Balanced Budget Rule

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the balanced budget rule.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am extremely pleased to have secured this debate to consider an issue that has slipped down the agenda in recent years, namely that of fiscal responsibility and the actions the state can take in order to uphold and, in some cases, guarantee it.

I am delighted to see so many right hon. Members and hon. Members here today. It is packed to the rafters and standing room only, which demonstrates the level of interest in the subject. I hope that, by holding such debates in Westminster Hall, and by dragging so many hon. Members to them to volunteer contributions, we can slowly raise this important issue back up the agenda and draw attention to it.

The particular issue I want to discuss is the principle of the United Kingdom adopting a balanced budget rule as a way to improve its finances, and the underlying responsibility of Members in this place to ensure that the country pays its way in the future. The idea, which though simple is not universally liked, is that over an appointed period, within an agreed timeline, Governments should follow the novel concept of living within their means and not spend more than they can afford. Crucially, that commitment goes beyond words and there should be consequences if there is a failure to adhere to it.

To some, that is dramatic news; to others, such as myself, it just makes sense that Governments should not seek to balance the books on the back of the nation’s children and grandchildren. The principle of the never-never is, with appropriate structuring, just as apt for the Exchequer as it is for the average household in towns such as Dronfield, Eckington, Clay Cross and Killamarsh in my North East Derbyshire consistency.

It was James Madison, one of the US founding fathers, who said in 1790 that he went

“on the principle that a Public Debt is a Public curse.”

We would do well to take heed of such sentiments.

I have prepared a long speech, because I did not think that so many Members would be here. Before I begin, I will frame the discussion to ensure that the next few minutes can be constructive and useful. The debate could easily, quickly and seamlessly descend into the usual tit-for-tat and back-and-forth on the current state of our national finances, who got us to where we are and why we are there. I am sure that that may happen during the debate. I will say a few words about that in a moment, but I hope we will not dwell on it too much. The idea is to take a broader and longer-term look at where we are, and how we ensure that we leave our country safer, more secure and more resilient than we found it. That resilience should stretch to the nation’s finances as much as it does to its borders and national security.

I declare this debate, in so far as I am able, a Brexit-free zone. That is not because Brexit will not have repercussions or implications for the issue at hand, because it blatantly will, given that the Government’s deficit elimination target has been revised in recent years. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) will still have a speech to make after those comments. This debate is about a time beyond Brexit, if we can possibly imagine such a nirvana, and about the day when headlines talk about police, health and education again, rather than backstops, Juncker and tariffs. I have been in this place less than two years, and I would say that at least 90% of what we talk about is Brexit. It sucks the oxygen out of the room, and I say that as committed Brexiteer. It also looks likely to continue to do so for much of the next year, so I hope that for the next few minutes we can try to avoid it.

My proposition is simple: that the United Kingdom considers over the long term the adoption of the balanced budget rule, set in statute, which requires Government to spend only as much as they raise, over a set agreed period, and that there will be consequences if they fail to do that. That would not be an aim or an ambition, but a hard rule, which would be flexible only inasmuch as anything can be flexible when it is set down in law. To be provocative, if we were so minded we might even consider tying any attempt to change future legislation—presumably by a spendthrift Government eager to give out sweeties or goodies to buy votes—to a referendum of the people themselves, given that we have become so adept at referendums in recent years. That would certainly focus minds.

What is the point of legislating on this issue? First, we should all have a moral problem with excessive Government debt. The United Kingdom’s general Government gross debt in September 2018 was, according to the Office for National Statistics, about £1.8 trillion, which is equivalent to about 85% of our country’s GDP. Last year we borrowed, and therefore added to that figure, about £40 billion. In the last couple of decades, our debt as a proportion of GDP has risen from approximately 40% to more than 80%. Those may be just numbers, but they have real-life and real-world implications.

I acknowledge the challenges that the Government have had in trying to get the country’s deficit under control. My party remains resolutely of the view that the Administration prior to 2010 both mismanaged the country’s finances and failed to prepare for the inevitable recession, which could not be avoided given that mere mortals cannot abolish the cycle of boom and bust, and given the well-recited failure to mend the roof when the sun was shining. I support the Government’s deficit strategy and the work they continue to do to manage it down. It has proved a difficult issue to resolve, but we should acknowledge the important milestone that we hit this year, which is that debt as a proportion of GDP is falling for the first time in many years.

