Oral Answers to Questions
Gordon Henderson Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
11. Whether caravans designed and constructed for continuous occupation will remain zero-rated for VAT purposes under his proposals when used as holiday homes.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have proposed a new definition of a zero-rated caravan, based on whether it has been designed and constructed for residential purposes. To achieve that, we have proposed a test, based on British Standard 3632, indicating that the caravan has been designed for continuous, all-year-round occupation. We are consulting on whether additional criteria should be added to ensure that the zero rate applies only to caravans intended for residential use, although I know that my hon. Friend argues that such additional criteria would not be desirable.
Gordon Henderson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, which demonstrates clearly the need for further consultation. There are 45 holiday caravan parks in Sittingbourne and Sheppey which will be hard hit by the imposition of VAT on static caravans. Will he listen carefully and sympathetically to representations from the holiday industry before making a final decision?
Mr Gauke
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will listen carefully and sympathetically to the arguments that are put to us. He, indeed, has already made strong representations on this point, and we have of course extended the consultation period to 18 May, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury pointed out earlier.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Gordon Henderson Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Albert Owen
I will not give way again; I have already given way twice and I want to finish my point.
People who visit places such as the Isle of Anglesey, which I represent, want to go to them regularly. They will therefore buy terraced houses or properties at the lower end of the market and force up the prices of those properties. That will put pressure on affordable housing. I do not think that that is an issue that the Treasury has taken on board.
This exemption is not an anomaly, but is meant to help the industry. If that industry suffers, many people in the tourism and manufacturing industries across the United Kingdom will suffer. We have seen headlines about the granny tax, the pasty tax and the charity tax, but this proposal is an Osborne tax. It was made in No. 11 and will have consequences across the United Kingdom. Tonight, Members on both sides of the House have the opportunity to vote it down. That is the strongest and clearest message that we can send the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his lieutenant. That is true not only of the caravan tax but of the pasty tax, which I will also vote against if there is an opportunity to do so tonight. Let us be consistent. The caravan tax will not raise extra revenue for the Treasury, but it will damage jobs, entrepreneurs, coastal areas of beauty that rely on tourism and areas that rely on the manufacturing of caravans.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I should like to draw to the Government’s attention a couple of anomalies in the VAT rules that they have created with their Budget proposals. That is quite ironic considering that the reason that Ministers have given for their proposals to change the current VAT rates for pies, pasties and caravans is to iron out such anomalies.
I start with hot food. The Government propose to amend note 3 in the existing legislation so that
“the current test for ‘hot takeaway food’ which is based on the purposes for which food is heated becomes a simpler and more objective test based on whether the food is above ambient air temperature at the time it is provided to the customer.”
That suggestion is nonsense, and I will explain why.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend may be interested to hear that the written evidence given to the Treasury Committee by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales states that these VAT changes are broadly sensible reforms
“but will still leave plenty of anomalies”.
Gordon Henderson
I can only agree with that:
I accept that there is an argument for trying to address the current situation whereby some shops sell hot pies without charging VAT but others, such as my local chippy, have to charge VAT on the hot pies that they sell. However, the Government’s proposal is not an answer. Nor, sadly, is the Opposition’s new clause 1, which is why I cannot support it. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) will withdraw it, and that he and his colleagues will support new clause 5, which I believe would achieve the Government’s objectives while protecting businesses such as that run by my friend.
Andrew George
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting new clause 5. As he knows, no one eats fish and chips cold, but a lot of people eat a good pasty cold. In fact, they are delicious cold. A lot of people go to the many pasty bakers in my constituency, buy pasties hot, take them home, put them in the freezer and use them later. The Government’s proposal clearly does not address that type of consumption.
Gordon Henderson
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the proposal is nonsense, but I want to move on to caravans, which are important to my constituency.
The Government’s proposal is allegedly to iron out an anomaly by ensuring that the sales of holiday and leisure caravans are taxed consistently at the standard rate, but once again, it simply creates another anomaly, which I will describe in a moment.
The proposal must be one of the most ill-conceived and badly thought out of all the proposals in this year’s Budget. We have been told consistently that the Government want to help coastal communities, which have become increasingly deprived over the past couple of decades, and which often have a higher level of unemployment than other areas. The Isle of Sheppey in my constituency is one such coastal community. As I have mentioned in the House on a number of occasions, unemployment on the Isle of Sheppey is among the highest in the south-east of England. The island took another knock earlier this year when Thamesteel went into administration. To give them their due, both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government have been working hard with my local authorities to find ways of mitigating the closure of Thamesteel by encouraging the growth of other industries, but one of those industries is the tourism and holiday industry, which has declined over the past 40 years, since its ’60s heyday.
