Sixth-Form Colleges (VAT)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his expertise on sixth-form colleges is well known; not only does he sit on the governing body of a local sixth-form college but he is chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges, which has done so much good work on this issue. I have to say to him that when he was first raising issues about sixth-form colleges in this place, I was actually at a sixth-form college in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). That shows that nothing changes.

As I was saying, Ministers have accepted that this situation is unfair, so will the Minister take steps to create a level playing field for sixth-form colleges? Will he make this important sector a promise that there are no more of these cuts to come? And will he join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary contribution that sixth-form colleges, such as my local one, make to young people and communities across the country?

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

I have not had a note—

[Mr Stuart]

Yes, in both cases.

[Hugh Bayley]

If it is yes and yes, I am glad to give the floor to the Chair of the Select Committee on Education.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Bayley, for calling me to speak. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to confirm that both the Minister and the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who secured the debate, had agreed to my speaking in it. I am sorry if I should also have informed you, Mr Bayley, but I think my bureaucratic resources ran out after contacting the Minister and the hon. Member.

Given the short time available, I will try to keep my comments brief. In October, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Education. It is a shame, notwithstanding the great respect that I have for my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who is a deeply distinguished member of the Government, that we do not have a Minister from the Department for Education here to answer questions about what is essentially an education matter. That letter was co-signed by 73 MPs from across the House, and it made the point that the unfair treatment of sixth-form colleges as far as VAT goes made no sense and was, in fact, untenable. The good news is that the Government agreed, fundamentally, that they could not defend that treatment. The bad news is that they do not plan to do anything about it. That is a shame, because Government policy is to create a level playing field for 16 to 19 provision, and they are right to do so. If anyone wants to play party politics, I will point out that the Opposition were wrong to leave the position uneven when they were in power. However, the Government have set out their aim, but now they are not fulfilling it. They have moved in that direction, but there is a real opportunity to take action on this issue. In the overall scheme of things, it would not be that expensive to do so; for sixth-form colleges, it is estimated that it would cost no more than £30 million.

There are reasons why sixth-form colleges could be treated differently from further education colleges, if one wanted a stepped programme. To say, “This is wrong, but we can only afford to rectify some of it, so we will rectify none of it” is illogical. It would be better to do the right thing by sixth-form colleges, not least because, as has been said, they are the most successful 16 to 19 providers that we have. If the Government’s education policy is about anything, it is about raising standards across the board and, of course, closing the gap between rich and poor. Well, guess which the most successful institutions are in the 16 to 19 sector at doing both those things? You’ve got it—sixth-form colleges.

I have no sixth-form colleges in my constituency; I am not banging a constituency drum here. The sixth forms in my local schools will probably be cross with me for speaking up for sixth-form colleges so often. However, the whole point of the Education Committee is that we look at the evidence and try to work out what is the best thing to do. Well, guess what? Sixth-form colleges are peculiarly successful in addressing the Government’s two key aims on education, so it makes no sense to penalise them in the way that is happening now.

The VAT penalty that sixth-form colleges face is worth an average of £250,000 per college, and as has been said, the problem is worsened because, unlike other institutions, they cannot cross-subsidise. If that money were to be provided to sixth-form colleges, it would help them to save courses that are being lost, including less popular courses such as further maths. Ministers are quite right to identify the need to encourage science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. Sixth-form colleges can play a positive part in doing that, if they are provided with the wherewithal to do so.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee for giving way; he is making a very strong speech. He talked about investment in STEM subjects. Worcester sixth-form college has received money from the Government to invest in a new science centre. However, does he agree that that money would go further if we were able to take action on VAT for colleges?

[Mr Stuart]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think there are feelings across the House on this subject. I said that I would keep my remarks brief, so perhaps I will bring them to a close. The big point is that sixth-form colleges have for years consistently been the most successful providers at delivering the Government’s key educational aims for 16 to 19-year-olds, but time and again, they appear to be on the front line of cuts in funding. That cannot make sense, in terms of having a rational, coherent approach to this issue.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great work that he is doing. He said that he has no sixth-form colleges in his constituency; I have no schools that provide sixth-form education in my constituency. However, there are three colleges there that provide sixth-form education: Huddersfield New college, Greenhead college, and Kirklees college. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate, and I will continue to support this campaign.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying so.

There is another aspect that it is worth pointing out briefly. At the moment, because of the freedoms for schools that I think are broadly supported across the House—there is certainly support for them on the Government Benches—there is a danger that we are sleepwalking into the creation of more small sixth forms, which we know, from sustained evidence gathered over time, perform poorly. At the same time, we are undermining institutions that have a long track record of success in raising standards for all, and in closing the gap between rich and poor. We cannot allow that to happen, so we need the Government to wake up and recognise the jewels that they have in the form of sixth-form colleges.

Far from seeing sixth-form colleges cut back, sliced and reduced in capacity and capability, I would have thought that, having found a delivery system that works better than others, we should desperately look at expanding and supporting it in a way that is fair to other providers. I do not want in any way to be prejudiced against sixth forms, but I would like a level playing field, because we have the exact opposite: we are seemingly strengthening those with the weakest record, and weakening those with the strongest record.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I had better give way to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) first, and then I will sit down.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech; I agree with every word of it. However, does he agree that the Government ought to be looking to create many more sixth-form colleges across the country?

[Mr Stuart]

I agree. If a system is most successful and cost-effective, establishes high standards, particularly for the poorest, and closes the wealth gap, I would think people would be delighted to see it expand. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton), and then I will draw to a close.

[Mike Thornton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I very much appreciate it. With the reduction in spending caused by VAT and the need to provide for those over 18, does he agree that it is very strange to cut money for colleges that aim specifically to get people good A-level results and other results at that level, when they are trying to educate people, including those who perhaps missed out earlier, but who are now able to catch up on their education between the ages of 18 and 19?

