measure we should be looking at, rather than just cutting back for cutting back’s sake.
Childcare is crucial, but so, too, is transport. Unfortunately, in the past fortnight the Government have announced that important rail projects are no longer going to go ahead, including electrification in the midlands, and they have dithered over the airport decision, perhaps because there is division in the top ranks of the Conservative party. Those sorts of decision need to be taken quickly, at the beginning of the Parliament, so that we give the right signals about getting on with investing in our infrastructure and in social mobility.
We know that young people will be negatively affected by this Budget, not just by the cuts to housing benefit and the reduction in working tax credits for younger families, but by the transition from university grants to loans. This does not specifically relate to the debate on this Bill, but we know that the background to the Bill is the situation young people face when coming out of university. I know of a student at London Metropolitan University who will come out with a £54,000 debt after three years of studying social care and will be virtually unable to pay that back over her working life. The good announcements on the employment and training levy are undermined by the university grants situation and the 24% projected cuts to further education, which we know provides the glue to bring together the crucial employment provisions.
I could not sit down in this Chamber without quickly mentioning housing, which, as we know, is crucial, and not only to a vibrant economy and not only in the social housing sector, which I have specialised in over the years. Affordable housing is also crucial to the workforce and to those who wish to rent in the private sector, given that in London and the south-east that sector is ridiculously expensive. A family with three children who wish to rent in Finsbury Park—not Chelsea, but Finsbury Park—would require a household income of £75,000 to do so. Indeed, the average age at which Londoners get on to the housing ladder is now closer to 40 than to 30. It is crucial that we address this situation in this Parliament so that we can address social mobility and productivity. Unless a young person has access to unlimited family funds for education and housing, they face, under this Government and with this Budget and this Finance Bill, a genuinely bleak future.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There are two questions we ought to consider when thinking about passing this Finance Bill: first, if now is not the right time to balance the books, when is; and, secondly, is it right that our laws should ensure that it pays to work and that work pays?
Let me turn to the first question. Our GDP grew by 2.6% in 2014 and our economy is now the fastest growing in the western world. We have seen an increase in jobs growth, with 2 million more jobs created over the past two years. In the three months to April 2015, employment continued to rise and unemployment continued to fall.
As a matter of principle, it is right that our Government are fiscally responsible. In the previous Parliament the Labour party backed the charter for budget responsibility, recognising that it is necessary to cut the deficit. There is never a good time to implement tough decisions, but if now is not the right time, no time ever will be.
Mr MacNeil
I thank the hon. and learned Lady; I feel that I am taking advantage of this birthday— I might start claiming that every day is my birthday. Would she like to comment on the behaviour in Iceland, where there have been no cuts in public spending but where debt has fallen by 8% and the deficit has fallen to zero? It has done that not though austerity, but by growing its economy. The key metric is debt to GDP, not cuts.
Lucy Frazer
What is absolutely essential is that we have a strong economy, because through a strong economy we can build up business. Looking at one isolated country is not a great example—consider what is happening in Greece, which has not balanced its books and has a crippling economy. Balancing the books is absolutely right.
Lucy Frazer
I have already taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman, so I will carry on.
The question arises: what are the Opposition really waiting for before balancing our nation’s books? This Budget helps make work pay for the poorest in society and encourages those who do not have a job to get one. It seeks to ensure that we build a society in which work is rewarded.
Lucy Frazer
If it was the birthday boy, I would be giving way.
It is remarkable that the position of both the SNP and the Greens is that this Finance Bill does not address the economic needs of the country and it continues to deepen the social divide between those who have and those who have not. Both amendments are very similar. But on both those questions, nothing could be further from the truth.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I applaud the content of the Finance Bill, and I am keen to explore certain clauses within it. Before I do so, may I applaud Labour Members for agreeing with the annual investment allowance and rise in the tax allowance? There may not have been as many Labour speakers as one would expect, but those who spoke have been considered in their tone towards the Bill. However, as someone from a socialist background, it makes me sad to see no Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber. I was always told proudly by my parents that Labour was the party of Keir Hardie and Nye Bevan, and those empty Benches would be a huge disappointment to them. None the less, we can perhaps all agree that the argument is being won on the Government side of the House.
Huw Merriman
No, I will not give way. I will make some progress, if I may, and refer to my predecessor, Mr Greg Barker, who organised the husky trip that was lamented by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West).
Clauses 1 and 2, on the income tax and VAT locks, and clauses 3 and 4, on the personal allowance and national minimum wage provisions, demonstrate that making work pay means giving workers more of their pay. Raising the personal allowance to £12,500 shows that the Government are committed to that aim. The increase in the tax allowance will take more than 800 of my constituents in Bexhill and Battle out of the tax system altogether, and a further 50,000 of my 80,000 electors will also benefit from the tax allowance increase. Indeed, my constituents will further benefit from the tax locks over this term, which will allow them to plan, save and spend in an organised manner, without fear of the Government raids so beloved by Chancellors between 1997 and 2010.
Mr MacNeil
Once the hon. Gentleman’s constituents get past the Blairite spin he is giving us, I am sure they will find that their incomes have actually decreased. Does he think that his constituents will be grateful to him when the changes go through and they find that their incomes have decreased, thanks to this Tory Government?
Huw Merriman
My constituents will be delighted that after the terror that this Government took over from, we are seeing earnings and incomes get back to their pre-recession levels. They are already there for those at pension age, of whom there are many in my constituency, and are getting there for those in other age groups. My goodness, if this Government had not taken the difficult decisions that the hon. Gentleman’s party has opposed all the way through, we would not be in the positive situation we are now in.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Thank you for your forbearance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had to slip out of the Chamber to take part in the Treasury Committee’s questioning of the Chancellor, and I bring a few bon mots from him to add to the debate.
The test of the Finance Bill and Budget is whether it will raise productivity—one might ask why the Chancellor has waited for five years to get round to that necessary development, but that is the test. Does the Bill meet the test? No it does not. Between the March Budget and the summer Budget, the Chancellor has reduced projected capital spending, and we raised that point in questions to him this morning, but in his boyish way he avoided answering it. Nevertheless, we have seen a reduction in the projected capital spend.
Capital spending is vital. It is the basic thing we need to get the plant, machinery and infrastructure that raise productivity, and Britain’s fundamental weakness in productivity is that we do not spend enough on capital and plant per worker. The Chancellor is cutting his projected capital spending, and he has done that in the five months since the March Budget and now—I wonder why.
The Chancellor had an interesting explanation for why he is doing that—in the Treasury Committee he could not avoid saying that that is what he was doing—because he said that he had discovered a way of making the outcome of his spending more efficient so that he needs less of it. If he goes on in that way, in another five months and by the time we get to the autumn statement, he will have reduced capital spending projections even more. I am talking about capital spending projections to 2020, so there is no real indication in the Budget that productivity will rise.