Even with the acknowledgement of the good work that has been and continues to be done, the reality is that we are going to run a deficit for a good number of years to come. Even when we eliminate that deficit, which I hope will be as soon as possible, we are merely returning to a place that stops us piling on any more problems for our children and grandchildren, without really having a way to cut down the problem that has already been created in absolute terms. What is the long-term strategy for cutting that debt pile in absolute rather than relative terms? How do we avoid the current position becoming the baseline and the place we start from when the next recession comes? That place would, by default, reduce our firepower to deal with those hard times.

It is worth dwelling on the moral case for not running a deficit and for keeping debt low. The debt that we run up, for whatever good or bad reason, needs to be paid back, and if we cannot pay it back, we need to service it or pay for it. That limits the headroom of future generations to make decisions about what they spend their taxes on, because some of their taxes will go on servicing the debt. It mandates that spending that benefits one generation will be dealt with by another, which is an intergenerational unfairness that we should reflect on much more deeply than we do today, as ever-eager politicians dream up another opportunity to spend.

Reducing our firepower or fiscal space in the event of a recession is the worst kind of lack of planning, and one that will hamstring our ability to pull ourselves out of those recessions, when they inevitably come. As Ryan Bourne of the Cato Institute pointed out in his excellent recent paper on the subject, at least some of the literature that has reviewed the issue highlights that when Government debt gets too high for too long, it tends to reduce growth rates overall, meaning less economic activity, less growth and less prosperity in the long run. [Interruption.]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will recommence in 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Sorry about that. I had been told there was definitely a second vote, which there clearly was not. I call Mr Lee Rowley.

[Lee Rowley]

Before we went to vote I was talking about the moral case for low debt and ensuring that the servicing of that debt was as minimal as possible, to retain and support our ability to ensure economic activity in the future. It was not for nothing that Herbert Hoover intoned sarcastically:

“Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.”

In this context, perhaps we can bestow a few less blessings on them in the future.

Putting aside the morality of debt, the key issue, which should drive all politicians regarding the accretion of Government debt, is the year-on-year cost of servicing and holding it, as mentioned earlier. The proponents of unfunded spending may highlight how the markets are not that concerned with relatively high borrowing so long as it can be funded. That may be the case. Let us hope, for all of our sakes, that we do not enter a period of high interest rates in the coming decades when national debt is to be rolled over.

The opportunity cost of that funding, on an ongoing basis, is much less understood in this place than in public discourse. It comprises a tax, year on year, on today’s generation for yesterday’s spending. Unlike the total debt to GDP ratio, which has oscillated wildly in the last century due to wartime spending, the cost of servicing the UK’s debt has been on an upward trajectory for the last century. Adjusted for inflation, the cost of servicing that debt has risen from an average of £12 billion per annum between 1900 and 1960 to nearly £30 billion at the turn of the 21st century. Since 2009, that average has hit £43 billion every year. In total, since 1900 the UK has spent something like £2.5 trillion just on servicing its debt. About half of that has been spent since I was born—I still like to think of myself as being relatively young.

The bad news is not likely to stop there. With the continuing running of deficits until well into the 2020s, the annual cost of servicing that debt is projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility to hit more than £50 billion by the start of the next decade. In this Parliament alone, debt servicing costs are projected to be about a quarter of a trillion pounds over the five years. The sums are huge and growing. They represent a significant opportunity cost to the UK as a whole.

High Speed 2

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on bringing HS2 to Westminster Hall for a serious debate today. Although I agree with him on a number of issues, on this issue we unfortunately find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate. I gently tease him about the start of his speech, where he referred to an opinion poll and laid a lot of the foundations of the logic of his argument on that poll and people not wanting HS2. I dismiss that opinion poll, because people will not have known all the facts about HS2, as I suspect he would dismiss opinion polls that ask for a second referendum on the EU.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Select Committee on Transport examining HS2. From memory, that Committee has carried out three reports on HS2; I think the first was just after the 2010 general election. Every single one of those reports has supported the building of HS2. The Committee has looked in detail at one of the hon. Gentleman’s other points—whether there will be economic benefits from building HS2. It looked at the TGV system in France and found that some places that were connected to high-speed rail did not benefit, but those towns and cities that put effort into economic development and did not just sit back and do nothing—a point that is generally true, not just for high-speed rail—benefited enormously from the advent of TGV to their towns.

Another point that is often made against HS2, although the hon. Gentleman did not make it today, is that it will benefit London more than Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham. The argument against that is the Workington argument. If people wanted to be further away in time from London, we would all aspire to be in Workington, which is about as far away as we can get from London in time, but Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and Birmingham actually do rather well, because they put effort into economic development and benefit from being close to London. Nobody wants slower times. They want faster times.