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps that is the danger of making political promises that are nice and neat. His party might want to look carefully at the way that the protection of schools has left very few areas where we can cut in order to deliver reductions in spending. It could be that a series of measures that were positively meant have eventually led to this cut.

Those who are 18 at the start of an academic year and who are still at a sixth-form college are likely to be those clinging on to education, having struggled in post-16 education, and they may be at risk of becoming NEET—that is, not in education, employment or training. Again, it does not make sense for a Government who are rightly using the pupil premium and other measures to try to close the gap to finish up looking to make reductions at the end of the period—at the time when pupils need help to get over the line, and to get themselves on the first rung of the employment ladder—rather than looking to put in place additional support. The sixth-form college sector is not looking for special treatment; it is simply looking to be treated fairly, compared with other providers.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question that I am sure many Members would be concerned about. The cap should be set by the FCA at a level designed to protect consumers. I hope that when I go on to talk about the process, that will give him a bit more definition regarding his concerns.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I do not really understand what the Minister says about a cap protecting consumers. Before we had these payday lenders who get so much opprobrium, the alternative was very often door-to-door loan sharks who would break your legs if you did not pay them back. The great feature of the payday lenders is that they do not do that. What assurance can he give that any caps we impose will not force people back into the hands of unscrupulous and illegal lenders instead of the payday lenders, who at least work within the law?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. A number of charity groups involved in the debt advisory sector share those concerns. However, most of them agree, especially in the light of emerging evidence from other countries such as Australia and from certain parts of the United States, that it is possible, if researched properly, to set a cap at a level that can protect consumers but at the same time prevent extortionate costs. That will be the job of the FCA when it looks at the matter, and I know that it will take it very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Is not the point that the average income of the bottom third of the population stopped growing in real terms in 2003?

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Under Labour.

[Jesse Norman]

Under Labour. Therefore, it is a matter of catch-up before the Government can get the economy back on track.

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point. This is clearly an important step forward, however, and we should take comfort from the fact that this place can influence the behaviour of the banking sector. I will be discussing consequential losses later in my speech.

It is fair to say that the 91% finding in the pilot scheme has been replicated in the work done within the redress scheme. The figures released by the FCA in August and September on the individual performance of banks—something for which the all-party group called—have clearly shown that 93% of cases in the redress scheme involved actual mis-selling. So again we have proved that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I echo the praise from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for my hon. Friend. Does he have sympathy, as I do, for companies with more than 50 employees that are not financially sophisticated and which were mis-sold these products, often as a condition of loans to do business, but which now find themselves described as the sort of people who should have been able to see through the sophistry and misrepresentation of the salesmen of these products?

[Guto Bebb]

My hon. Friend mentions the sophistication test, and I will be coming to that; it is indeed something that concerns me and the all-party group.

We have found consistently that banks are admitting a mis-sale in about 93% of cases. Had we found, in the consumer mortgage market, that 93% of mortgages had been mis-sold, would we have allowed nine months to pass between those findings and the situation we now face? We have to ask the question: is it right that these businesses should be treated differently because they are small businesses, when we have found that there has clearly been mis-selling?

Finance Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Government have previously declared that we are “all in this together”, and I want to develop that theme. I am sure the Exchequer Secretary will be listening intently. They have insisted that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but in Work and Pensions questions earlier, we heard that some Opposition Members are somewhat sceptical about that claim. Although the Government have also consistently told us that their priority is to cut the deficit by what they describe as “fair and reasonable means”, in politics it is actions, not mere words, that show priorities. The same Government, in tough times and against the backdrop of falling living standards—borrowing up last year, growth continuing to flatline and drastic cuts being made to benefits for hard-working families—have decided to give millionaires a tax cut. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) call out that that is nonsense. I am more than willing to take an intervention from him should he wish to justify the tax cut for millionaires.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am delighted to intervene on the hon. Lady. She will be aware that the art of taxation is to extract the maximum amount of money with the minimum amount of hissing. Is she aware of the principle that a lower tax rate can often lead to a higher tax take, and does she think it might apply in this case, thus meaning that millionaires pay more, not less?

[Cathy Jamieson]

It will be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his point.

[Mr Stuart]

Is the hon. Lady aware of that principle?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am aware of that point of principle and I will come to it in due course, because it is an issue to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the points that I have made. He will, of course, be aware of some of the discussion that took place in Committee on the Finance Bill and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. It is unfortunate that the Government chose not to accept our amendments to those Bills, and so far we have not seen legislation to enact the change that he mentions. I look forward with interest to further debates on that subject at a later date.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but she has mentioned what makes the public angry. I think what makes the public angry is when they see members of a party opposing in principle, and expressing great moral outrage about, the bedroom tax—the spare room subsidy—or the 50p tax rate and then refusing to answer a straightforward question about whether they would reverse one or both of them. It is not good enough, and it is no wonder that the public think politicians are slippery and cannot be trusted.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman started by trying to pay me some sort of compliment, saying that I was making a powerful speech, but I simply do not accept his assertion that what outrages the public is politicians standing up to make passionate speeches on their behalf. The points that I am making are the very ones that have been made by my constituents, by the constituents of my hon. Friends and—I am sure—by many of the hon. Gentleman’s own constituents.

It is not good enough for Government Members simply to sit there and say, “What is the Labour party going to do two years from now?” when they are taking no responsibility whatever for what they are doing at the moment. It is a responsible position for us as the Opposition to say, “We understand that there will be an overall spending limit; that will be our starting point, but that does not mean that we have committed to it as an end point, and it does not mean that we are committed to doing exactly what the Government would do.” I am sure that as we move forward, a number of initiatives will be developed and outlined in greater detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend has made her point extremely succinctly and has put on the record why we feel that the future jobs fund was not only important but a successful initiative. I say again to Government Members who think that the proposal has no impact on the lives of ordinary people that all those who went through the future jobs fund programmes and who worked on them say that the fund was a valuable way of getting young people back into work. People in my area would certainly have liked it to continue.