There are other things wrong with the Budget. Consider the investment allowance that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) alluded to. De facto, the annual investment allowance is being cut from £0.5 million to £200,000. I know that, formally speaking, the available capital allowance was a marginal £20,000, and an emergency £0.5 million level was introduced in a previous Budget. Like some classic huckster trying to sell, the Chancellor pretended that the capital allowance was going to be removed on 1 January 2016, so that he could suddenly appear and say that actually it will be £200,000. We all knew that he was going to do that because in the autumn statement and the March Budget, while talking about his desire to raise productivity, he somehow neglected to tell us that the annual investment allowance was going to be not £20,000 but £200,000 in January.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend might recall that before the general election, if memory serves me right, only one party was praised in the Financial Times for its plans to raise productivity, and that was the SNP. Could that be why we polled 51% of votes in the seats where we stood, but the Conservatives polled only 37% across the seats where they stood?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you and others have made the comment that today is a day on which a birthday has occurred, so before I have to, in response to interventions, may I say to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) breithlá sona dó? Go maire sé on lá.
I should also make an apology, because I missed a birthday yesterday in the debate on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which relates to the Budget measures.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to make a bilingual intervention—in Irish and in Scottish. Go raibh míle maith agat agus mòran taing.
Mark Durkan
We are getting far off the Finance Bill.
The Government told us that the Finance Bill should be taken as part of a whole suite of measures from the Budget, including those in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Yesterday, we missed the six-year birthday of the Second Reading debate on the Child Poverty Bill in 2009, when the then shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now the Home Secretary, said:
“When we talk about child poverty, we are also talking about family poverty. Children are poor because their parents are poor…I would almost like to change the name of the Bill from the Child Poverty Bill to the child and family poverty Bill.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 613.]
The measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the Budget tell us to forget that child poverty has anything to do with parental and household income, and that the Government are going to abolish definitions of child poverty. We heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today at Treasury questions that he believes the Budget is offering a contract: higher wages for less dependence on welfare. He said that people would support that contract. I think more people will see the con trick in what the Chancellor is doing than the contract.
Mark Durkan
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think many people will wonder about the paucity of attendance on the Benches at such an important debate today. We have been served notice that there will be various amendments in later stages of the Bill, but I think people would have expected a bigger attendance here today. Given the impact it will have on many people with marginal incomes and the consternation that many people feel about MPs’ pay increases and other matters, they will be wondering where everybody is.
Mr MacNeil
There are questions about where Labour and Tory Members are at the moment. Will the hon. Gentleman hazard a guess that they are perhaps off at merger talks?
Mark Durkan
Maybe they are away celebrating other people’s birthdays. [Laughter.] Maybe the hon. Gentleman, having had so many interventions, can now safely go and celebrate his. We all know he was here and not somewhere else.
In the provisions on the national living wage and some of the other early clauses, the Chancellor seems to be doing exactly what he decried his predecessors for doing: passing legislation to put restraints or constraints on himself. He is advertising in legislation his own behavioural discipline. It is the ultimate political selfie to put oneself into legislation. Some only last for the life of the Parliament, yet are being put into legislation. How gratuitous a political exercise is that? Perhaps that is why other hon. Members cannot see fit to indulge the Bill too much.
Government Members have said that the charter for budget responsibility is a key issue, which it is, but a key aspect of the charter is the welfare cap. In yesterday’s debate, we heard references to the benefits cap—there has been much discussion about the benefits cap, which affects households—but less attention has been paid to the overall implications of the welfare cap, which was first introduced as part of the charter last year. If we look at what the summer Budget, as opposed to the March Budget, does for the welfare cap over the next four years, we find some revealing figures. In the March Budget, the overall welfare cap for the UK for 2016-17 was £122.3 billion; in this Budget, it is £115.2 billion. For 2017-18, it was £124.8 billion in the March Budget; it is £114.6 billion in this Budget. It was £127 billion for 2018-19 in the March Budget, ahead of the election; it is £114 billion in the summer Budget, after the election. For 2019-20, it was £129.8 billion in the March Budget; in this summer Budget, it is £113.5 billion. Over those four spending years, that is a cumulative cut of £46.5 billion, as a result of the charter for budget responsibility and the welfare cap.
Many Opposition Members—or perhaps not many of us, as I think only 20-odd of us voted against the welfare cap when it was introduced—said that what the Treasury was bubble-wrapping as a neutral budgetary tool would turn into a vicious cuts weapon, and now we see it, in the name of the welfare cap. When there is so much discussion about the benefits cap, people forget that the real story is the welfare cap, and that will bear down on people in my constituency and lead to more conflict around the next wave of welfare reform when it comes to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We heard earlier from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and we heard yesterday what he thinks the implications of the cap will be. If he was still here, I would be saying to him directly that on this issue he and his party need to catch on; they have been wrong in the past, and it is a bit late to be scrambling now, when they have invited this very situation. Many of us told them that their support for the welfare cap, on top of their support for the last wave of welfare reform in the Assembly, would lead to this very situation, but they told us to forget about those concerns because there was nothing we could do about it.
Scotland Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
For the benefit of the Committee, will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the agreement the UK Government have with the Isle of Man and what they are now proposing for Scotland?
Mr Gauke
The Isle of Man has different constitutional arrangements. What we are proposing is consistent with the conclusions reached by the Smith commission.
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made a number of technical points about how that will work. I accept that a number of details will need to be worked out as part of the fiscal framework. There is a need to agree the methodology for estimating how much VAT is generated by Scotland and by the rest of the United Kingdom. The UK and Scottish Governments will also need to agree the operating principles, including mechanisms for verifying that the methodology has been applied correctly, how many adjustments might be carried out and arrangements for audit and transparency, including publication of results. It is worth pointing out that other countries operate similar systems and could provide a reasonable starting point from which to build.
Again, those considerations will be part of the fiscal framework, and I think that it is agreed on all sides that it would not be helpful to provide a running commentary on it. Of course, there have already been meetings with the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on some of those points. All I will say to the hon. Member for Dundee East is that the UK Government are determined to work constructively, as I am sure the Scottish Government are, to ensure that we reach an agreement that is fair and reflects the appropriate assessment that should be made.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Amendment 36 would, in essence, have opposed clause 16 standing part of the Bill, because I want the Committee to explore the specific issues related to air passenger duty and the more general principles about tax competition between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom that may well evolve from a discussion on air passenger duty.