Of course, the serious argument in favour of HS2 was never simply about time. It is about capacity and improving our infrastructure. The number of passengers on the current rail network has doubled over the last 10 or 15 years, and one of the reasons for that—although not the only reason, given, for example, better marketing of tickets—is how poor our overall transport infrastructure is, how poor the motorway system is and how poor some of the rail system is. We need HS2, and it should go not only to Leeds and Manchester but to Scotland via Newcastle, Preston or wherever, which would help the infrastructure of the whole of the United Kingdom.

We see the London establishment—The Sunday Times, the Daily Mail and parts of the civil service—saying, “This is money going to the north of England.” In actual fact, the spending on transport in London and the south-east, but in London primarily, massively outstrips spending on transport in the rest of the country. The statistic I regularly give, which is getting more out of date but is still astonishing, is that the overspend on the Jubilee line in 2000 was more than the total expenditure on transport in the regions.

Another real competition is going on. Although Crossrail 1 massively overspent and is going to be delivered late—we still do not know what the costs will be, but it will happen and be a good thing, benefiting London and communities to its west and east—people now want Crossrail 2. The competition is not only for resources but for parliamentary time. It is about whether the Crossrail 2 hybrid Bill gets ahead of phase 2b of the HS2 Bill—the routes from Crewe to Manchester and from the west midlands to Leeds via Sheffield—which I completely oppose. Incidentally, the strongest support for HS2 has been in Greater Manchester and Leeds. There has been more opposition in London, where a lot of the costs fall because it is a very densely populated city. It would have been better if HS2 had started in Leeds and Manchester, not only because of the tremendous support but because there would have been immediate economic benefit, with people in London expecting and wanting the project to get to London faster. That is the competition we are seeing.

Another—rather subversive—argument is that the east-west route from Liverpool to Hull, which certainly needs improving, should take precedence over HS2. The two should go in step, because when HS2 is built— I believe it will be and go to Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester—in order to get passengers on and off the line, we will need the capacity to move across the north of England. There is not a competition as there is with Crossrail 2, because HS2 and the east-west route go arm in arm; we need both, and we need HS2 not to be delayed. I hope the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the HS2 phase 2 hybrid Bill will not fall behind the Crossrail 2 hybrid Bill in the schedule, because that would be a huge mistake.

One of the many points made by the hon. Member for Stone was, quite reasonably, about costs. Lots of infrastructure projects find it difficult to control costs and that is a completely reasonable point to make, as are points about the effects on our constituencies. The problem with the way in which the National Audit Office and the Department for Transport measure cost-benefit analysis is that transport schemes always favour London, because it is about the number of people and the time saved on their journeys. What is really being measured is the density of population, and that means that London schemes are always prioritised. The combination of the London establishment and the methodology used for cost-benefit analysis is bound to be biased against HS2, which is of major national importance for unifying the country after a period in which the north of England, other regions such as the south-west and whole countries such as Wales have been starved of resources.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s perspective. My father, having worked in the steel industry in Sheffield, would acknowledge that many businesspeople north of the Watford gap will prioritise the cross-Pennine links over HS2.

On the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, I argued in the initial stages that if we were going to do to this project to unify the United Kingdom, it should start in Scotland. Unfortunately, nobody listened. Does he agree that Scotland would have been a much better starting point?

[Graham Stringer]

The right hon. Lady makes a good point. I am a Manchester MP, I went to university in Sheffield and I always wanted the project to start in Manchester and Sheffield, but it would have been a unifying factor for the United Kingdom for the project to start in Scotland. There is no reason for it to start in only one or two places—it could have started in three; many projects of this scale do.

I could talk at length but many hon. Members want to speak. This is a project of national importance, like the third runway at Heathrow. I understand that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) has constituency issues. Many of us understand national priorities but we are elected by our constituents and have to represent them. I understand that balance. I do not think that the HS2 consultation has always been perfect and it—and the compensation—could have been improved. I pay tribute to the right. hon Lady for the considerable amount of increased investment in HS2 tunnelling that she has managed to get for her area. We have to keep this in perspective. We do not want investment in the north of England to stop, yet again, because of the methodology and because lobbying in London is so intensely powerful.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I need to say that we will start on the wind-ups at 10.40 am. I will not set a time limit, but it would be helpful if those who speak from hereon in confine their remarks to about eight minutes.

Public Sector Pay

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dan Carden]

No, I will not. We are starting to realise that the race to the bottom is one that we all stand to lose. The sooner Government Members realise that, the better off our and their constituents will be.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We now move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I remind hon. Members that the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), will wind up the debate after the three Front-Benchers have spoken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

Does the Minister accept that there is a link between the current crisis in numbers of nurses in the NHS and the pay on offer, particularly given the huge student debts that many nursing graduates have? It is up to £54,000 for those at London Metropolitan University. Does he believe that there is any link between a starting salary of £21,500 and a huge student debt of £54,000 for nurses?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members who wish to intervene on the Minister that there are 10 minutes left. I am sure that people would like to hear from the Chair of the Petitions Committee after the Minister. Time is now beginning to get tight.

