Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I urge the hon. Gentleman not to talk down the north and the significance of the northern powerhouse. The northern powerhouse is an important part of the Government’s strategy, and the new Prime Minister has made clear her commitment to it. The hon. Gentleman is, however, right to draw attention to the shortfall of infrastructure investment in the United Kingdom overall, by comparison with our principal competitors. That is an issue that we must address at national level. We must look for the best value for money—the projects that will make the greatest contribution to closing the productivity gap across the UK—and that is what we will do.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

8. What the UK contribution to the EU budget is expected to be in 2017-18.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility is responsible for forecasting contributions to the European Union. It will update its forecast in this year’s autumn statement, but the forecast for the UK’s gross contribution in 2017-18 was £12.6 billion at the time of the Budget.

[Mr Robertson]

Notwithstanding all the spending pledges that have been made today and recently, hospitals, schools, police and roads in my constituency certainly need a spending boost. Does the Minister agree that the sooner we leave the European Union, the sooner that money will be available to them?

[Mr Gauke]

The amount of any money saved will depend on the overall fiscal situation and the broader economic environment. Decisions on spending will be made in the round in autumn statements and Budgets, but while we remain members of the European Union, we must of course comply with the requirements to pay into it.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. May I declare my registered interests? I have received hospitality from bookmakers and racing; along with your good self, Sir Alan, I am joint chairman of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock; and I have the Cheltenham racecourse in my constituency.

It is from the horse-racing point of view that I come to this debate, because bookmakers very largely finance horse-racing through the betting levy and through media rights. If we lose too many bookmakers we will lose horse-racing, there is absolutely no question about that. There are two very good racecourses in Northern Ireland, which I have visited a number of times. We also see the spectacle of the grand national, the Derby, Royal Ascot and, in my own constituency, the Cheltenham gold cup.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is beginning to make an interesting point about the connection between the old type of bookmakers, with sports betting and horse-racing, and the prevalence of high street bookmakers, but will he accept that there is clustering? He argues that doing away with bookmakers will affect the horse-racing industry, but does he not see a line of bookmakers all next to each other one side of the road, and another line on the opposite side of the road? There is a clustering effect.

[Mr Robertson]

I will come to that in a moment, but I just wanted to establish where I am coming from on this issue. There is a link between bookmaking and horse-racing, and if we lose one, without doubt we will lose the other. I want that to be very clear. There are far fewer betting shops than there used to be. We hear about the proliferation of bookmaking shops, but there are something like half the number there used to be. It is important to recognise that, while certainly acknowledging the issues raised by the hon. Member for Strangford.

You have asked us to take very little time each, Sir Alan, and I am happy to comply with that. I hope that the Government will continue with their evidence-based approach. I am not convinced that there has been an increase in the number of problem gamblers. There are people with addictive natures who will be addicted to something, whether that is alcohol, drugs or gambling, but we are discussing only one form of gambling, and many other forms are available.

Any Member could use their mobile phone to empty their entire bank account into a betting account and lose all that money within a minute or two. I mention that to draw attention to whether it would be fair to place restrictions on one kind of gambling when so many other forms are available, including the national lottery. I have linked horse-racing to bookmaking, and I also want to link the national lottery to the many good causes it supports. Billions of pounds have been spent on good causes thanks to the national lottery. I have some news for Members: that money is taken not from the millions of pounds that are won but from the money that people lose on the national lottery each and every week.

I hope we can get a measure of proportion into this debate. The Government should take seriously the important points and concerns raised by the hon. Member for Strangford, but I ask them to continue with their evidence-based approach and to remember that the great sport of horse-racing depends on the actions taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government.

[Lady Hermon]

The hon. Gentleman is of course the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which I am very proud to be a member. He chairs us well.

The hon. Gentleman has called for an evidence-based approach to be taken before the Government do anything, and he mentioned race courses in Northern Ireland. Can he produce any shred of evidence that those who go to the horse-racing in Northern Ireland, or anywhere in the United Kingdom, are the same people who play on fixed odds betting terminals? Where is the evidence for that connection?

[Mr Robertson]

That is not quite the point I was making. The situation is a lot worse now, but five years ago PricewaterhouseCoopers produced a report that said that up to 95 shops in Northern Ireland, which represents around 30% of the total there, would close if fixed odds betting terminals were banned. The hon. Lady is not calling for them to be banned, but that shows the scale of the problem. Some 975 jobs would be lost, costing £18 million per annum throughout Northern Ireland. The knock-on effect for the betting industry and therefore for horse-racing would be huge, because it is the machines that tend to keep the shops going. I am sorry that I did not explain that earlier, but that is my point. Fixed odds betting terminals are far rarer in Northern Ireland, where there are fewer than two per shop, than in Great Britain, where the number is nearer to four, so I am not convinced that the problem is greater in Northern Ireland. That does not mean that there is no problem, but if there is one I do not think it is of the same scale.