Let me come back to the points about the new clause. As I said, the Government should be tackling tax avoidance—we will debate that further later—but that does not mean that we should compensate the wealthiest at the expense of those on middle and low incomes. I would have hoped, in the light of everything the Government proclaimed around the time of the spending review about fairness and ensuring that growth came back into the economy, that even at this stage they might have dropped the plan for a millionaires tax cut. That is a forlorn hope, however.

The decision to create that tax cut goes to the heart of the coalition’s political vision and beliefs—and by that I mean both sides of the coalition. We face a period of national upheaval at a time when resources are stretched. The Government criticise the Opposition when we take responsible decisions to think about the way forward while failing to explain their positions. At a time when resources are stretched, when people up and down the country are working harder and harder than ever before for less in their pockets and when public services are being cut so drastically, it is even more crucial that our Government should be a uniting force rather than a dividing one. In that context, I must ask again why on earth this is the time for a tax cut for the richest.

The Government try to talk a good game, but as I said at the outset, reality does not match their rhetoric. They do not seem to understand the need for a one nation approach to politics and they are not able to encourage a sense of national mission, no matter how much they talk about being “all in it together”. This Government will go down in history as the most divisive.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being most generous in giving way. She said earlier that this matter is about action, not words, and has just said that it is about reality, not rhetoric. She is making an impassioned speech, but will she explain why she did not vote against the 50p tax rate and why, in addition, she is not committed to reversing the measure? Why, after the faux outrage over the spare room subsidy, is she not committed to reversing that either? People outside will think that this has a stench of hypocrisy about it.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The reality for my constituents and those of Labour Members is that they want to know why the Government made the change in the first place. They want to see action taken in the future, but there are two years until the general election—we will lay out how we intend to take things forward in good time for that—and I respectfully suggest to Government Members that we do not know exactly what sort of mess we will be left with. We see no responsibility taken by the Government for the situation that the economy is in at the moment and what has happened on their watch—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is an absurd argument. I watched the Brazil match yesterday—did the hon. Lady? Millions of our constituents were watching it and enjoying it. I agree that these people are ludicrously overpaid, but they are men of 21 who have an amazing skill. What does it matter if they earn £1,000, £2,000, £3,000 or £100,000 a week or a month? It is none of our business; it does not matter. To claim that my argument is defeated because a few millionaires earn ridiculous sums of money and because there are footballers’ wives is such a ludicrous argument economically that it is barely worth answering.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most generous. I must correct him on one thing, if he meant income tax when he said that 25% was being paid by 5% of taxpayers. In fact, 40% of the Government’s largest single receipt—income tax—is paid by 5%, and that includes footballers, rock stars and entrepreneurs, all of whom left this country in the 1970s, leaving us all poorer. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and other Opposition Members are lurching to the left and want to send them out of this country again. That would impoverish all of us, but most of all the low-income people in our constituencies who rely on receipts from such people.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I had better stop now, because others want to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a joy to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). In a different life, when I worked for my predecessor, he was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I spent many a happy afternoon at the back of the room listening to him pontificating and taking on the tax dodgers and anyone else the National Audit Office thought was a little bit dodgy. I miss those days.

The more time I spend in this House and the more I listen to Government Members, the more I sense that all we do is talk about history and hark back to the past. Government Members like to talk about 13 years of Labour “misrule” and 18 golden years of Tory Government. The one conclusion that I have come to from studying economics at A-level and from listening to many hon. and right hon. Members speak in this House is that it is not possible to run the economy like a scientific discipline. It is not like that.

Hon. Members have mentioned the Laffer curve, which was meant to be the wonderful idea of its time. In 1980, a future US President—he was about to become vice-president at that time—said that trickle-down economics was voodoo economics. He was right then and he is right now. The hon. Member for Gainsborough gave the Labour party some advice and I want to do the same for his party. The Conservative party is still in the grip of an economic theory that failed.

I do not want to talk about history, even though I am an historian myself. I do not want to go back to the ’80s—there is no point in talking about that. It is a moot argument. I want to talk about the future, but in 1989 and 1990 we had the worst recession ever. That followed the recession in 1981, which, at the time, was the worst recession that we had had. Trickle-down economics is based on the mad belief that a tax cut for the very rich will somehow trickle down through society. It has never worked. Quite simply, that is common sense.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I just want to make a simple point. Every time the tax rate for the richest was cut under the previous Conservative Government, the amount paid by the top 10% went up in cash terms and in relation to what was paid by the rest of the population. In other words, every time the tax rate was reduced, the amount that the rich paid went up and the percentage of the overall pot that they paid went up. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that trickle-down effect?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I hope that he tells his constituents the truth about where the Government have concentrated their efforts to lower tax. The main effort has gone into lifting the tax threshold. Does he support the fact that, under this Government, people can earn up to £10,000 and not pay any income tax, because the Government are determined to try to make work pay?

[Chris Evans]

Surprisingly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his last comment—work does pay. At the end of the day, we can have any Government scheme we want to bring people out of poverty, but there is only one way out, and that is work. The only way out of the current difficulty is for people in work to pay their taxes. If there are even more cuts to the public sector, there will be even more people out of work and the welfare bill will go up, defeating the object of the exercise. It will lead to a high welfare bill, which will have to be paid for, and a low tax yield because of people being out of work.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have to wake up to the fact that the social benefits that we want to enjoy will come only from businesses being successful. We must do all we can to ensure that we have a fair, simple and transparent tax regime. How can we stimulate the economy when it seems that those in the middle are being squeezed?