In recent months, we have seen the green shoots of recovery in our local tourism scene, boosted in part by the decision of Swale borough council to allow many caravan parks to extend their operating periods from eight to 10 months of the year. That decision gave caravan park owners a real incentive to invest in and upgrade their parks, but success in the caravan holiday business is reliant on a good mix of park-owned caravans for hire and pitches for owner-occupiers. The sale of holiday caravans will be very badly hit if they incur VAT at 20%, and, in turn, the park-owned business will be hit because operators will have to increase their hire charges to balance their books, driving away even more much-needed visitors.
Let us not forget that those visitors are not wealthy people; in the main, they are working class people who strive for a better life by having their own holiday home here in Britain. In my view, the policy has been dreamt up by somebody who has never holidayed in a caravan park, has no idea of how the holiday park business operates and has no conception of the disastrous effect the policy will have on many coastal and rural communities.
It is deeply ironic that the Government are striving to give coastal communities help up the ladder of prosperity while using their feet to kick away the very same ladder with this ill-thought-out proposal. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 6.
Draft EU Budget 2011
Gordon Henderson Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Over the past few months, we have spent a lot of our time debating one aspect or another of the financial crisis in which the country finds itself. Britain has a huge deficit, and the British public have collectively built up a mountain of personal debt. All in all, we are in a real mess. The Government have set out a series of measures to reduce the national debt, and I know that many individuals—including people in my constituency—are trying hard to cut down their indebtedness. These are tough times for us all, and we are not alone. Many other countries around the world, including many in Europe, are facing huge financial challenges and struggling to balance their books without pushing their national economies into another recession.
In this era of uncertainty and austerity, what does that organisation of probity and good governance, the European Commission, do? It proposes to increase the EU budget next year by 5.8%, which in real money represents an increase of £6,102 million. What planet do European Commissioners live on? They live on the planet of self-indulgence. They live in a cushioned climate of privilege in which the Brussels gravy train does not stop long enough for them to see what is happening in the real world.
To be fair to our own British Government, at least they recognise the stupidity of the European Commission. As the Economic Secretary wrote in a briefing note and confirmed this evening, the Government are very concerned about the proposed increase in appropriations of 5.8%. They might be very concerned, but I would be absolutely livid. I give at least one out of three cheers to the Treasury for that statement but, sadly, I cannot bring myself to give it any more cheers. My hon. Friend let herself down in addressing the EU problem by proposing that the EU budget remains at cash levels equivalent to the 2010 budget. That is also why I cannot support amendment (a). I bet all those Ministers tasked with making a 20% cut in their departmental budgets are a bit narked. I am sure that in the present economic climate, they would be delighted to be given a zero growth budget.
Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have been inundated with letters and e-mails complaining about the proposed cuts in benefits, increases in tuition fees and changes to public service pensions. There is a great deal of disquiet out there and representing a constituency that has some of the most deprived areas in the south-east within its boundaries, I share some of that disquiet, but I am happy to go into bat on behalf of the coalition Government and to argue the case for those cuts. I believe that in their heart of hearts, most people in my constituency understand that we have no choice but to push through those cuts if we are to reduce the mountain of debt we inherited from the previous Government.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), however, I would not be able to look my friends and neighbours in the eye if we drove through a programme of painful cuts in our public services, while at the same time bunging the EU billions of pounds to waste on grandiose schemes such as the European External Action Service and the European Institute of Gender Equality in Vilnius, Lithuania, for which, incidentally, the UK is being asked to cough up £800,000.
Next year, the European Commission proposes to spend £7 billion on administration. By my calculation, the UK’s contribution to those administration costs will be about £1 billion. If Government Departments and public bodies in this country are being asked to cut their administration costs, it is surely right to expect the European Commission to do the same.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend note with concern that where the UK has a 15% increase in public spending over five years, the European Union wants to increase its spending by 60%?
Gordon Henderson
I am aware of those figures and I think that they are scandalous.
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said that the British Government will press the EU to deliver greater value for money, and I am sure that she and the Government will do so, but does anyone here really believe that our friends across the English channel in the European Commission will actually listen to them? When the draft budget is eventually presented to the European Parliament for debate later this year, do Treasury Ministers really think that anyone other than a small group of British MEPs will take a blind bit of notice of their view? I think not.
I would personally like to see the Government unilaterally reduce the UK’s contribution to the EU budget for 2011 by the average percentage cut imposed on Whitehall Departments. If the European Commission and the European Parliament do not like it and kick up a fuss, we should immediately hold a referendum on Britain’s continued membership and let the British people decide our future once and for all. Perhaps we could hold it on the same day as the referendum on the alternative vote.