Some of us who voted to set up the Scottish Parliament in the first place now think that, although it seemed a very bold decision at the time, it was less bold than it might have been and that if we had the benefit of being able to go back in time—we do have the benefit of hindsight—the proposals that the Government are making might well have been those that should have been put before the House after the 1997 general election, with us now moving towards full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament. It was a fundamental mistake to set up a Scottish Parliament with mainly spending powers and no tax-raising powers, apart from the plus or minus 3p on income tax.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the mistakes is that there is no incentive for the Scottish Government to grow the economy. A great example that we have in the Hebrides is that the Scottish Government have put a road-equivalent tariff on to the ferries. This has grown the economy in the west of Scotland, but the increase in tax revenue is not going to the Government that funds it but to Westminster, which gives no extra cash and further incentives to roll it out further across the west coast. It is similar with childcare and a number of other issues.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman makes a pretty fundamental point about devolution. When the House was making a decision to devolve powers, it would have been sensible to settle on a grant basis that was fair between Scotland, England and Wales, which the Barnett formula was not, and then allow the Scottish Parliament to raise taxes on that basis, so that if it wanted better-quality services, it could have had higher taxes and, if it was more efficient, it could have had better services or lower taxes, and so on. That is a very clear principle.
Mr MacNeil
The important point I am driving at is that, if the Scottish Government had proper control of their taxes, they could have grown the economy more and that growth would have delivered far more than the zero-sum game of who has got and has not got what in the UK. It is the ability to grow the economy that tax powers would give that is really fundamental.
Graham Stringer
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Scotland, or any other devolved authority, should benefit from the initiatives it takes and from its own efficiencies, I agree completely. We are moving that way, but the Bill does not move far enough. No Minister or shadow Minister has been able to explain to me, in any of our debates, why we should have the unfair funding in the Barnett formula.
Those are the basic principles. I now want to explore how, if taxation is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the United Kingdom Government will respond to competition. Air passenger duty is a very good example. As I understand it, the SNP intend to reduce air passenger duty by 50% and then reduce it to zero. That is quite a sensible policy for the SNP to follow. For that matter, it is a sensible policy for the United Kingdom Government to follow, because a number of consultants’ reports have shown that there is almost certainly likely to be a benefit for the whole United Kingdom if air passenger duty is taken away.
Every other country in the European Union has moved either to very low rates of APD or, as in the Netherlands, to zero. It is therefore a sensible policy, but the Government do not seem to have a clear position on what they will do about the very unfair competition between regional airports.
Mr MacNeil
Air passenger duty is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier. If the Scottish Government decided to lower APD and that upped the rate of economic activity in Scotland, they should benefit from the fruits of that activity. The benefits should not go to Westminster, because it would not compensate the Scottish Government for that initiative.
Graham Stringer
On 20 January, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Treasury Committee, in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) about that very point:
“I think the best approach to dealing with this concern, which I think is perfectly legitimate, is to cross the political boundaries of our two parties to try to find a solution that helps these regional airports that can be affected by an air passenger duty decision north of the border.
HMRC has done some work on this and I think it anticipated that Manchester airport would lose around 3% of its traffic and Newcastle could lose around 10% of its traffic. That was work carried out a couple of years ago… I think you and I—I made the same offer to Ed Balls—could work to help regional airports in the north of England if the Scottish Government were to go down the road of dramatically cutting its air passenger duty.”
Further to that, the Chancellor told the House of Commons on 27 January:
“We have a couple of years to work this out—it does not have be done tonight or tomorrow—and we can work out a plan that protects the brilliant Newcastle, Manchester and other regional airports.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 726.]
What progress has been made on that? This is about a loss of 3% and 10% of business, which are not trivial amounts.
This will result in not only an economic benefit for Scotland, but in real competition, which will come in two forms: there will be competition for passengers on short-haul flights, for which APD is £13 per passenger, and for those on longer-haul flights, for which it is £71 per passenger. Obviously, the same amount is paid for the return flight. A passenger from Newcastle therefore has an incentive—this applies to large families in particular—to travel to Edinburgh or Glasgow in order to save some money. Someone travelling long distance from north America or China has the same incentive.
Graham Stringer
I agree with that perfectly sensible point.
The Government may have a number of possible solutions, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to respond in some way. Manchester airport has made the case strongly to the Government that there should be an air passenger duty holiday on new long-haul routes, and that would be helpful. The Government could devolve decision making to other parts of the United Kingdom as well as to Scotland, although it would be difficult to find a mechanism for doing so. The Government could also agree to compete with Scotland, because if there is no competition, there will be an unfair loss of jobs through lowering the rate of air passenger duty.
Such solutions seem sensible to me, given the experience in the rest of Europe and, indeed, in the rest of the world. The tax was brought in not for environmental reasons, as is sometimes said, but entirely to deal with the hole in the budget after the 1992 general election. It is an inefficient tax: consultants have estimated that it costs the economy more than it brings into the Treasury in cash. Even if the Financial Secretary cannot give an absolutely definitive answer today, I hope he will assure us that he is willing to look at some of the sensible responses to this new competition in tax regimes.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has been very kind in giving way. The tax is about more than just a hole in the budget; it is actually a demand-management tool for Heathrow and perhaps for Gatwick as well. If airports are full, APD is a demand-management tool that might work. It is certainly not helping in Edinburgh, Glasgow or Manchester. The solution is not to worry about each other, but for us to be rid of it, and for the Government to keep the demand-management tool in airports that are already saturated.
Graham Stringer
I do not agree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes in his fourth intervention. Demand management is not the solution for our regional airports, which have huge extra capacity, but if I went down that line, I expect you would rule me out of order, Mr Crausby. I look forward to the Financial Secretary’s response.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I do not share this cosy consensus. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) made it very clear in his usual honourable way—I have sparred with him many times—that if APD is devolved, the Scottish Government, if controlled by the SNP, will cut it markedly and have the goal of abolishing it. He helped the Committee by quoting the Prime Minister to the effect that there would be—these are my words, not the Prime Minister’s—a “beggar my neighbour” attitude downwards on APD. Call me old-fashioned, but I think environmental laws should be state-wide and international, and I consider APD to be an environmental law, which is why I voted for it years ago.
As ever, the SNP has been totally open with the House: it wants to see the number of airline passengers increase throughout the UK. That is an environmental step backwards. Fortunately, we have environmental laws internationally through the EU, for example on waste disposal and air quality, something on which the UK is, to coin a phrase, falling foul at present.
Mr MacNeil
Following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, does he want to increase the rate of APD or is he saying the Tories have got it at just the right rate?
Mr MacNeil
Does the Minister see any advantages in other tax revenues from the cutting of APD or does he think the countries that have cut APD have done it as a result of lemming-like behaviour?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that between 2007 and 2009 the UK’s deficit quadrupled. Given the significance that he attaches to deficits and to one year, what significance does he attach to the quadrupling of the debt of a state in a two-year period?
Ian Murray
I am not sure I understand the intervention. We are debating a deficit in Scotland being £7.6 billion over and above any UK deficit, rising to £10 billion by 2020. If we are defending Scottish jobs and livelihoods, that seems not just economically incredible, but economic illiteracy. Hon. Members need not take my word for it. The Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary, Grahame Smith, commented that the Scottish Government’s own accounts were
“a sobering reminder of some of the risks of full fiscal autonomy”.
That is from the trade unions in Scotland.