The hon. Gentleman asks whether I talk to my constituents. I do, and those in social housing or council housing are concerned about the so-called bedroom tax. Some 80% of social tenants in Caerphilly county borough are in two or three-bedroom houses. That is not their fault, because no one-bedroom flats or houses are being built. After the war, when Aneurin Bevan invested in social housing, he invested in family homes so that people could bring up children and go to work.

We have heard from the Government, and from hon. Members today, about how much the cut in tax from 50p to 45p will raise. Everybody seems to be able to predict the future—every Government Member who has spoken today has done so, and even the Exchequer Secretary will be guilty of it. They seem to think that they are some sort of latter-day seer, guru or wise man who can see that in future, it will be wonderful under the Tories whereas it would be terrible under the Labour party. However, we do not know what is next. We might be lucky—we might find gas, or we might find oil off the Pembrokeshire coast or more oil in the North sea, which will stimulate the economy. On the other hand, we might have another financial crisis. We do not know. When we talk about what the tax cut will raise, we are basically licking our finger, putting it in the air and wondering which way the wind is going to blow.

To get back to the new clause, it is important that we have a review of the tax cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The challenge for any sensible Government has got to be how to ensure both that the wealthiest pay a fair share and that we encourage a spirit and culture of entrepreneurialism. The 50p rate simply failed to deliver that.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is giving a thoughtful economic analysis, but he perhaps misunderstands where the Opposition are coming from, because I do not think they are particularly interested in the economics. The fact is that their position is now so desperate that they have their 36% strategy, they are entirely paid for by the union movement, and their desire now is to lurch to the left. They do not care if they get less money; what they want to do is appeal to a core vote which they hope will be enough to return them to power because of the invidious and unfair electoral system we have. That is what is going on, which is why we waste our time when we talk about entrepreneurialism or the benefits to public services, because they are not really interested.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend takes a sceptical view of the Opposition, and events may well turn out to justify it. I want to take a more charitable view, however—although perhaps it is, in fact, a different form of scepticism or cynicism. My view is that they are not really serious about the 50p rate at all; much though they talk about it, they will not, in truth, pursue this policy because they know it is so damaging and that it does not do anything to raise revenue. That is why, despite repeated questions earlier, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who does like to be straightforward with the House, refused to say whether Labour would support a 50p rate after the next general election. She makes the argument that Labour will have to delay and wait to see what the state of the economy is, but given that we know this does not raise any substantial amount of revenue, it cannot be dependent on the state of the public finances; instead, it is a matter of political calculation. I hope my hon. Friend is wrong and that the Opposition are trying to edge away from a position that they saw as populist but which, in truth, is economically incoherent.

Income Tax

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that HM Revenue and Customs figures show that 8,000 people earning over £1 million will gain an average of £107,500 from the Government’s decision to cut the top rate of income tax from April 2013; further notes that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that the Government’s changes to tax allowances for pensioners will mean that 4.4 million existing pensioners will lose an average of £83 from 2013-14, while thousands of people turning 65 will lose £323; and calls on the Government to announce in the Autumn Statement that it will not go ahead with its proposal to cut the top rate of tax for the richest earners at a time when the economy is flatlining, millions of pensioners on middle and low incomes are paying more, and when wider tax and benefit changes being implemented in 2012-13 will result in families with children losing an average of £511.

In March this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood in this House to deliver his Budget. It was a revealing moment. Having previously said that we are all in it together and insisted that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, the Chancellor announced a tax cut worth, on average, £107,000 for those earning more than £1 million a year. It was the moment that the Government’s façade of fairness disappeared for good. In these tough times, against the backdrop of the biggest squeeze in living standards for a generation, and with the economy flatlining, the Chancellor prioritised millionaires above millions of working people. That is why we have called this debate: to question the priorities of the Government, to stand up for pensioners and families who are being hit hardest—

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Lady said that she wants to prioritise ordinary people over millionaires, so would the Labour party, if it were to come into government in 2015, reintroduce the 50p rate?

[Rachel Reeves]

We are hoping that Government Members will see sense and vote for the motion, and that the Chancellor will rethink his decision in next week’s autumn statement. It is not too late to reverse this change. I am not going to write the manifesto for 2015 now, but every single Labour MP will be voting against this tax change, which has not yet come into effect, so the Government can still think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Perhaps I should not be drawn too much into discussing the domestic policies of one of our close European allies, but it will be interesting to see the impact in France of a very high rate of income tax, and whether people will move out of that country and we see any additional revenue as a consequence.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I appeal to my hon. Friend not to be too harsh on the Opposition. Does he not understand that the Labour party now gets 90% of its funding from the trade union movement? If the trade unions insist that there should be a 50p tax rate—even if it does not raise money and undermines public services—it may feel obliged to put it in its manifesto regardless.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend displays an unusual degree of cynicism. I am still hopeful that Labour Members will share with us a desire for the UK to be a competitive environment for business that attracts high net worth and high-earning individuals to locate and pay tax in the UK, and that we can raise more revenue from them. Perhaps, however, my hon. Friend will turn out to be right and they will be driven more by their trade union paymasters.

Fuel Duty

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend knows that the answer to that question is that it is this Government who are on the side of hard-working families.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, many of my constituents live in sparsely populated rural areas, and the cost of fuel has an immense impact on their family finances, yet they realise that running the country with massive deficits puts their children’s futures at risk and means that money that could have been spent on public services is instead spent as Labour wants—on interest.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong speech. He has shown personal consistency, but it is reasonable for Government Members to say that many of his colleagues show anything but. If he wants this duty freeze, what does he want to do to raise the money? Can tax loopholes instantly provide the money, does he want a cut in Government spending, or is he, like most of his colleagues, in favour of ever more borrowing?