Sir Alan, you have indicated to me that I should draw my remarks to a close, so I repeat to the Government: please continue to take an evidence-based approach, and please remember that the sport of horse-racing depends on bookmaking.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. Many of us have probably applied for a similar debate, and for a Glasgow Member the issue is particularly pertinent. In 2014, The Evening Times of Glasgow found that the city had the highest proliferation of FOBTs—puggies, as they are known colloquially—at one for every 2,458 adults, with losses of £30 million per year. Only Liverpool came anywhere close to matching the Glasgow figure. It is not a statistic that I am proud of.

In my constituency the number of betting shops is particularly high, and they are in a concentrated area. It has been suggested that the disproportionate impact of fixed odds betting terminals on poorer and more vulnerable communities is due to the massive overprovision of bookmakers in such areas. Some streets in the east end of Glasgow have as many as four bookmakers on them, within a few hundred yards of each other, and with multiple FOBT units in each shop. In parts of my constituency, the high street is dominated by fast food shops, payday loan shops and bookmakers, and their proximity to each other is no coincidence.

Areas with a higher density of gambling machines are therefore more likely to be poorer areas, with lower than average economic activity and more people in lower-paid jobs, which means that the machines have a higher impact on people in those communities. I might have taken this incorrectly, but I take issue with the idea that people in such areas have more addictive personalities than those in more affluent areas. This is about proliferation, availability, the absence of hope, and the desire for control. Gambling has a massive impact on the lives and families of problem gamblers, often leaving families in debt, desperate, and more dependent on council and Government services. A report by Glasgow City Council on the impact of FOBTs found significant evidence of clustering of betting shops on many local high streets and other retail centres in Glasgow. Despite a period of unprecedented growth in online gambling, the number of betting shops has remained consistent and floor space continues to increase.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the idea that the poor pay in betting shops so that the more affluent can go horse-racing does not seem to me a reason to urge caution on the Government about taking action.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

I did not say that.

[Natalie McGarry]

Evidence from the Scottish health survey suggests that as many as one in 20 betting shop customers—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene instead of speaking from a sedentary position? I would be happy to take an intervention.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What she said was not remotely close to any point I made.

[Natalie McGarry]

That was an interpretational issue, then. I am glad to have my interpretation corrected, because what I said was what came across to me, and perhaps to others in the Chamber.

Evidence from the Scottish health survey suggests that as many as one in 20 betting shop customers may be problem gamblers. The addictive nature of the machines can and does devastate the lives of many people, especially those from poorer communities. The Government need to step in and do more to help those struggling with addiction, and they need to seek out preventive measures.

What is of most concern is the fact that many of the most popular games on fixed odds betting terminals are categorised as B2 casino content and are not subject to the same restrictions on stakes and prizes as traditional slot machine games. With vulnerable people already at risk, the Government must take action and reconsider the B2 classification.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I join the hon. Gentleman in campaigning for the UK to remain a member of the EU. That is the right thing for us to do both for the public finances overall and for the future of the UK economy, as the G20 communiqué made clear over the weekend. It may well have an impact on the university sector, too. I am sure that that will be one of the questions featured in the forthcoming debate leading into the referendum.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

9. If he will reopen the compensation scheme for Equitable Life policyholders.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

The Equitable Life payment scheme has now successfully traced and paid 90% of eligible policyholders. Payments to with-profits annuitants will continue for the life of these annuities. The scheme is now closed to new claims.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that response, but given that many policyholders lost out because of a failure of regulation, which should be overseen by not just this Government but any Government, is it not fair that those policyholders should receive compensation? If they do not, how can any investor have any confidence in the regulatory system that is put in place?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The Chancellor has done more than anyone else to tackle the regulatory failure of the 1990s with regard to Equitable Life. For example, with-profits annuitants will receive full compensation for the life of the annuity, pre-1992 annuitants have received ex gratia payments of up to £10,000, and £775 million has been paid out tax-free to others, despite the constrained public finances. Those on pensions credit got a doubling of their payment just before Christmas.