[Andrew Jones]

I was not watching the clock, so thank you, Mr Stringer.

I recognise that starting salaries and debt are clearly related for people making choices, but our NHS provides a magnificent career with long-term security and pay progression. The current average salary for a nurse is £27,635, which is very near the national average salary. Nursing presents a great career.

I mentioned earlier the pressures within the health service. That is why the Chancellor announced at the Budget that if the Health Secretary’s ongoing discussions with the health unions bear fruit, he will provide further funding for pay awards for Agenda for Change staff. That will, of course, follow the pay review body process in the spring. We cannot prejudge those discussions or the pay review body process, but we want the talks to succeed, and we share with NHS workers the common objective of a highly skilled, compassionate, productive workforce working to improve outcomes for patients. The Chancellor made his public commitment with that in mind.

I re-emphasise that the Government are committed to providing fair pay awards across the public sector. That is why we have the pay review body process, which ensures that pay for public sector workers is fair to all sides. We must also recognise the depth of public feeling on the issue, which the 150,000 signatures on the petition demonstrate. The 1% pay policy is ending, as announced on 12 September and reconfirmed in the Budget on 22 November. However, it is important to remember that we now face the established processes for determining those pay awards, and we cannot prejudge them. I cannot comment on a report that has not yet been written.

For that reason, the Government have not set out an explicit target for public sector pay, but I can provide an assurance that this Government will take the recommendations into account. We will continue to invest in our public services and ensure that our public sector workers continue to be fairly remunerated. They deliver a fantastic level of public service on which we all rely, and that will continue to be the case under this Government.

HMRC Closures

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd]

The Minister is being incredibly generous with his time. The question of the criteria goes to the heart of the matter, Mr Stringer; incidentally, I welcome you to the Chair, and am delighted to see you. The Minister persists with the issue of the criteria, one of which is the ability to get to a particular site via transport mechanisms and infrastructure. The problem, however, is that in many situations there has not even been an assessment of how the particular criterion applies to particular sites. I understand what the Minister says—the criteria exist. They may do, but does he agree that if they are not applied, that shoots a hole through the whole process?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We have just over an hour left, but I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point.

[Mel Stride]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. I should agree with the hon. Member for Bootle if the premise of his assertion were true. In reality there has been an assessment. Of course, in each and every case, HMRC looked at the criteria and applied them to the various options in the various regions, and came to a conclusion as a result of the assessment. That is the logical and sensible way in which such matters move.

[Jim McMahon]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. The Minister has said a number of times that an assessment has been made of the various sites and location options. If it transpired that the assessment had not been carried out, what remedy would the House have?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

That is a matter of fact, not a point of order relating to the debate.

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

Taxation: Beer and Pubs

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood]

Partly because of the small breweries’ relief scheme, we now have a greater variety and, I would argue, greater quality of beer than we have had in the past. It is important that smaller brewers enjoy support that reflects the higher marginal cost of brewing on that scale. However, we also need to look at whether the relief scheme as currently framed is preventing brewers from expanding, or even causing some to scale down.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) of course makes an important and valid point in talking about the role not only of students but of young people more widely in employment, because the pub sector can generate an extremely fulfilling and constructive career for many that goes much wider than the stereotypical picture of students working in a pub until they are in full-time work.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I must continue because a lot of colleagues are waiting to get in.

The beer industry is a true success story for home-grown British manufacturing. A staggering 82% of all beer consumed in this country is made in the UK. The UK now has more than 2,000 breweries, producing 25 million barrels of beer a year. With 923 million pints exported to 110 different countries, beer is the third largest food and drink export sector in the UK and it is worth £550 million to the UK economy. In my constituency alone, the sector accounts for 1,156 jobs, of which 313 are held by under-25s. It also contributes more than £37 million to our local economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

Absolutely. That is as true in our towns as it is in our villages. About 80% of pubs are community or rural pubs. They bring not just jobs, but a community focus, often in areas of the country where other traditional providers of jobs and community coming-togetherness might have been lost.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a profound point about the importance of pubs to rural villages, but does he agree that pubs in inner-city areas are just as important to the local community? There has been a migration of licences from inner-city areas into city centres, which has denuded our inner cities of many of the benefits of public houses.