[Albert Owen]

FairFuelUK’s argument is that money is lost to the Exchequer because of the serious impact of fuel duty on businesses. If we had growth in our economy, which all hon. Members want, the Exchequer would get more money, and businesses would be able to reinvest. That is one way. I would like the 4G windfall money to be used to help to alleviate small businesses—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby says the Opposition have spent the money, but that is not true—we are not sure how much it will be or how it will be spent. I should also point out to him that the Opposition do not spend the money; the Treasury makes those decisions. It is about time the Government took responsibility for their actions rather than making knockabout comments.

My final remark is about the ordinary family. In my part of the UK and many periphery areas, motorists do not go on luxury outings. Motorists are families taking their children to school and students getting to college and university. People in remote areas need their cars for the weekly shop because public transport is not available. It is great when people can take alternative transport, such as in central London and large cities, but that is not a choice in periphery and remote areas.

There is a choice tonight: hon. Members can vote for the motion or the amendment. They should vote for what their constituents want, and do what Members on both sides of the House have been asked to do. They should put loud and clear pressure on the Chancellor. If he is in listening mode, he will listen to the will of the House and suspend the 3p tax increase that he proposes to introduce in January, so that families can have a bit of a break and go into Christmas and the new year in the knowledge that they will have more money to spend, and so that businesses have more money to reinvest.

Beer Duty Escalator

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for securing the debate. I am happy to be a co-sponsor of the motion, which is very important.

I have only five minutes, so I cannot list the fine establishments in my constituency. I would be a fool to miss some of them out, so I will not attempt to list them. I do not have any major breweries, either, but I want to give the debate a different dimension and add something new. People have quite rightly promoted their public houses and breweries, but there is an important link between the breweries and the pubs—that is, between the suppliers and the distribution industry. In rural and periphery areas, they are vital in getting the product to the licensed outlets, whether they are clubs, pubs or hotels. In periphery areas such as mine, and in many other parts of the country, visitors make a very important contribution to the local economy. They use the public houses for their leisure activities and we need to put the multiplier effect into its proper context. Hundreds of millions of pounds are generated by the tourism industry and the public house is key to that. It is not just a local pub, but a centre of attraction for visitors.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, particularly about the knock-on impact of pub closures in rural areas. The Great Newsome brewery, a small brewery in my constituency, has seen six of the pubs it supplies close in just the last two years. Evidence has shown that each pub puts £80,000 into the local community and makes the East Riding of Yorkshire a more attractive place for tourists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I hope that we will see a change of direction from the Government.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am very fond of going to Yorkshire. I went to university there and regularly visit York and the fine pubs in that area, so I might come to Humberside and the east coast at some point.

The suppliers are important small and medium-sized enterprises. A family business in my constituency, Joseph Keegan and Sons, wrote to me. It has been established for many years and supplies the area and its concerns are about beer duty and fuel duty, too. Many companies have been hit by the high levels of fuel duty when transporting their goods, so there is a double whammy of which the Minister must take note in his review.

The motion before the House is very moderate, because all it calls for is a review. The hon. Member for Leeds North West, in his measured contribution to the debate, was right to say that Members across the House have supported escalators when there was a need to do so. The beauty of an escalator is that we can get on or off it when the conditions are right, so the Government would not lose face by coming off it. A previous Conservative Government brought in the fuel duty escalator and then came off it when they thought that was necessary, so that can happen quite simply.

Finance Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

Our position is that we would like none of the VAT changes to be introduced so by voting against new schedule 1 today, as I have already explained, we vote against all the VAT changes.

As was pointed out, if the pasty counter was near the oven, the ambient temperature would be higher. If it was near the chiller, the ambient temperature may be lower. Greggs’ official consultation document asked whether servers would ultimately have to take the temperature of both the pasty and the surrounding air to determine whether a 20% surcharge should be applied. The proposal was universally and rightly rounded on as ridiculous. Ken McMeikan, the chief executive of Greggs the bakers, which I am proud to say is based in my part of the world, Tyne and Wear, deserves a mention for his excellent campaign against the pasty tax. A massive £30 million was wiped off the value of the company in the week after the Budget as orders were threatened and jobs put at risk. Along with several hundred other bakers, Mr McMeikan delivered a petition to 10 Downing street. He told Ministers:

“we are the voice of half a million people. We embody their resentment at what this Government is trying to impose against the people’s will. . . ordinary hard working people simply do not want this pasty tax.”

I visited a local school breakfast club with Mr McMeikan and I know just how committed Greggs is to local schools and community projects. It did not deserve to have its business torpedoed by Ministers who are too out of touch ever to have eaten one of its products. Eventually the Government backed down on the pasty tax—they had to because that was the only move they could make—but they left behind them a legacy of arrogant disregard for ordinary people that will not quickly be forgotten. My only hope now is that the U-turn that has been made will be made properly. Representatives of Greggs are still raising concerns that the new wording of the regulations on hot food now state that VAT should be charged if it

“is provided…in packaging that retains heat (whether or not the packaging was primarily designed for that purpose)”.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) raised the matter with the Minister, but his answer did not provide certainty, so I would be grateful if he would clarify in his reply exactly how the Government will ensure certainty for this slightly battered production market.

Any sort of paper bag or wrapping could inadvertently help to retain heat, so there is a danger that pasties could still be caught in the regulations and that this whole incompetent mess of U-turns and retractions will all have been for nothing. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to clarify that point and reassure Greggs and other bakers up and down the country that supplying customers with paper napkins, for example, which could inadvertently slow down the cooling process, will not result in an extra 20% charge for their customers.

Greggs would like confirmation, as I am sure would other bakers across the country, on whether taking trays of baked products from the oven and stacking them in counters that have no other means of heating or heat retention would be considered to be slowing down the cooling process. The practice is used by bakers to minimise food handling and the number of trays in use, but there are genuine concerns in the industry that it could constitute slowing down the cooling process and so incur a VAT charge.