The Scottish Government sneaked out their own oil and gas bulletin, their first since May 2014, last week on the last day of the Scottish Parliament. It would be good to look at that alongside the independence White Paper. The bulletin was very much in accord with the Office for Budget Responsibility that was rubbished just a few days before. It showed that North sea oil revenues and projections have fallen drastically in recent times, so let us have a look at those figures. The Scottish Government’s own oil and gas bulletin of June 2015 estimated North sea tax receipts for the period 2016-20 to be £5.8 billion. The same scenario from the same bulletin 13 months earlier estimated the receipts to be well in excess of £26 billion. Even if we compare one year—say, 2016-17—revenues had fallen from a projected £6.9 billion to £1.1 billion, and the lower estimates are as low as £500 million.
These are the Scottish Government’s own figures—all in all, an 85% drop. That tells us two things. First, it blows apart the financial basis for full fiscal autonomy. Secondly, like my new clauses 1 and 21, it calls for a more robust and impartial analysis of the Scottish economy and public finances. That is why we tabled new clauses 1 and 21. New clause 21, alongside new clause 1, would provide for the creation of a Scottish office for budget responsibility to exercise independent and impartial fiscal and budget oversight over Scottish Government devolved competencies.
The Smith commission recommended that
“the Scottish Parliament should seek to expand and strengthen the independent scrutiny of Scotland’s public finances in recognition of the additional variability and uncertainty that further tax and spending devolution will introduce into the budgeting process.”
The new clauses would do just that and take away the politicisation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the Scottish economy, the financing of Scottish public services and, crucially, though it tends to be forgotten in this debate, the livelihoods of everyone living and working in Scotland.
I would go further and ensure that the Scottish office for budget responsibility assesses and reports on individual party manifestos, so that the public can be confident that what they are being sold is both credible and desirable. This is about simple transparency and accountability. That transparency and accountability, as I have said, has not been forthcoming on the current manifesto commitment on full fiscal autonomy. If we had had a Scottish office for budget responsibility at the last election, it would have reported that FFA would be hugely disadvantageous to Scotland. It would have backed up the IFS analysis that showed that FFA did not work and that Scotland would need a real-terms growth rate of 4.5% per year at least between 2013-14 and 2019-20. The assistant general secretary of the STUC, Mr Stephen Boyd, commented exactly on this and said:
“The implication across the board is that taxes would be cut. There are a number of examples where the Scottish Government would be trading a real and immediate cut in revenue for benefits that may not be great in the long run.”
That shows that it would not be achievable in the figures from the IFS. The IFS’s conclusion is that FFA would incur deep, deep cuts in spending or huge tax rises.
It is easy to talk about figures, percentages and statistics, but this has to be about the everyday lives of ordinary, hard-working Scottish families. Inflicting a policy on Scotland that would leave a deficit larger than the entire education budget, or more than three quarters the size of the NHS budget, will not assist Scotland. We all reject the Conservative Government’s misguided austerity, which we know is ideologically driven, rather than an attempt to balance the country’s finances, but we must also reject any policy that would inflict harsher and deeper austerity in Scotland. [Interruption.] This is not, as some would claim—they are claiming it as I speak—about being anti-Scottish, anti-aspiration or anti-hope for the ingenuity, passion and entrepreneurial spirit of Scotland; it is a sobering response to a key manifesto commitment from the Scottish National party.
SNP Members dismiss the views of the IFS, the OBR and even their own GERS reports, but even Jonathan Portes, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, has said on FFA:
“If the SNP plan for full fiscal autonomy were to go ahead, then, as a number of commentators have said, that would lead to very, very severe austerity in Scotland.”
That is why Labour is against full fiscal autonomy; that is why we believe in the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom; and that is why the public voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
European Union (Finance) Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands or places further north of Scotland, but he would see greater use of land there than in the highlands and islands of Scotland, because the agricultural support is so much better. On repatriation, would there not be a danger to some countries that the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American model of economics would suck out the little money that is there and give it to London, which does not put it around its own state? At least with Europe we have some sort of guarantee that we will get the money, even though we are among the least favoured areas of the land.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman’s point tempts me to talk at greater length about a broader, more socialist approach to running the world, with which I strongly agree. If I did so, however, I think I would set too many hares running and Mr Williams would call me to order very quickly.
The CAP is nonsense. We ought to abolish it and repatriate agricultural policy to member states. We can decide in our own country which parts of agriculture should be subsidised and to what extent, and we can decide where and when we buy food. We might choose to subsidise to keep agriculture sustained in this country for strategic reasons. During the second world war we needed to produce food for ourselves, and all countries have to bear those sorts of factors in mind when deciding what they produce.
Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) obviously does not like the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy very much. I am surprised that the SNP is in favour of the European Union at all.
Kelvin Hopkins
The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I have said that if we were outside the EU, we would be better off financially and could choose what we subsidised, how and to what extent. We could choose what sort of farming we wanted to sustain. I have made the point before that small hill farmers in Wales, who are part of our rural culture, ought to be preserved. They might not be very efficient, but we could perhaps choose to subsidise them. For other forms of farming we might choose to maintain the subsidies at the current level, but we would make that choice democratically through our Government and this Parliament.
Mr MacNeil
The glib answer that has often been given to me in the House in years past as to why we should maintain the common fisheries policy is that fish do not have passports. Of course that neglects the reality that there are three types of stocks: migratory stocks, non-migratory stocks and straddling stocks. We can look at what happens in countries that control their own fisheries, such as Iceland. Jóhann Sigurjónsson, the chief fishing scientist of Iceland, tells me that its fishing has so improved, and trawlers are catching the cod stocks so much more quickly, that fishermen are actually getting frustrated. They are being so successful and doing their work in so little time that they want to go and catch more. That is a sign of their success, having managed their own stocks for a number of decades.
Kelvin Hopkins
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is well ahead of me in his expertise in the matter, but the basic point is that we should control our own fish stocks and manage them properly.
I have one or two other points to make about expenditure in the EU budget. From time to time we have discussed international aid. My view, and I think the view of the Department for International Development, is that we would spend international aid better than it is spent through the European Union. We would target and manage it better and try to ensure that it was spent in a less corrupt way in certain countries. Countries would do better to manage their own aid donations abroad than have them dealt with through the European Union. Aid is therefore another component of the EU budget that could be taken away.
Then we come to structural funds. Again, I believe that member states, particularly our own country, are best able to judge what regional assistance they need to provide. We could target that assistance better than when it is decided by the European Union. As part of our regional policy, we might want to have state aid to assist the growth of manufacturing in some of the less successful regions of our country. Manufacturing is too small as a proportion of our economy, and if we want to expand and improve our manufacturing sector to help investment, we might want to use state aid, which is forbidden under the EU arrangements.
Mr MacNeil
Is not the great danger that the high priest of the austerity cult, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would drive austerity further and we would not see the spending that we currently see in areas of Wales and in the highlands and islands of Scotland?