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is particularly troubling that those pubs that close in our towns and city centres are often housed in large buildings that are very difficult to fill and that remain as decaying monuments to the changing nature of consumer behaviour.

Beer Duty

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I now understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making. I would never drink and drive at all. That attitude has become much more the norm in today’s society, where most people consider that drinking anything and driving should be avoided. I am not entirely sure that I agree with his point.

The brewing and pub industry not only employs 900,000 people but attracts many younger people to its workforce—in fact, 46% of those employed in the sector are under 25 years old. That level of employment among the young is a critical factor, especially in rural constituencies such as the one I represent in Cornwall. While many start out in basic roles, they go on to become professionals in the trade or elsewhere—for example, working as chefs, licensees or successful businesspeople in their own right, and employing others.

That said, the news has not always been good in recent times. Some 17,000 pubs have closed in the past three decades, and while the closure trend has slowed markedly of late, many communities will grieve the loss of their local, which all too often is the only pub in the area.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Although it is not the only factor, does the hon. Gentleman agree that cuts in beer duty increase investment and employment opportunities, particularly for the young, while increases do the opposite?

[Steve Double]

I wholeheartedly agree. Lower taxes generally encourage investment and growth in a sector, and I will press for that as the debate goes on.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 General Committees

[Mr Gauke]

First, on why we abstained on the annual budget, it is fair to say that the budget deal has a healthy payments margin of €9.8 billion—over €7 billion more than last year—and we welcomed that. We still believe that the EU could go further to cut lower priority spending from the budget. However, progress has been made, and the UK recognises that by not voting against the budget. We very often voted against the budget in the past because we felt that not enough had been done to deal with wasteful spending and that better value for money could be obtained for the European taxpayer. However, given that the payment margins were healthy this year, we decided not to vote against. More could have been done, but, in the circumstances, we decided to abstain.

On the reallocation of immigration expenditure, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the spending on aid was not impacted by increases in internal security. In fact, both have been enhanced.

Pensions remuneration is not a matter for budget discussions; it is a matter for the rules that the Commission applies to itself, so there were no particular discussions on that point. The UK and other member states have pointed out that the European Commission’s administration costs are higher than we would like. Indeed, there has been an increase in recent years, particularly in administration costs, although that has largely been put down to increased security costs, given recent events. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised was not part of our discussions.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The EU vanity project, Galileo, has massively overspent, not because of need but because of technical and budgeting incompetence. Will the Minister tell us how much extra that has cost the British Exchequer and what that extra expenditure has done to the original cost-benefit analysis of Galileo? Will he also tell us what action the Government took to try to keep that project within budget? If he is unable to answer now—I would not be totally surprised—will he write to Committee members with his response?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He has anticipated what I will say, which is that I will write to him with details. I will check, but as far as I understand it, the delays on Galileo have led to fewer commitments in this multiannual financial framework, rather than an increase. Of course, what has happened to the overall project costs is another matter, but my understanding is that it has led to fewer commitments over this period—I caveat that by saying that I will confirm it.

[Graham Stringer]

Finally, it is all very well looking at these budgets with under-expenditures, over-expenditures and changes in the budget, but will the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking, while we are still a member of the EU, to ensure that the EU has signed, audited accounts for all this money?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman takes me into the territory of another of the regular annual debates that we have in this room, or sometimes in the Chamber, on signing off EU accounts. Fraud and error levels fell again this year but are still too high and the issue that he raises continues to apply. We take the financial management of the EU budget very seriously. Taxpayers need to have confidence that their funds are being effectively managed and implemented at EU level. The Government have been robust in holding the Commission to account, including by regularly taking a strong public stand in voting against signing off the accounts. We continue to place pressure on the Commission to improve. We debate the issue regularly, and I look forward to the next time we do—I cannot remember exactly when that will be, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be there and will be able to make his points again on that.

Air Passenger Duty: Regional Airports

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will keep my remarks short because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute. Blackpool airport is in my constituency. Sadly, it is one of the airports, along with Plymouth and Manston, that has closed in recent years.

At its peak several years ago, Blackpool enjoyed more than 600,000 passengers per annum. It had Ryanair and Jet2 flights to Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man. The decision to close the airport last year was a devastating blow to the local economy. Not only was there an impact on people’s ability to fly out of Blackpool to holiday resorts; it also sent out a message that the wider tourist economy was not fully open for business. With Blackpool and the Fylde coast, we, too, have world-class golf courses such as Royal Lytham and St Annes, so the facility of an airport is important. When the Open was on, for example, a large number of private and corporate jets used that facility, which brought in high spenders to access our golf courses.