The Government’s second U-turn was on their attempt to charge 20% VAT on static caravans—[Interruption.] I am asked from a sedentary position “Are you only on the second U-turn?” Yes, I am. I venture to guess that caravan holidays, like pasties, are not familiar to most members of the Cabinet. They saw an opportunity to take some extra tax and went ahead without considering the impact on individuals, jobs, growth or tourism. Because of the huge campaign mounted against the policy—I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House for that, particularly hon. Members who represent the Hull constituencies, who are particularly concerned about the impact on jobs in their area—the Government backed down, but they are still trying to impose the 5% charge, as the Minister set out in more detail earlier.

The Treasury’s own figures show that 20% VAT on static caravans would result in a 30% fall in demand. The industry estimates that it would result in 1,000 job losses in manufacturing, excluding the supply chain. We know that at least one factory in the supply chain, Willerby Holiday Homes, put all 700 of its staff on a 90-day consultation as a direct result of the Government’s announcement that it would levy 20% VAT on its product. The National Caravan Council states that 4,300 jobs might be lost in holiday parks, plus another 1,500 jobs from associated suppliers.

I appreciate that the Minister has sought to give some reassurances on the change and indicated that the Government are listening, to the extent of reducing the VAT rate to 5%. However, he has made it clear today that no actual calculation has been made on the potential impact of the 5% charge, which is of great concern. Even the reduced charge of 5% will mean either that caravan holidays will become more expensive for holidaymakers or that holiday parks will be forced to absorb losses and job cuts. At a time when consumers are already severely squeezed, many people will simply have to go elsewhere. In turn, the whole economy of holiday towns would be hit, with shops, pubs and attractions losing their main business. Is that really what the Government intended?

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would answer.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being most generous in giving way. I ask her to note that the National Caravan Council, the industry body, and the British Holiday and Home Parks Association have welcomed the 5% rate. They feel that the Government did listen and that the industry can take on that burden as part of the whole national effort to tackle the vast deficit her party left behind when it left government.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am pleased that the industry is “delighted” with a 5% increase in VAT on its products. That is surprising in the circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

It is surprising to me that, as far as we are aware from the comments of the shadow Minister, the Opposition will be voting against the very improvements that the hon. Lady says they have been working so hard to achieve. I do not doubt her good intentions or that she has been working very hard to represent her constituents, but if she was truly doing so, she would walk through the Lobby with the Government this evening, because they have listened thoroughly.

Let us take the pasty tax, for example. It will not surprise Members that I am keen to talk about pasties, because not only am I a big fan and regular consumer of them, but I represent Cornwall, where they are an incredibly important industry. When I listened to the Budget some months ago, it was clear to me that the Government were doing exactly the right thing. They had seen some dreadful anomalies in VAT on food that had led to huge unfairness. Independent owners of fish and chip shops in my constituency had to pay VAT, but other outlets selling hot takeaway foods did not. The Government’s attempt to sort out VAT struck me as perfectly reasonable.

We all know that what is really holding back growth in our economy is that for too long, small businesses have been massively overburdened by a dreadfully confused and muddled-up tax code. Under the last Government, the tax code multiplied and multiplied. We would probably have to use a wheelbarrow to carry all its volumes into the Chamber. The current Government are making a very reasonable effort to simplify some of the taxes that are such a burden on businesses in my constituency. They have listened carefully to the representations that have been made and are now going to create a level playing field for all people producing and selling takeaway food. That will benefit independent bakers in small businesses throughout Cornwall who bake pasties.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government inherited the largest overspend and deficit in the developed world, so it was right for them to probe every possible area of tax revenue. It was also right for them to listen to people when representations were made and to respect parliamentary democracy. Does she agree that if the Labour party had listened to Back Benchers when it was in power, we would not have got into the mess that we are in and we would not have the vast deficit that the Government are having so valiantly to fight to reduce?

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes his point as passionately and persuasively as always, and he is absolutely right.

To return to pasties—one of my favourite subjects—when I listened to the Budget, it was clear to me that there was a problem with the proposals as they stood. Some of the architects of those proposals clearly did not understand how pasties are baked in Cornwall. Within hours I spoke to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who clearly understood the problem that I described to him. He said the Government realised that there could be some complications and unforeseen consequences, hence the reason for their consultation. Colleagues from around the country responded positively to that consultation, and their concerns have now been met.

I am staggered by what the Opposition wish to inflict on our country by not supporting the Government tonight. In the nightmarish scenario that they won the Division, we would return to the situation in which the Treasury wastes hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money every year having to fight litigation cases against multi-million-pound companies that are trying to avoid paying VAT. The extremely complicated tax code that was developed under Labour over its 13 years was a lawyers charter. I have nothing against lawyers—I am married to a very good lawyer—but that ever-increasing and complicated tax code means that, not unreasonably, companies try to avoid paying tax. That causes Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be tied up in court, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers fees that it could be spending in a far better way.

It beggars belief, but what the Labour party is saying tonight is, “We are on the side of companies trying to avoid tax. We are on the side of lawyers who are constantly taking HMRC to court.” What a dreadful waste of taxpayers’ money. The Government are trying to have a fair and simple tax system that everybody in the country can understand, so that we are not caught out by those who avoid taxation.

--- Later in debate ---

There are two issues that I want to go into in detail. First, the question of whether the previous position was an anomaly is still up for debate. I do not think we necessarily want to cede the principle that the previous regime of not subjecting holiday statics to VAT was indeed an anomaly. There is an argument to be had about that. The second thing I want to pursue is the assurances we have heard, which I am pleased the Minister gave at the Dispatch Box, in so far as he is able when it comes to future tax policy. We have been assured that it is unlikely that the Government will seek to look at the issue again. I am sure that we would all welcome that and that the Minister will welcome not having colleagues from all parts of the country banging on his door, as we did.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who led the campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Now that a 5% VAT rate has been introduced, does he agree that any Government, whether the coalition or a future Labour Government, would be ill-advised to return to this issue with any form of increase? The level of 5% can be accepted. People do not pay council tax on these caravans. We are talking about a compromise, but one that can last, that the industry can live with and that the political establishment should live with. Indeed, no Government should ever think of returning to the issue at any time while even someone as young as my hon. Friend is in this House.