Mr MacNeil
He would keep it all in London. If that were to happen, we would need full fiscal autonomy, or indeed independence, to ensure that areas of Scotland were well protected.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but it is a counsel of despair to say that because we cannot trust our own Government, we have to go to the European Union. I was on a march through London opposing austerity last Saturday, and there were tens of thousands of people there who felt strongly about it. Even though we may have Governments we do not like from time to time, we have the chance of pressurising them in the short term and getting rid of them and replacing them with more progressive Governments in the long term. Pressurising Governments is what I do in politics, as I think Members of all parties do. I want to see the Government elected in this country governing this country, not giving away our powers so that we are governed by a bureaucracy in Brussels or wherever.
I have mentioned spending on the CAP, aid, structural funds, regional policy and so on. If we had responsibility for those things, some of the fiscal transfers that effectively take place between the richer and poorer countries in the European Union might no longer happen. If we want fiscal transfers, the way to do it would be for us to make substantial contributions to a fund that could be allocated to the Governments of less well-off countries. Lithuania, Latvia, Poland or wherever could benefit from donations, but they would go to those countries’ Governments, who would decide how that money ought to be spent in their countries. It would not be about the European Union subsidising certain sectors in a way that may or may not be beneficial to those countries. As I said, in Lithuania, and no doubt in other countries, they are being paid not to grow agricultural products and their own food. That is nonsensical, and I wish to see an end to it. If we want fiscal transfers, let them be up front. Let us contribute to a fund that poorer countries in the EU, or in a new association of member states, could draw on. That would be a more sensible way forward.
Of course, that would loosen the bonds of the European Union. We would not have decisions about all sorts of sectors being made by the Commission in Brussels. They would be made by democratic Governments, and we would have a looser association of states within Europe, which would be a much more sensible way of operating. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, and I support her probing new clauses and her amendment 1, which we hope to be voting on soon.
Productivity
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
There is indeed a problem in the shift away from the added-value, higher-skilled economy that we must have to maintain our place in, and indeed win, that famous global race. If we think that we can do it simply by chasing lower-wage, lower-skilled markets, we will never ultimately succeed relative to other countries.
Chris Leslie
This might be a shock to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not sure where he was at the time, but there was a global banking crisis—[Interruption.] I know it is a shock to Conservative Members, because in their script it has been expunged from the record, as if it never happened.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he agree that the culture of long working hours can often be the enemy of productivity? The textbook example is Volkswagen 10 or 20 years ago: when the working week was cut from 35 to 28 hours, productivity went up. When workers feel that they do not have all day to do the job, they get on with that job and productivity rises.
Chris Leslie
I think there is a case to be made for ensuring that we focus on the morale of those in employment. There is an optimal point from which morale can dip and fall. We have to focus on what creates the optimal circumstances for those in work to produce the amounts that our economy needs. That is all part of this complicated picture.
When we have managed to get the Chancellor to talk about productivity in the past, he has referred to a “productivity puzzle”. If we are looking for clues to the solution to that puzzle, looking more closely at the nature of our economic recovery is important. It still feels a bit stressed, quite fraught and fragile. Reflecting on that is part of the solution.
On skills, just a few weeks ago, the Office for National Statistics published its analysis showing that the share of high-skilled jobs in the economy is falling relative to the share of low-skilled work, which is of course taking its place. The Bank of England’s last inflation report stated that since mid-2013 employment growth had been more concentrated in lower-skilled occupations, concluding that this shift in the composition of the labour force could have dragged down aggregate productivity growth over the past two years.
That is not something that we should simply accept. I do not believe that we are just at the mercy of events and unable to influence our economic productivity. On this side, we believe that it does not have to be that way. History shows that Britain can do better. By contrast with the traditional Conservative approach, which is to step back and hope that productivity magically springs from the market out of thin air, we take a very different view. We believe that decent infrastructure and decent public services can support business growth. Motorways that flow freely and trains that commuters can get on; tax offices that answer business queries efficiently rather than keeping their company staff always on hold; swift treatment of sick employees in a decent NHS: all that is part of the productivity story, as is an education system that supports a workforce with high-quality skills. So many aspects of our public services are crucial for our future economic productivity. Each of those depends on the Chancellor making the right fiscal choices for this Parliament. This should have been at the top of the Chancellor’s agenda throughout the last Parliament; for him not even to mention it in the last Budget speech was a grievous error.
European Union Referendum Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman’s concern is partly due to the behaviour of José Manuel Barroso, the former President of the European Commission, during the Scottish referendum, and whether that model is what he envisages seeing, in amplification, in the European referendum.
Sir William Cash
It certainly is. I have heard over and over again in this debate claims that, “We all want fairness. We all want transparency. We all want to be sure that the British people are treated fairly.” The fact is that with European Union money there is not the slightest chance of that happening, and the purdah arrangements, by bringing the civil service into the equation, will have exactly the same negative effect.
Mr MacNeil
By extension, the logical conclusion of what the hon. Gentleman has just said is that the Scottish people were not treated fairly last September.
Sir William Cash
This is vital territory. In a nutshell, we will have to get it right. Opening the floodgates on that money would be devastating, especially if it were to be employed alongside the lifting of the restrictions in section 125, which would bring the whole panoply of the civil service into play. That would be a nightmare scenario, but it is a genuine possibility. I am not convinced that the European Union is not a foreign source, although I will look into that. We passed an Act of Parliament, the European Communities Act 1972, under which we absorbed into our legislation all the treaties and all the functions of the bodies in the European Union. Because they became part of our constitutional settlement—for the time being, I trust—I believe that it would be an uncertain, if not a dangerous, assumption to make that the European Union and the European Commission would not be construed as being based in the United Kingdom as well as in all the other EU countries, in other words, as not being a foreign source. This matter will have to be looked at very carefully. I shall consult and confer with my colleagues as to what we do about these amendments.
Mr MacNeil
Part of the difficulty that the UK has is the way that countries such as Ireland, Cyprus and Malta are to be treated. We also have the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; we do not consider Commonwealth citizens to be foreign but do consider some European Union citizens to be foreign. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is anomalous because the Irish Republic is neither in the Commonwealth nor is it considered legally foreign in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom’s own mess is contributing to some of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman is making.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I associate myself entirely with the comments made earlier in welcoming him to this debate. I will often disagree with what he says, but I am delighted to see someone who goes to such efforts to express in this Chamber views that are very clearly and sincerely held. I always think that a sincere political opponent is the kind of opponent one likes to have a debate with.
I want to focus on amendments 53 and 32. I have some sympathy with the intention behind amendment 53, but from my experience of the referendum in Scotland last year, I suggest that the last thing anybody should want to do is to artificially restrict or control the number of individuals in organisations who can play their own small but important part in what should be a celebration of grassroots democracy if we get it right; it could be something very different if we get it wrong.
