Beer Duty Escalator
Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Hamilton(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
I will try not to take up too much time. I want to be specific, because it appears from the interventions on the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) that hon. Members have a wide range of opinions that all go in the same direction. They will give the facts and figures during the debate.
When I was a young man, there were 23 pubs in Dalkeith high street. Times have changed. The price of alcohol has created problems for the brewing industry, but so have changes in habits and priorities. There is no doubt that taxation is one of the many factors that have created a problem for our pubs. Every day, we see on television and in the newspapers the problems on high streets at weekends, but no one talks about the thousands of pubs in villages and housing estates where there are no problems whatever. We want to protect those pubs.
No doubt the Minister will say that treating alcohol-related diseases costs 3% of the NHS budget; that only £10.6 billion is raised in tax; and that £21 billion is spent through the NHS on treating alcohol-related injuries and so on. I understand that, but I have a specific point for him to consider. Many hon. Members will talk about draught beer and cider, which are disproportionately affected by what happens in the supermarkets. In Scotland, there will be a threshold for alcohol pricing in supermarkets, but a minimum pricing regime will mean that the supermarkets take the money—nobody else will get it. Will the Treasury consider transferring the duty, and reducing the tax on some products and increasing it on others?
If hon. Members go to Tesco across the road from the Palace, they will find that four cans of John Smith’s will cost them £3.50—so I am told. A pint of the same beer will cost them £4.10 in The Red Lion. The tax on alcohol in supermarkets is completely disproportionate to the tax on alcohol bought at the bar.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the health impact of alcohol on our society. Does he agree that pubs are a more controlled environment for drinking, and that people are less likely to abuse alcohol in pubs than if they buy cheap booze from the supermarket?
Mr Hamilton
I could not agree more. As a side issue, the central location of television soap operas is the pub. Things might be exaggerated on television, but pubs are about families and people getting together. Pubs are controlled environments where people look after one another. It is not uncommon for the bar steward to say to someone who is too drunk, “You’ve had enough. Away you go.” Somebody might look after someone who is too drunk in the pub. Drinking at home is uncontrolled and causes far more bother. Another problem we must face is that, nowadays, people—youngsters especially—meet in houses and get drink-fuelled before going out to the nightclubs.
Future of Town Centres and High Streets
Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Hamilton(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this timely debate. It is clear that there is concern about these issues across the House. The problem has come to a head recently because of the wider economic climate, but it is important to remember that this is not a new problem—it predates the recession by a number of years. There is evidence in my constituency of town centre decline stretching back at least 20 years. There is no single cause; instead, a malign constellation of circumstances combined to erode the viability of independent and family-run shops.
The trend towards larger supermarkets and out-of-town retail parks is undoubtedly the key underlining issue—others have alluded to it—but it is not the only one. As others have mentioned, there is the growth in online retail, changes in demography and working patterns in local economies, people commuting to work, less time to shop and changing tastes. I can also think of a range of long-standing family businesses where proprietors have reached retirement age and found no one else in the family willing to take it on. In the current climate, it is difficult for newcomers to get into the market or take on that kind of commitment, even if they can get the finance, which is a major challenge.
Turning that around is a challenge not just for national or local government; it also involves traders and, perhaps most importantly, our role as shoppers and citizens. If we want thriving town centres, Governments and local authorities need to work together to play their part. We should not, however, dodge the dominance of the large supermarkets and its consequences. There is no doubt that they are hard to beat on price and range and that they offer free parking and many other things that people have mentioned. Furthermore, those who think that supermarkets are the closest thing to Dante’s third circle of hell can now order all their shopping online and get it delivered.
That is all very well but small shops cannot compete on price and range of goods, or provide free parking. Those of us concerned about the demise of our town centres need to put our money where our mouths are, use our shops and not do all our shopping in one shop. If we do all our shopping in the large supermarkets, they will quickly become the only places where we can shop.
It is important to consider alternatives. People have come up with lots of good suggestions today, but in my constituency the small business bonus scheme, introduced by the Scottish Government, has provided a lifeline in recent years to smaller, independent shops. Shopkeepers in my constituency have told me in no uncertain terms that their business would not have survived the past three years had their rates bill not disappeared. Furthermore, the small business bonus is arguably a huge incentive for new businesses and entrants to the marketplace because it reduces start-up costs and mitigates some of the costs associated with a new retail business.
The £60 million town centre regeneration fund introduced in Scotland in 2009, with cross-party support, has also played a part. We have seen projects across every local authority area devised by local stakeholders. They have enabled communities across the country to improve the appearance of their facilities, make them more accessible and create more than 1,000 jobs. Local authorities have a particular responsibility to push forward regeneration, to take action on parking charges, which others have mentioned, and to ensure that planning decisions do not undermine town centre regeneration.
It is important that local authorities enforce the planning conditions that they place on big supermarkets outside town. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) mentioned Huntly. That was a great scheme in theory—it is not in my constituency— but in practice there has been much controversy because planning conditions placed on Tesco have not been enforced by the local authority.
Mr David Hamilton
May I point out what happens when local authorities try to challenge big companies, such as Tesco? We are talking about small local authorities taking on a multinational company, the legal department of which is often bigger than the local authority so it can take the local authority to court and win. That is part of the problem.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the challenges and pressures on local authority legal departments. As citizens and shoppers, we have a chance to address that.
Public Sector Pensions
Debate between Eilidh Whiteford and David Hamilton(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whiteford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to point out two things. The first is the Scottish Government’s living wage, which has been raised to £7.20. That will significantly protect the household income of low-paid workers. The second and more substantial is the role of the Scottish Government in the matter. There has been a lot of chat around the Chamber about the room for manoeuvre that the Scottish Government do or do not have. Let me make it clear that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in Scotland, John Swinney, pointing out that the Treasury would cut the budget by £8.4 million a month—that is half a billion pounds over the spending review period—if the Scottish Government did not impose the pension increases.
Dr Whiteford
Not at the moment.
The unions recognise that the Scottish Government have very limited room for manoeuvre. Their choice is very simple: they impose the increases or take the money out of another part of the budget, in other words pay twice. It is clear that even if the Scottish Government were to ignore the requirement and tried to find the money from somewhere else, the Government would cut that money from the budget.
Dr Whiteford
Not on that point.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for pointing out the approach that the Government have taken in the negotiations with the trade unions. It seems to me that they have used a similar approach with the Scottish Government, whose choice has been limited. They have been dictated to, and there has not been a basis for a sensible, grown-up negotiation.
Another point made in the debate has been about the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. The key point is that it was not recommendations that were put forward but a series of theoretical options. That was part of the process of the Hutton consultation, and it was quite proper for the Scottish Government to set out a range of theoretical positions. I am sorry that that has dominated the debate so much.
We all recognise the challenges of pension reform, but we want it to be done in a truly equitable way that does not encourage a race to the bottom. We have to acknowledge the progress that has already been made to put public sector pensions on a more sustainable footing and the mechanisms that already exist, but punishing public sector workers through a short-term tax grab will do absolutely nothing to tackle the inadequate pension provision in the private sector. It is nothing but a tax grab, and it is disappointing that the Government have relied so heavily on the arguments that we have heard today. In tough times, all people realise that they have to take a share of the pain, but public sector workers do not want to carry the can.