Canary Wharf Bombing: Compensation

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I am sure that will be a focus of the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which he is a respected member. I am not able to develop the powerful point as much as I would like to, but I am sure that the Committee will do so in due course.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I was at the memorial service last week with him and a number of other people. On the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we find it frustrating that former Prime Ministers Blair and Brown seem reluctant to give evidence on this very point. If we have to go to America to speak to people there to find out the truth, we certainly will.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee makes a powerful point that reinforces the concern I raised about the way the Blair Administration dealt with the situation. The Committee was also told that the Brown Government only became interested when the flak started flying over the Megrahi case, when he was being released back to Libya. The Foreign Office then set up the dedicated unit for victims, which, initially, was very enthusiastic, and the current Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), made some very positive statements about helping the victims when he was Leader of the Opposition. Notwithstanding all the reluctance, tokenism and lack of a conclusion, the victims just want results.

To return to the original question I asked a few minutes ago, I obtained this debate to ask a Minister from the Treasury whether there is a route, through frozen assets in the UK, to end the misery and delay. In my view, that is a Treasury question. If there is not a route, why not and when will the victims see justice? My final quote is from Mrs Hamida Bashir, whose son, Inam, was killed aged 29 at Canary Wharf. She wrote in correspondence:

“we do not require or will not accept any financial compensation for the loss of my Inam. However, due to the murder of Inam and John”—

John Jeffries—

“we do feel a tremendous moral obligation to support all those who have been left severely disabled. A victim such as Mr Zaoui Berezag who desperately needs your help as he is blind, paralysed, has the mental age of a small child and is an amputee. He is cared for by his wife Gemma within a modest council home in East London.”

What further eloquence do the Government need?

Equitable Life

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A constituent of mine who wrote to me has lost 75% of his life savings. He is living on a pittance by contrast with the position he would have been in if Equitable Life had not gone under. There is a broad recognition among Equitable Life policyholders of the stresses and strains that the last coalition Government faced, particularly with a severe economic crisis and a ballooning deficit.

Of course, we are now seeing the impact of the long-term economic plan. When the Government were in difficulties and faced stark choices, I believe that my constituents recognised that and were grateful that the Government were willing to act. Now they can see that circumstances are changing, they are asking the Minister to keep this matter under review, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) suggested. We are in a different economic situation from that when this fund was originally set up.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, as indeed have others. I do not wish to be pedantic, but when we talk about “keeping the matter under review”, we must remember that pension holders are dying, which makes the matter very urgent. My hon. Friend is right to say that the economy has improved to the extent that the Government can afford to pay full compensation, but beyond that I think there is a moral duty. There was regulatory failure, so whether or not they can realistically afford it today or tomorrow, do the Government not have a duty to pay this money?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because his point about regulatory failure is absolutely key. Had the regulator been doing its job properly and effectively, we would not be in this situation. That is what lies behind the requests for fairness, justice and equity for the policyholders, who were entitled to believe that proper, appropriate and fit regulation was in place and would keep their policies safe. That is the inherent injustice about which those policyholders are rightly aggrieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has said, it is unarguable that the unspent £139 million must be distributed among the pre-1992 policyholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady’s definition of “on that very point” has a degree of elastic in it.

The motion notes that the ombudsman recommended in her report that policyholders should be put back in the position that they would have been in, had Government maladministration not occurred. What the ombudsman went on to say just after this recommendation, however, is that it was appropriate also to take into account the impact on the public purse when considering the funding of payments.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

European Union Referendum Bill

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

Far be it from me to be the one who stands up for the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, but that is the consequence of being in a multi-national state. Nations within a multi-national state should be recognised as more than regions, counties or areas and should not be counted by population; they are national entities in their own right, and that confers a relationship of respect.

Although the hon. Gentleman and I may disagree on amendment 16, I know we were at one in insisting that this Government show respect to our respective nations in not having the referendum on the same day as our national elections. Our success on that matter indicates the advantage of working together, and I hope we are able to do that on a number of aspects of the Bill.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who saw the importance of a measure such as this even when we were in opposition and he was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was not the conventional thinking at the time, as I well remember because I was working with him, but he persisted, and the Bill eventually found its way to the Chamber.

Nearly five years ago—the time has passed quickly—when the Select Committee was re-formed and I had the privilege of becoming its Chairman, it decided to look into this matter. We decided that, in what was our first inquiry during the present Parliament, we would examine the current financial and economic issues rather than what might have been seen as the usual “orange or green” issues. We examined those issues in great detail, and, although I would be the first to admit that the report that we eventually published was not unanimously agreed, we saw the importance of a measure such as this. We also saw that it was not the silver bullet—it was not the only measure that needed to be taken in Northern Ireland to rebalance its economy and make it more prosperous—but we did consider it to be very important.

As has already been mentioned, Northern Ireland’s geographical position makes it special in this context. It shares a land border with another country, and it is also part of an island which is, in turn, off another island. That geographical position alone means that in order to attract the investment that it needs—especially overseas investment—it must have a different quality, because otherwise people might prefer to invest on the mainland. Although that might be good for many of us, it would not necessarily help Northern Ireland directly. Similarly, if the UK were just like the rest of the European Union, there would be no reason for people to invest here rather than on the continent. I am pleased that many aspects of our economy and the way in which we run things are different from what happens in the rest of the European Union, because that makes ours an attractive economy and makes this country a very good place in which to invest, as is clear from figures that were published only recently.