[Andrew Percy]

I am being abolished at the next election anyway, so there are only three years in which the Government might have to worry about me. However, they would frankly be stupid—if that is not unparliamentary language—to look at the issue again. I think any Government will take note of the campaign.

The final assurance I seek from the Minister is that we will continue to be conscious that there will still be a potential impact, as was mentioned in interventions by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who also fought valiantly. I hope that the Treasury will continue to monitor that.

In the final minute, I want quickly to say something about the Opposition’s VAT cut for millionaires, which I think is what they are proposing. Whereas we on this side of the House have decided to target tax changes at those struggling the most—for example, by raising the personal allowance and taking some of the poorest out of tax altogether—the Opposition policy is to issue a massive VAT cut for high earners and millionaires, and just to pepper money around. The Opposition are not quite sure how much—they have not told us, although we think the figure might be £12 billion—and they do not know for how long the measure would be in place. What a policy! The interesting thing we have learnt is that we now know that the Opposition’s official policy is to support, ultimately, VAT at 20%, because they have said that the measure would be temporary, meaning that they have therefore definitely agreed the 20% rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

This section of the debate is about VAT. When we are in a double-dip recession, the imposition of VAT on items such as caravans is not going to help us to grow out of that economic position. That is what I will concentrate on.

The proposal for 20% VAT to be levied on static caravans came out of the blue in the Budget. There had been no consultation with the industry, and no warning that the Government were planning that measure. The impact assessment published alongside the Budget stated that the 20% VAT would result in a 30% reduction in the market for static caravans. The Government’s U-turn involved a 75% reduction in the amount of VAT involved, and 5% will now be levied from April 2103, as opposed to 20% from October 2012.

I can go some way towards welcoming the fact that the Government have listened and put forward a response to the widespread view that the imposition of 20% VAT would have been a disaster. There was cross-party work on the issue, with a number of debates, early-day motions and petitions. I will give the Minister his due; he did take the time to listen to what people had to say, especially those from my part of the world. However, serious concerns remain about the effect that the 5% VAT will have, and I want to run through them tonight.

I want to talk first about jobs and demand, which are at the heart of the issue. As I said, the Treasury’s own figures showed that the imposition of 20% VAT would have resulted in a 30% reduction in demand for static caravans. It worries me that the Treasury seems incapable of using figures appropriately. When I looked at the impact assessment, I realised that it had got the figures for businesses and manufacturers in the caravan industry wrong. It worries me that it cannot even get such basic information correct when it sets out to consult on a proposal. I want to see much better research into the impact of the 5% VAT on caravan manufacturers.

I have not been reassured by what the Minister has told me today, even though I have pressed him to tell me what will happen to manufacturers in the caravan industry. I did not feel that he really had a grasp of what the numbers might be. It worries me that there has been no proper assessment of this policy. Does he think that levying 5% VAT will put at risk roughly a quarter of the demand that the 20% VAT would have put at risk? Does he also think that the number of job losses in the caravan manufacturing industry will be reduced from the 6,000 mentioned in KPMG’s report to about 1,500 as a result of the change in VAT? Will he also comment on the knock-on effects for the wider UK tourism and domestic holiday industry?

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the HMRC document, “VAT: Taxing Holiday Caravans”, which was published at the end of last week. On the economic impact of the 5%, it states:

“This measure is likely to lead to an increase in the price of static and larger touring caravans which could lead to a fall in demand.”

I take the view that the Treasury civil servants are among the brightest and best that the civil service has to offer, and it seems odd that they have been able to come up with nothing more definitive than that the measure “could” lead to a fall in demand. The document goes on to state:

“Although the overall impact on the macro economy is expected to be negligible, the measure will impact local manufacturing in Yorkshire and the Humber where the bulk of static holiday caravans are manufactured.”

Most people in Hull and East Yorkshire would agree with that, but surely the Treasury can come up with something better. The section of the document entitled “Impact on businesses including civil society organisations” states:

“The vast majority of static holiday caravans are manufactured in Yorkshire and the Humber and a small number of manufacturers account for the vast majority of all UK sales. Although some manufacturers produce other types of caravans, static caravans are the main source of income for most of these manufacturers.”

Again, it worries me that the document uses such general terms. Where is the meat in all this? Where are the figures? Where does it tell us what the actual economic impact of the policy will be?

Let us bear in mind that we are in a double-dip recession and we are all desperate to get growth back into the economy. I mentioned in an intervention that 46.3 people in my constituency chase every job vacancy going, so any loss of jobs in the caravan manufacturing industry is a disaster for my constituents. I think that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole mentioned that the caravan industry suffered very badly in 2008-09, and it is only just getting back on its feet. If the Treasury thinks that the imposition of 5% VAT will be fine for an industry that is struggling in a double-dip recession when people are not spending, it really needs to look again at its figures and ensure that they all add up.

The Minister said that the goods within a caravan were already taxed, in that VAT had already been levied on such items. My understanding is that the figure involved is about 5%. Will he tell us whether the 5% proposed in the Bill will be an additional 5%, making a total of about 10% VAT payable? I am confused by that, and the Minister has not made it clear.

One of the strongest arguments against the initial proposal for 20% VAT was that it would raise very little revenue for the Treasury. When taking that into account, we also need to consider the welfare costs that would be incurred from people in the industry losing their jobs. Has the Minister looked at the figures involved? Does he think that the sums add up?