We have talked about many things that could be done to help the small, regional airports. One that seems glaringly obvious is some flexibility on air passenger duty. I am aware that the Government have looked at that in relation to Northern Ireland, to introduce some fairness on long-haul flights, and that powers are to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is quite right, because it is an important economic tool—[Interruption.] I could not hear what my friends from the Scottish National party were saying, but it is important that that power is used to try to generate and stimulate flights.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good case for Blackpool airport, which I have flown out of. We have heard cases for Birmingham, Prestwick and Belfast, and I could make a very similar one for Manchester; a case could be made for Bristol and Newcastle and for the large London airports. Is this not simply a bad tax? Every regional economy, along with the Exchequer, would benefit if it was abolished.

[Mark Menzies]

It is certainly a very unpopular tax, as we would discover if we asked any of our constituents when they booked flights and saw what they were paying in air passenger transport duty or if we spoke to any business person who had to take regular long-haul flights; the tax would be a huge cost to their business.

When we move to a situation where Scotland has power over its air passenger transport duty and may decide to abolish it altogether, there will be a market distortion, particularly in the north of England. Although that is welcome for Scotland, those of us with regional airports in our constituencies are deeply concerned that it could see the migration of the few flights left from some small airports, with the necessary knock-on loss of those regional airports to our economies. I urge the Treasury to put a plan in place so that airports—those in the north of England in particular—are not disadvantaged when Scotland is able to exercise those tax-varying powers.

It also seems odd, when we are trying to shift traffic away from the over-congested runways of the south-east, that we are not using every tool in our box to try to get some of those flights into the midlands, the south-west, Scotland and the north of England. There are so many people whose journeys do not originate in the south-east but who migrate their journeys because that is where the flight connectivity is. Again, I ask the Treasury to work with the Department for Transport to see whether we could implement some mechanisms to vary air passenger transport duty to try to stimulate alternatives outside the over-congested runways of the south-east.

I conclude with a plea for Blackpool and the small regional airports that are hanging by a thread. Blackpool reopened several months ago, but there are flights only to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Small regional airports such as Blackpool need all the help they can get. At a time when aviation is booming, it would be a real travesty if they were to lose their place as part of our national transport infrastructure.

Greece

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That has very little to do with Greece. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, but it is nothing to do with the statement today, to the details of which we ought to attend.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Chancellor, in a moderate and balanced statement, said that he respects the Greek decision. That is in sharp contrast to some of the eurocrats and Ministers from other eurozone countries, who have made bullying and intemperate statements to the Greek Government. Will the Chancellor tell the House what steps he and the Prime Minister have taken to stop the same people trying to interfere in our referendum about our future in the European Union?

[Mr Osborne]

As I think we saw in the past week, some of those intemperate statements might have had the exact opposite effect to the one that they were intended to have, which reminds us not to interfere in other people’s democracies.

Scotland Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a knock-on effect on cargo? If the successful flight from Newcastle to Dubai were to be jeopardised in any way, the revenue earned from the airport through the transfer of cargo in that passenger aircraft would also be at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is competition not only for passengers, but to get airlines and aircraft to land. Given that a lot of cargo is carried in an aeroplane’s belly, if Newcastle, Manchester or Leeds Bradford loses a flight to Scotland, it will lose not only the passengers and the benefit they bring but the cargo carried by the plane. The United Kingdom already has experience of that with Belfast airport. The Northern Ireland Assembly managed to get the power to vary APD because it was in competition with Dublin airport, which was taking passengers and aircraft to travel from south of the border. That is well known to people who are interested in transport, but it is less well known that the impact was not only on Belfast, but on English and Welsh airports, as people decided to fly across the Atlantic from Dublin to save the £71.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point about cross-border competition. Does he agree that there is another point about the longer-term sustainability of airports outwith that area, such as Inverness and Dundee? They need additional support and would benefit from the reinvestment in Scotland of the revenue generated by additional passenger traffic.

[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.

[Stewart Hosie]

I will come on to the comments made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) in a moment.

The provisions relating to the devolution of air passenger duty—I will concentrate on the duty, rather than the aggregates levy or the further provisions in clause 18—were set out clearly in the Smith agreement:

“86. The power to charge tax on air passengers leaving Scottish airports will be devolved…The Scottish Government will be free to make its own arrangements with regard to the design and collection of any replacement tax, including consideration of the environmental impact.

“87. In line with the approach taken in relation to the Scotland Act 2012, if such a tax is introduced by the Scottish Parliament to replace Air Passenger Duty (APD), the Scottish Government will reimburse the UK Government for any costs incurred in ‘switching off’ APD in Scotland.”