The Scottish independence referendum was the biggest celebration of grassroots democracy that I have ever seen or expect to see. That was partly because neither the political parties nor anyone else tried to artificially control who was and was not allowed to take part. I am sure that on a number of occasions the SNP’s lawyers were quite pleased that they were not in control of some of the things that were happening. That is what made it so much fun, that is what gave us a record-breaking turnout, and that is why public engagement in politics in Scotland is still at a much higher level than it was just a few years ago.
I caution the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) to be careful about artificially restricting this debate to the great and the good and suchlike. A lot of wee people out there have something important to say, and a lot of smaller organisations will have an important part to play, on both sides of the question. We should encourage them to have their say rather than artificially restrict them.
It is interesting to hear so many Conservative MPs complaining that they might get outspent in an election campaign; in almost 30 years of party politics, I do not often remember Conservatives complaining that an election was not fair if one party was being massively funded by big business and was able to outspend all the other parties combined by a factor of five or 10.
Mr MacNeil
There is also an irony in the Conservatives’ concerns that European organisations might dip their oars in this debate, given their negligible worries about the Committees and machinations of Government during the Scottish referendum.
Peter Grant
My hon. Friend makes a good and valid point. Conservatives expressing concerns about possible unfairness in the conduct of this referendum are referring to exactly the kind of unfairness that they and their colleagues were happy to exploit in the Scottish referendum.
Peter Grant
Like many Members on these Benches, I am not comfortable with the very severe restrictions that have been put on what charitable organisations can and cannot do. A phrase I have often used at hustings is, “If I say we should give money to the poor, I’ll be called a saint. If, however, I ask why they were poor in the first place, they would call me a communist.” There is a dividing line between any kind of socially beneficial charitable work and getting political. Asking why we have food banks, for example, very quickly becomes a political matter. The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, but I am saying that specifically in relation to organisations that work on behalf of citizens—some of them will have a vote in the referendum, but shamefully it looks as though some may not—we have to be very careful not unintentionally to prevent them from doing the job for which they were originally constituted.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. Does he agree that the difference in tone between the Scottish referendum and this one arises because in Scotland we talked about the people in Scotland, while in this referendum the talk is of the British people, which is a shame? The talk should be about the people in Britain or, more correctly, the people in the UK. That is what the referendum should be about, and we should not exclude people who live here because of where they were from originally.
Peter Grant
I have always been of the view that people’s nationality should be defined by where they want to go, rather than where they came from, but that definition is not widely accepted.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in today’s debate, Mr Howarth, and to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), as the Minister responding. The constitution is always in safe hands when it is in the hands of Somerset, so it is reassuring that he is here to respond.
I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said about amendment 10, on EU funding, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and to which I have added my name. The appearance of fairness within the referendum is at the heart of what the Government must try to do. The Government, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. It would be wrong if there was any feeling that the referendum was being held improperly, that undue pressure was being brought to bear, or that funding was directed to one side rather than the other—I say that as somebody who supports the Government’s position—but it would be most wrong if British taxpayers’ money funnelled by the European Union ended up being used to campaign for us to remain subject to the European Union.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a delight to give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman’s pronunciation is as impeccable in this Parliament as it was in the last one. I congratulate him once again.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the nonsense and unacceptability of British taxpayers’ money going through the European Union and back again. He will be aware, and perhaps bemused and baffled, that there is much amusement in Scotland that Scottish taxpayers’ money funnelled through the UK Government was used in our referendum to campaign succinctly and definitely on one side. I am thinking of Sir Nicholas Macpherson and many others along with him.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to listen to an excellent debate on that very subject yesterday, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I think I would be in trouble if I went through the question of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland in relation to amendment 10 to the European Union Referendum Bill, so I want to stick to the subject at hand.
The European Union has a budget for this. Indeed, we passed a Bill in 2013 that allows for the European Union to engage in political activity and the promotion of the cause and objectives of the European Union. That money flows to institutions within the United Kingdom and that money comes with strings attached. It is money that is given on the basis that the institutions receiving that money support the objectives of the European Union.
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, we co-operate in far too many areas already. I have a lot of sympathy with the SNP’s position in many ways, because it is not entirely different from mine. I want my country, which I view as the UK, to govern herself, and SNP Members want a smaller part of the UK—Scotland, which they view as their country —to govern herself too. It puzzles me that, having got self-government, they want to hand it over to Brussels, but that is a question for them.
Mr MacNeil
My first quibble—the first mistake the hon. Gentleman has made—is that the British Union is not a country, but a union. Secondly, he fails to realise that we only want to change our relationship with London. Our relationship with Brussels would stay the same, under the SNP’s proposals for Scottish independence, which might come very soon.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is a moot point that was discussed at length during the Scottish referendum campaign and to which I had better not revert.
I want to concentrate on the power, influence and resources of Governments.
Mr MacNeil
I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of what happened in the Scottish referendum. The only difference was the way that it was funded. In the United Kingdom, funds are collected centrally and go to London. If the European Union had the same model, they would be collected centrally and go to Brussels and then given out again. The point is that it is taxpayers’ money. In Scotland, we saw our taxpayers’ money come back to the UK Government and used against one side of the referendum campaign.
John Redwood
I quite understand, but I am suggesting something different. I am suggesting that to have a completely fair and independent referendum, there should be much stricter controls over the expenditure of Government money.
Mr MacNeil
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his revelatory tone and words. He said that he wants a stricter and fairer system, so his commentary on the Scottish referendum is instructive and very welcome.
John Redwood
The result in Scotland was pretty conclusive, so the expenditure of Government money was not the crucial thing that made the difference to the result. The result speaks for itself. But we can always learn from past experiences. For my choice, I do not favour the expenditure of public money on interfering in elections and referendums. I am known to be careful with public money anyway, and I would not want the money to be spent on this area. It is for individuals to decide what they wish to do by way of political intervention, and they can make their own decisions. If we let them have more of their own money to spend, they may wish to spend it on interventions in elections. That is how I would rather it was done. In this case, it would be particularly counterproductive for the European Union to spend some of our money, which we send to them, on intervening on one side. It would cause enormous resentments. Indeed, the no campaign might even welcome it as it would be a cause in itself which it would make use of if this became a clear use or abuse of public money.
The Economy
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
It is fantastic to see my hon. Friend here representing Taunton. She has already made an impact and made sure that the A358 is absolutely in the Government’s road programme. For all that we heard from the shadow Chancellor about investment and the like, the Labour party announced during the general election that it was cancelling the A358, and indeed the A20, which showed that it did not care about the south of England at all, or about investment in the south-west of England. That is pretty astonishing.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Chancellor will of course be aware that Scotland rejected the cuts agenda—the austerity cult that he is the high priest of—and we now have 56 out of 59 MPs. I see from the front page of today’s Financial Times that the OECD agrees with the SNP on spending and says that his cuts agenda is a danger to the economy of the UK. Will he take some economic lessons from the SNP and perhaps improve the performance of this Government?