I support amendment (b), and I urge Members in all parts of the House to do the same.
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Gordon Henderson Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Several hon. Members have suggested today that the Equitable Life scandal—and a scandal it was—is complicated, but for me it is actually quite simple. It is about fairness to a group of people who were badly let down by the regulatory failures of their Government. I went into the recent general election supporting a Conservative manifesto that made a promise to Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency. It said:
“We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”
I wish to take this opportunity to assure policyholders in my constituency that I for one do not intend to go back on that election pledge.
Most people accept that Equitable Life policyholders were the subject of Government maladministration, and that is certainly the view of the ombudsman, Ann Abraham. There is some dispute on all sides, however, about the level of compensation that should be paid to policyholders. Sir John Chadwick’s report established that the relative loss suffered by Equitable Life amounted to between £4 billion and £4.8 billion, and the Financial Secretary, in his statement to the House this July, supported that figure. However, Sir John then used a series of convoluted calculations and speculative assumptions that allowed him to suggest a cap on the total amount of compensation that should be paid. He then went on to reduce that cap figure to just 10% of the relative loss figure that he himself originally calculated.
One of Sir John’s most telling assumptions was that the majority of policyholders would have invested in Equitable Life irrespective of maladministration. That is a very big assumption that cannot be proved or disproved, but any rational person would consider such a lemming-like approach by investors as highly unlikely. I am simply not convinced by Sir John’s arguments and I dismiss them out of hand, as do the Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency.
Like many Members, I have been in touch with many of those policyholders, and all they want is fairness, because they are fair-minded people. However, they are not stupid people, and they recognise that in these times of austerity even they must shoulder some of the burden needed to bring down the country’s massive debt mountain. To ask them to accept a reduction of 90% in their compensation, however, is not only unfair but, as has been mentioned by other Members, immoral.
In the current economic climate, however, it would be right and proper to ask Equitable Life policyholders to accept a cut in compensation in line with those being proposed for Whitehall Departments. If departmental budgets are cut by 20% or 25%, as we are being led to believe, I am willing to support a similar reduction in the assumed total of Equitable Life’s relative loss, which would mean a compensation package of between £3.6 billion and £3.8 billion. If anything other than a formula based on a figure in that region is proposed, I will be forced to vote against the Government when the figure for compensation is debated.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Gordon Henderson Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman talks about that table because I have looked at the whole of annexe A of the document, which attempts to suggest that the changes will affect all income levels fairly and that we are all in it together. However, the tables extend only to 2012-13, which is only a couple of years hence. If the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the document in front of him, he will see that page 40 shows that cuts in benefits really start to bite in—guess when—2013-14 and 2014-15. There is more spin in the document than in any Budget document that I have seen before. If the hon. Gentleman would care to table a written question to the Chancellor to ask for the tables to be extended beyond the short period to 2012-13, I would then be more than happy to debate fairness implications.
I would like to raise a few more of the many hidden elements in the Budget. The Budget will levy an extra £455 million of tax on the insurance bills that our constituents pay, such as for buildings and contents insurance, although I do not think that the Chancellor mentioned that in his statement. The Government will also scrap the saving gateway, which was due to be introduced in July. That initiative was designed to encourage the very poorest in society to save for the future, but it is gone as a result of the Chancellor’s generosity. Given that the child trust fund is also being scrapped, we will have no measures to encourage the poorest in society to start the savings habit, so it is a great pity that Government Members will support such policies.
A further hidden element in the Budget is the Government’s announcement that they will cut support for the payment of unemployed people’s mortgage interest by £15 million in this financial year, although that support is given at the point of those people’s lives at which they are in most need.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the interest paid by the Government under the existing mortgage interest support regime is fixed at 6.08%, even though many people pay interest at 2%, which means that the Government give them 4% more than they need to? In addition, surely it cannot be right that those payments can cover mortgages of up to £200,000 over two years.
Chris Leslie
It can if a person who is made unemployed relies on the mortgage interest support to keep a roof over their head, because they will otherwise be in great jeopardy. The hon. Gentleman might think that people should simply cope with the situation, but I believe that we need to scrutinise the measure much further.
The housing benefit changes announced in the Budget are exceptionally complex, so it is difficult to assimilate their likely impact. However, the reduction of the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local rents will distort housing support for the poorest in society.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talked about the tax credit regime and the reduction in the time period for backdating changes in circumstances from three months to one month. That mean-minded reform is an attempt to claw back money by reducing the period in which people in changeable or almost chaotic circumstances may analyse their position and go through the bureaucratic process of reclaiming their tax credits by submitting correct arrangements. As all hon. Members know, many people will find it difficult to do that within 28 days, and the measure typifies the mean-spirited nature of the Budget.