Given that they simply would not collect it, I do not imagine those costs would be very high. The provisions also require:

“88. A fair and equitable share of associated administrative costs will be transferred to the Scottish Government. The…block grant will be adjusted”.

A wide range of organisations that gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee backed the devolution of APD, including the Institute of Directors Scotland, Glasgow chamber of commerce, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. As the report says:

“This was coupled with support for either a reduction or scrapping of this duty after devolution had taken place.”

The Scottish Parliament Information Centre analysis for the Committee, referred to in the report, found that:

“Draft clause 14”—

now clause 16—

“would make this a devolved tax, as recommended by the Smith Commission. It would give HMRC the ability to ‘switch off’ these UK taxes in Scotland from a date to be set by secondary legislation.”

As with many of the clauses we have discussed, there is no recommendation as to how the transfer would work or how the block grant would be adjusted, but, as I understand from other clauses, there is no requirement for legislation to achieve that. Essentially, the legislation delivers on the Smith agreement in the way anticipated. We have no concerns with the drafting of the clause, which did not change between the Command Paper version and the Bill.

In terms of the policy approach on air passenger duty, on which much of this clause stand part debate is centred, the Scottish National party supports the devolution of air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament. We are pleased that the Scotland Bill will deliver this recommendation. We have previously set out our proposals to halve APD when control over the tax is devolved, and we fully intend to abolish it when public finances allow. We believe that taking that action will encourage greater tourism and investment in Scotland, boosting our economy and creating new jobs.

There are a substantial number of benefits for consumers from the reduction of air passenger duty, not least because the UK levies are some of the highest aviation taxes in the world—indeed, APD is relatively rare in other countries. APD is currently £71 for an economy class long-haul flight, which is extraordinary—that is over 2,000 miles. Abolishing APD would mean that a family of four, with children over 12-years-old, would save something under £300 per long-haul flight—a substantial saving by any measure. Reducing APD would therefore save consumers money, and, in certain circumstances, significantly reduce the cost of family holidays.

There are broader economic benefits from a reduction in air passenger duty. A report commissioned by Edinburgh airport in March 2015 found that a reduction in APD would bring considerable economic benefits to Scotland. The report argued that the Scottish Government’s policy of halving APD in the first instance would create new jobs, and that a failure to take action would cost Scotland tourists and tourism revenue. Its key findings included the fact that a 50% reduction would provide benefits to Scotland worth £200 million a year, meaning a £1 billion economic boost over the lifetime of a Parliament; and that a 50% reduction would bring considerable benefits to local communities, creating something in the order of 3,800 new jobs by 2020. On the other hand, it was estimated that we could lose out on about 1 million passenger journeys a year if APD was not reduced. Again, by 2020, that would cost the Scottish economy up to £68 million in lost tourism expenditure every year. It is clear, therefore, that devolving and reducing APD would have a considerable economic impact on Scotland and that failure to act would mean Scotland missing out on significant tourism and hospitality revenues.

We have heard what happened in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Although the 2014 study by Ulster University was a little more ambivalent and suggested only a limited number of scenarios in which Northern Ireland might benefit, supporters of a reduction pointed to the success of this approach in the Republic of Ireland. As the BBC reported:

“Tourism NI chairman Howard Hastings said: ‘If you compare with our nearest neighbour in the Republic of Ireland, in the two years since they abolished air passenger duty, they've seen arrivals grow by 1.1 million passengers.’”

It is self-evidently a success, and if we can replicate that, we can deliver the benefits I have described. If we do not, we will face the cost of failure.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton and others tabled amendments that are not being debated—although the debate has been very similar to the one I would have heard had we been debating them—and expressed concern that the devolution of APD to Scotland would disadvantage airports in the north of England, as travellers journey across the border to Scottish airports in order to travel to holiday destinations abroad. The SNP makes no apologies for championing Scotland, and we believe that the reduction and eventual abolition of APD would benefit Scotland’s economy and tourism sector in particular. Its devolution is also a cross-party commitment agreed through the Smith commission.

Attracting more tourists to Scottish airports by reducing APD could also benefit the north of England by rebalancing the economy away from London’s pull and bringing more visitors to the northern parts of these islands as a whole. If one considers Edinburgh to be a hub airport, I am sure that businesses in the north of England would rather spend an hour on the train from Newcastle to Edinburgh than four, five or six hours on the cross-London journey to Heathrow, let alone travelling to a hub airport such as Schiphol or Charles de Gaulle. Edinburgh is the ideal solution for people from Durham, for example.