HMRC now estimates that the 5% VAT will first raise revenue in 2013-14, when it will bring in £5 million a year, rising to £10 million a year from 2013-14. That is a relatively small amount of money, given the Government’s overall spending, especially in the light of the millions that they have found in the Budget for tax cuts for millionaires. Let us put this into perspective: £10 million is perhaps a third or half of what Mr Diamond’s severance payment might be.

This measure will have an impact from next year onwards, while raising £5 million to £10 million. When we take into account the fall in demand in the industry and the resulting job losses, I do not think that the Treasury will end up in credit. Introducing the measure could result in more money being spent, through welfare benefits. Will the Minister set out for me the sums that he is using to ensure that the measure will bring a net benefit to the Treasury? In my view, this is an ill thought-through policy, and these are crazy economics.

The Minister referred to the manufacturing standard, BS 3632. As I said in my intervention, using a manufacturing standard to dictate tax policy is silly.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I want to return to the hon. Lady’s point about the overall costs. A significant percentage of the cost of a new caravan is found in the chattels inside, which already have VAT on them. So the additional overall cost will not be higher than 5%; it will be more like 3% or 4% on the overall average retail cost of a caravan. The manufacturers are telling me that they think that that can broadly be absorbed within their business model. It will have some negative impact, but a fairly minimal one. We are certainly not talking about 10% costs, but about rather less than 5%.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did on this matter. However, I would really like to hear from the Minister what the VAT level is going to be, because my understanding is that it is 5% plus the additional VAT already levied. The hon. Gentleman says that it is 3% or 4% and not 5%, but is that 3% or 4% on top of the 5%, which would mean it was 8% or 9%, not 5%?

[Mr Stuart]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

I am happy to give way again.

[Mr Stuart]

Basically, VAT has already been paid on those chattels, so if 25% of the cost of the caravan were for the chattels, that already includes VAT, so we are looking at 5% on 75% of the overall cost of the caravan. That is why it is significantly less than 5% as an addition to the actual cost when someone goes to a park to try to buy a caravan. The additional costs as a result of this change will be significantly less than 5%—I say that clearly and categorically.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman again, but I would still like to hear from the Minister exactly what the figure will be. My understanding—I was at the same meeting with the caravan manufacturers in Beverley as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—was that a figure was levied across the whole price of the caravan, including the chattels in the caravan at around 3% or 4% of the overall cost. Will the Minister clarify that? Are there two figures that we need to be aware of, or is it just 5% overall of the total amount of the purchase? I have to tell the Government that if this were intended to make things clearer, the truth is that it is making things even more complicated and less transparent.

Let me return to the BS 3632 specification. I was saying that I thought that that was not a sensible way to make tax policy. I know that the distinction between static caravans and those used for residential purposes 365 days of the year is based on the reference to BS 3632. If we look at the responses to HMRC’s consultation, we see that while many respondents felt it would be relatively straightforward to upgrade static caravans to meet the BS 3632 standard so that they could benefit from zero-rated standing, many others said that the costs of doing so would be prohibitive. There is a confusion there, which is why I would like the Minister to be very clear about it.

With certified British standards changing all the time because manufacturing gets better and better, how often does the Minister think he would need to return to this tax provision to update it? I doubt whether it will be set in stone for years to come; it will have to be looked at and changed in the future. I heard the Minister’s reassurance that we would not see changes to the standard in the future, but he is opening the door to potential changes. The system that the Minister has devised, based on the British standard and keeping the distinction between static, residential and touring caravans, does not make things clearer and more transparent; rather, I think it extends the anomalies in the tax system.

An even bigger issue for me is the lack of clear evidence of what the change to VAT policy will do for my constituents and for jobs in my city. That is what really concerns and worries me. I know that the Minister has listened carefully to my pleas about employment and jobs. I hope he will think again and will instruct his officials to do a proper piece of work, so that when MPs scrutinise Government policy, they will have accurate figures to look at in order to assess whether the Government’s policies will result in what they say they are trying to achieve. In this case, I do not think the Government will see additional revenue in the Exchequer. If they bring forward this ill thought-through proposal, which will disproportionately affect my constituents, there will be a loss to the Government.

Finance Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

Now, we are nearly a week down the line, which must count as an eternity in the light of that new benchmark—[Interruption.] I would be more than happy to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), rather than listen to him commenting from a sedentary position.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has given way. I wonder whether she could bring her speech to a close, so that we might hear from someone who really does have some authority on this subject and who has so ably led the campaign to bring about this change.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, did a lot of work on the campaign. However, given the earlier suggestions that there was a lack of interest in this subject on the Opposition Benches because of the lack of numbers here tonight, I felt it important to lay out our case fully. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, however, and I will bring my remarks to a conclusion.

I want to ask the Minister some specific questions. Now that the Treasury has had a week or so in which to do the number crunching—if it had not already done so—what areas of departmental underspend have now been identified to ensure that the decision to delay the August 2012 increase in fuel duty will be met in a fiscally neutral way? Will the Minister also tell us which Departments have, through budget exchange, already surrendered an underspend in advance of the end of this financial year, and which Departments are expected to have greater than originally forecast savings in departmental spending in 2012-13?

I do not have time to comment on the points that have been raised about biofuels. Perhaps I shall be able to do so in another debate. In conclusion, however, I should like to refer Members to new clause 9. We shall not be pressing it to a vote this evening, but it calls for a review of the relationship between fuel duty, other taxes charged on road fuels, and the cost of road fuel. It was made clear in the recent Westminster Hall debate that such a review might reflect the views not only of the Opposition but of many Government Members —I see some of them nodding—and I hope that the Government will be good enough to listen to that proposal, and to come forward with a plan to establish such a review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sure that it is only a matter of time. In so far as the hon. Gentleman seeks to speak for his party—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does he?

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not want to see dissent break out on the Government Benches. No fighting amongst yourselves, please, gentlemen. These are serious matters. They cannot be treated as an experiment because people suffer.