Mr Osborne
If we had listened to the SNP there would be a massive hole in Scotland’s public finances because of the price of oil. We are obviously going to be hearing a lot more from SNP Members in this Parliament because of their numbers. If there are cuts that they oppose, let me point out that the Scottish National party in Holyrood has the power to increase taxes to increase spending. It has the power to increase income tax already and it is getting more powers next year to do so. When it comes to complaints about public expenditure, it is time for the SNP to put up or shut up.
Let me turn to economic security and public spending. Economic security is at the heart of everything. Without economic security, families cannot be supported, people cannot buy homes, businesses dare not invest, and jobs are not created. Without economic security, there are no aspirations, no opportunities, no hopes, and no ambitions. We cannot have economic security in a country that borrows too much and spends too much and does not live within its means. When confronted with the synthetic cries of Labour Members who claim to be standing up for the poorest in our country, let us also recognise this: the people who suffer most when Britain cannot pay its way, spends more than it can afford and sees security give way to instability are not the richest in this country but the poorest. When the economy fails, it is the poorest who lose their jobs and see their incomes cut and their dreams shattered. That is what we saw five years ago when there was no money left. For as long as Labour Members fail to understand that, they will remain the anti-worker party.
Economic security is at the heart of everything we offer, and it will be at the centre of the Budget I present to this House on 8 July. The budget deficit is less than half what it was, but at 4.8% it is still one of the highest in the world. Our national debt as a share of national income—
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Chancellor for his gracious words about me in his speech? It is an achievement to survive five years as Chancellor of the Exchequer and, indeed, to be reappointed, and I congratulate him on that.
I rise to speak from the Back Benches for the first time in nine years. I do so obviously deeply disappointed at Labour’s election defeat, for which I take full responsibility. I believe it is right that my party comprehensively examines the reasons for that defeat and does the hard and painful thinking necessary. On the day after the general election I rang the Prime Minister to congratulate him. I said, as the Chancellor said in his speech, that he had defied the pollsters and the pundits—and indeed that is true. I repeat those congratulations to the Conservative party.
In the time since the general election, I can report to the House that I have found some small consolations of losing, including spending time with my two boys, who feel that they have their dad back. However, I confess that my eldest, who has just turned six, did bring me further down to earth last week. He suddenly turned to me out of the blue and said, “Dad, if there is a fire in our house, I think we’ll be okay.” I said, “Why’s that, Daniel?” He said, “Because if we ring the fire brigade they’ll recognise your name because you used to be famous.” “Thanks very much,” I said. From my used-to-be-famous position on the Back Benches, I look forward to helping to play my part in holding the Government to account, as it is the job of the Opposition to do, and the occasion of the Queen’s Speech is the right place to start.
Whatever our profound differences over the years, I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment in the days after the election, and repeated in the Gracious Speech, to govern for one nation. I welcome this because it speaks in historical terms to what I see as an admirable side of Conservatism, represented by Disraeli and Macmillan. It is worth reminding ourselves of the historical lineage that suggests. This is what Disraeli said in his novel “Sybil, or The Two Nations”, published 170 years ago this year, about what he was fighting against:
“Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets”.
For many people, that will sound like the description, in old-fashioned language, of some of what afflicts our country today: a divide between the top 1%, or even the top 0.1%, and everyone else. Facing up to that is a challenge for any Government of any colour, but particularly, if I may suggest, for one claiming the mantle of one nation.
A huge question facing all western democracies in the next five, 10, 20 years is whether we are comfortable with the huge disparities that exist, whether we are fated to have them and whether we want to even try to confront them. Personally, I believe we will have to, and I believe this is an issue for right and left.
What has changed in the debate about inequality is that, internationally and across the political spectrum, there is growing recognition that these gaps are not just bad for the poor, as we always used to believe, but bad—
Edward Miliband
No, thanks very much.
These gaps are not just bad for the poor, but bad for all of us. Last month, the OECD joined the International Monetary Fund in saying that inequality was definitively a problem. The secretary-general of the OECD said there was
“compelling evidence that high inequality harms economic growth”
and social mobility. Simply put, if the rungs of the ladder grow too far apart, it is much harder to climb them.
The old idea was that inequality was necessary for economic growth. In fact, we now know that the deep structural challenges in our economy of low productivity—which, to be fair, the Chancellor and, indeed, my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor referred to—are bound up with high inequality. More unequal societies tend to use the talents of fewer people, and they suffer as a result.
It is not just internationally that the debate has shifted, and I applaud those on the right—some of whom are sitting on the Government Benches—who have focused on this issue. I was intrigued the other day to hear Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s former adviser, say that it was time to impose a maximum wage for the bankers. As you would expect from me, Mr Speaker, I see that proposal as anti-aspiration and anti-business, and I have no truck with it. [Laughter.] The serious point is that this issue will not go away and needs to be confronted.
I hope that we can move on—maybe the Government’s emphasis on one nation presages this—from discussing whether inequality is a problem to what the solutions are. There are no easy solutions in the context of a global economy, but progress can be made in the way we shape our economy and the way we approach tax and benefits. As a starting point, I urge the Government and the Chancellor, in the spirit of one nation, to look at the OECD recommendations—not just those about the pursuit of equal opportunity and skills, but those about tackling insecure work in our economy, which it specifically identifies as part of the problem, and progressive taxation, which it says is part of the answer. Perhaps that will all be in a one nation Budget in July. I wait with interest.
Within the profound and growing challenge of inequality lies the specific problem of in-work poverty. I would say that it is the modern scourge of our time. For the first time, as many people in Britain who are in poverty are in work as out of work. I believe that the left and right can agree that it should be a basic principle that if you go out to work, you should not be living in poverty. But we are very far from that in Britain today.
The minimum wage has played its part in countering the worst exploitation, but I believe it needs to do more. In Doncaster, which I represent, 28% of men and more than a third of women workers are paid less than the living wage of £7.65 an hour. The UK is one of the low-pay capitals of western Europe. There is an irony here: the Low Pay Commission is a great success, and indeed a lasting achievement, of the 1997 Labour Government—to be fair, the last Government continued to operate with the Low Pay Commission—but I fear that the way it operates has become too much a recipe for the lowest common denominator.
Countries around the world are confronting similar issues and seeking to act. There is a live debate in the United States about raising the minimum wage. Los Angeles has just passed a plan to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour from $9 an hour over five years. I say to the Chancellor that if we are to make progress here at home, it will require us to strengthen and guide the Low Pay Commission much more explicitly. That is something that its previous chair, George Bain, has called for. Without it, I do not believe it we will be equal to the challenge of low pay.
Just as one nation requires the right approach to those who work, so it requires the right approach to those who cannot. The origin of one nation for Disraeli was rooted in the lives of the rich and the poor. Responsibility is absolutely part of a successful welfare system, but so too is protection of the most vulnerable. We will never be one nation without a social security system that supports those who need it.
I think it would repay Ministers to read some of the early speeches by the Prime Minister when he became leader of the Conservative party. On the 25th anniversary of the Scarman report in 2006, he said:
“In the past we used to think of poverty in absolute terms—meaning straightforward material deprivation. That’s not enough. We need to think of poverty in relative terms—the fact that some people lack those things which others in society take for granted.”