A stronger Scottish economy will also bring significant economic benefits to the north of England, as new trade and investment opportunities arise. However, we are concerned about some of the UK Government’s threats in relation to APD—this relates to what the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said about competition. During the election, the Prime Minister astonishingly expressed concerns that a reduction in APD would “distort competition”. He said:

“The SNP government in Scotland is committed to using its new powers to cut and eventually abolish air passenger duty for flights from Scottish airports. That could distort competition and see business drawn north of the border with a huge impact on airports in the rest of our country so we’re reviewing the way air passenger duty works to make sure other cities don’t lose out”.

Devolving and amending APD is not a distortion of competition; it is competition.

The Prime Minister’s comments chimed with his so-called Carlisle principle. It was reported that the Prime Minister had

“outlined plans for an annual review of the impact of Scottish Devolution on the rest of the UK. He announced what he’s calling the ‘Carlisle principle’”.

He did that during a speech in Crewe—one would think he would go to Carlisle to do it, but Crewe it was. He said that the aim was to make sure that policies devolving more power to Scotland did not have a negative impact on other parts of the UK—in areas such as air passenger duty, tax rates, university tuition fees or energy policy. If only we had thought of that, we would not have abolished the subsidies for onshore wind.

The Prime Minister said:

“I want to set out a new principle—you could call it the Carlisle Principle—that we will make sure that there are no unforeseen detrimental consequences to the rest of the country from Scottish devolution, for either England, Wales or Northern Ireland.”

Will the Minister explain what the Carlisle principle—whatever it actually is—will mean in practice for the devolution of APD? I hope that when he gets up, he will say precisely nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point only to the extent that there are people who argue that nuclear power does not require the investment of public money. I think he will find that, as the implementation of these proposals proceeds, substantial amounts of public money will be invested in the infrastructure to make it viable and credible. According to a recent study of transport infrastructure spending per head in various parts of England, the figure for the south-east of England was over £2,000 per head, the figure for the north-east was £26 per head, and the figure for the north-west was £200 per head. I do not have the exact figures, but I think that I have the relative parameters just about right—

[Graham Stringer]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

The hon. Gentleman can please inform me otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

The figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given are moving in the right direction, but the distortion is actually even greater. The capital expenditure figure is over 90% in London and the south-east, compared with single-figure percentages in Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-east.

[Alex Salmond]

I am never knowingly undersold. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I was trying to moderate the figures slightly, in case the Committee found them incredible. However, they do tell us where we should be turning in the context of “distortion of competition”.

I am delighted that Members from the north of England have accepted that this tax should be devolved, and I am delighted that they have accepted the economic argument behind the direction in which the Scottish Government are moving. I think that the tax should be reduced at airports in the north of England as well, because they have substantial capacity that would increase revenue for us all. I am glad that their amendment did not become the basis of this conversation, because if the Scottish Government had opposed the devolution of part of APD to Northern Ireland, no progress would have been made. We are now on the verge of having APD devolved to Scotland, and I say to Members representing north of England constituencies that they should take the attitude that this should be the example for further devolution of a sensible policy which not only benefits one part of the country but looks at the economic opportunities in all parts of the country.

Unfortunately, I arrived for this debate at the end of the VAT fiddle discussion. I hope when the Minister replies on APD that, instead of his wholly disappointing and negative attitude to the embezzlement of VAT from the Scottish police service, he will return to the style of grace and imagination with which he usually so adorns the Dispatch Box, and this time recognise the opportunity for Scotland, and indeed the north of England, of making sure that this disgraceful tax is reduced and economic activity is increased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a reasonably lengthy debate in which Members have not, for the most part, tended to differ on the substance of the clause on air passenger duty, although the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) is never afraid of setting out a contrary opinion. In fact, some Opposition Back Benchers argued for the abolition of APD, which would cost about £3.2 billion, while others argued for increasing it. If there is a need for fresh thinking among Labour Members, we are hearing plenty of it this evening, even if there has not been much in the way of coherence.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister is right to mention the revenue from air passenger duty, but is he aware that a number of studies—the most significant being the PwC study—suggest that the economic benefit to the country of the abolition of APD would be greater than £3.2 billion?

[Mr Gauke]

I am aware of those studies. I will not detain the Committee for long on this subject, but we do not agree with the conclusions of the PwC study. We do not believe that the benefits of abolition would be as significant as the study suggests.

The hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the impact on regional airports of the devolution of APD to Scotland. We recognise the potential impacts and the Government are reviewing options for supporting regional airports to deal with the effects of devolution. We will be publishing a discussion paper on this later in the summer and our document will address many of the concerns raised during today’s debate by the hon. Gentleman. I will ensure that it is available to Members of this House.