He continued:
“I want this message to go out loud and clear—the Conservative Party recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty.”
That was seen as a radical departure from the tenets of Thatcherism, and it was. If the approach in the Queen’s Speech is indeed meant to be a return to the earlier incarnation of the Prime Minister’s approach, which I welcome, Ministers need to prove it and to square the circle with the Government’s proposals for deficit reduction.
Can one nation really be consistent with making those on welfare shoulder £12 billion of the burden for deficit reduction and those at the top nothing at all? Can one nation really be squared with cuts to tax credits, with their impact on working people? Can one nation be squared with a welfare system that is so often harsh, brutal and brutalising? Can one nation be squared with a country where a million people go to food banks? Those tests on inequality, low pay and a compassionate social security system are appropriate tests for a Government claiming the mantle of one nation. There are many more besides, including, of course, keeping our United Kingdom together.
Let me make this final point about the situation facing the Prime Minister. Fighting an election and winning is some achievement; how he seeks to use the mandate is what will really define his legacy. He is in an unusual position in that he has fought his last election. He is able, if he wishes, to return to what he said when he first became Leader of the Opposition and not worry about an election round the corner, with all the pressures that entails. I urge him, perhaps through the Chancellor, to follow through on his one nation rhetoric. Opposition Members will hold the Government to account at every turn for whether they are living up to their own test: one nation in spirit and deed. If that is where the battleground of politics lies in the years ahead, I welcome it and look forward to playing my part.
Tourism Industry and VAT
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. In the midst of Wales tourism week and on the eve of the Budget, I would like to make the case for a reduction in the VAT rate for the tourism industry from 20% to 5% specifically, and importantly, for visitor attractions and accommodation, to bring our country into line with competitor destinations in the European Union.
The Minister has been well lobbied on this issue and perhaps he gets tired of hearing the arguments that some of us advance for that cause, but I would like to draw his attention to research published recently on behalf of the Cut Tourism VAT campaign. I am aware that the campaign recently met Treasury officials. The research further strengthens the case for making a change in our VAT regime. That case is borne out by the number of Members here for the debate representing constituencies across the United Kingdom.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
As the hon. Gentleman is mentioning the diverse, wide range of constituencies, this is an opportune moment to say that I have had correspondence from Shonnie MacRitchie from the County hotel in Stornoway, who points out that the UK is the 138th most competitive of 140 for VAT in tourism. Indeed, there are only two other countries in the EU that have not reduced that VAT rate. That could be done now without any derogation from Europe, so does he agree that it should be done?
Mr Williams
I am mindful of your stipulations, Ms Dorries, but I very much concur with that intervention. The debate is about making all component parts of the United Kingdom competitive across the board with our friends and colleagues in Europe. There are few constituencies—in fact, I cannot think of any—that would not benefit from a reduced rate of VAT, whether through accommodation or visitor attractions.
Albert Owen
Yes, indeed; it was a brave step. [Interruption.] It is interesting that we are getting heckled from across the Chamber by people who voted to put VAT up previously, but are campaigning here today to cut it. We are not going to take any lessons from some Members here in the Chamber today. I believe, as does the hon. Member for Ceredigion, whom I congratulate on securing this debate, that cutting VAT would give a great example to the industry.
In the past few months, I have spent time in France and the Republic of Ireland, where I have seen our near neighbours benefit from a cut in value added tax.
Mr MacNeil
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about VAT, but I have to ask him this: when VAT was increased in this Parliament, why did the Labour party abstain on that vote?
Albert Owen
I do not speak for the Labour party, and if the hon. Gentleman checks the records, he will see that I do not vote with the Labour party when I think that that is right. I speak for myself. Unlike the sheep in the Scottish National party, who are all herded through one Lobby, I tend to have a little independence of spirit and mind when it comes to these issues. I feel very strongly that the case has been made to cut VAT on this occasion and I will certainly support any amendment tabled in the Budget to ensure that there is a cut. I hope that Conservative Members who voted to put VAT up before but now support a cut will follow their conscience and vote to cut VAT for tourism.
Since 2012-13, there has been growth in tourism right across the four nations of the United Kingdom. It is a resilient industry, but it is the industry itself that is asking for a cut, because it feels that it could contribute so much more in employment and generating wealth for regional economies and the UK economy if there was a cut.
As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, Ireland has reduced its VAT on tourism to 9%. Only last week, I was in the Republic of Ireland. We were launching the new vessel that goes between my constituency and Dublin. Holyhead to Dublin has been branded the new Dover to Calais, and as Dublin is one of the fastest growing ports in Europe, that benefits my constituency. Also, as we are near neighbours, the vessel takes people, who come from places across the United Kingdom, from Wales to holiday in the Republic of Ireland. My colleagues from Northern Ireland will have experience of this. The crossing from Holyhead to the Republic of Ireland takes only two hours. Many tourism operators that book people going to Ireland overnight say that one reason why they are going to Ireland is that the Irish Government have focused on tourism, focused on the brand and focused on how tax reductions on accommodation help the industry.
Future Government Spending
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
We stand by the OBR’s projections. We have made considerable progress at a time when other economies have struggled and when there has been a eurozone crisis. But for the steps that we have taken, our debts would have risen much more quickly.
Let us return to the position of the Labour party. Where are its answers on deficit reduction? We get the old answers, which are that it would squeeze the rich and reintroduce the 50p top rate of tax. It conveniently forgets that the previous Government had a top rate of 40p for all but 36 of their 4,758 days in office.
The House will want to be aware that our move to the 45p rate cost only around £100 million—a small price to pay for making the international message loud and clear that we are open for business. How much does Labour think that reversing that policy would raise? I am happy to give way to the shadow Minister on that. To say that a return to the 50p rate would bring in an extra £3 billion a year, which is what he implied, is frankly ludicrous, and I challenge him to identify one reputable economist between now and 7 May who will support such a position.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Minister has probably forgotten that when it came to the millionaires’ tax cut, the Labour party abstained and did not vote against it. More importantly, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said that if it were not for austerity, UK GDP would be 5% higher. The tax take with 5% more GDP is about £32 billion, or equivalent to 30% of the current deficit. Does the Minister accept that austerity has been a mistake and that we should have gone for growth through investment?
Mr Gauke
I am not persuaded by the argument that if we borrow more we ultimately borrow less—I am afraid that is far too easy an answer.
The Government believe that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed today, that is exactly what is happening. That is why the richest in our society now pay more in tax than at any point under the previous Government. The Labour party can lecture us all it likes about taxing the rich, but it was not on our watch that private equity managers paid a lower rate of tax than their cleaners. It was not on our watch that the wealthy could sidestep stamp duty, or that higher earners could disguise their remuneration as loans that were never repaid. Under our watch, however, every single Budget that we introduced raised revenues from the most well off in society.