A short time ago, when the Select Committee visited Belfast, we had the pleasure of meeting Senator Gary Hart. He was there principally to engage in political discussions, but we discussed the economy as well, and he made a great many encouraging noises about the prospect of American investment in Northern Ireland if this step were taken.

I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly will take advantage of the Bill when it is passed, because it is one of the very few measures with which all the parties in Northern Ireland—and, I think, all the parties in the House—agree. That is a very unusual situation in itself, but it is extremely welcome, because it gives us an opportunity to improve the economy in Northern Ireland to a greater extent than we have done so far. That is important for two reasons: it will ensure that people in Northern Ireland enjoy more prosperity, and it will give them the opportunity to cement the relative peace that has been achieved there. A strong economy will obviously help the cementing of that peace. For those two reasons in particular, I am very happy to support the Bill.

Tourism (VAT)

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with him. Many jobs in the tourism sector are quite low paid, but if there was a level playing field in taxation rates, that would afford the opportunity for employers to pay better rates. It would also ensure that people have confidence and trust, and would allow them to do a better job in promoting their local areas.

I would like to make a little progress. Will the Minister robustly consider the case for a reduction in VAT on hotel accommodation and visitor attractions from 20% to 5%? Would he also consider broadening that out in future to the wider hospitality sector, including to food served in pubs and restaurants? That would encourage many more foreign visitors and provide an incentive for staycations in the domestic market. It would boost coastal resorts, rural retreats and cities and towns that have been hit hard by the economic downturn since 2008.

The industry is significantly constrained by its lack of price competitiveness. The Chancellor is not long back from Davos. While there, he may have learned that the World Economic Forum places the UK in 138th place for price competitiveness for tourism, out of 140 countries. The UK sits at the bottom of the international league table, with businesses facing the challenge of the highest rates in the world for VAT, air passenger duty and visa charges. The purpose of today’s debate is not to rehearse the arguments on issues such as air passenger duty, but that placing shows that the Government’s lack of action on VAT forms part of a broader lethargy when it comes to supporting the tourism industry.

The Government say that visitor numbers remain strong, but I would suggest that that is in spite of the current pricing policy, rather than because of it. The UK’s balance of payments for tourist products has declined steeply in the past 15 years, making it clear that tourism growth has not been what it could have been in recent years, and that we are not maximising the industry’s enormous potential to deliver revenue and jobs. I would argue that the blame for that lies with the policy regime, which is holding back the industry’s potential. Any argument from the Government based on the cost of a VAT cut being prohibitive is highly dubious.

There is strong evidence from the Treasury’s own economic modelling, as used by Professor Adam Blake in a study for the British Hospitality Association, that a VAT cut for the sector would benefit the whole economy. Yes, there might be a loss of some £640 million in the first year, but that would be comfortably offset by years 2 and 3 of the programme. Figures show that a 15% cut in tourism VAT would quickly become revenue-neutral and would result in a radically increased tax take of £2.6 billion over 10 years, delivering a £4 billion boost to the gross domestic product. I repeat: those figures do not come from the industry or lobbying consultants. They are derived from the Treasury’s own internal economic models.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that alongside this debate and campaign there is great concern, as expressed in the main Chamber just a few days ago, about the plight of struggling pubs, many of which are closing each and every week. There are a number of issues behind that. Beer taxation, which the Government started to address, is certainly one of them, but VAT is hampering that industry as well, particularly when pubs survive through the food that they provide. Does the hon. Lady agree that one way to help pubs, which are a vital part of the tourism industry, would be to consider how they are affected by VAT?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for his intervention. I agree with him on that point, but I see restaurants and pubs that serve food as being further down the line, so to speak. Nevertheless, I do not disagree with his point, because we must invest in local economies and jobs throughout the UK.

Pub Companies

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As I have said, I cannot anticipate exactly what the Government will say in their official response, but the whole purpose of the consultation was to seek views on legislative action, and our response will be built around that set of questions.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I have a lot of sympathy for what has been said in the debate so far, but I am a little troubled by suggestions that this problem arose only in May 2010. I had an Adjournment debate on the issue during the previous Parliament, and a number of other debates were also held, but nothing was ever done. My right hon. Friend was right to suggest that this is not a simple issue.

[Vince Cable]

I thank my hon. Friend, who remembers such things from his time in the House, for his reminder. We have, I think, had four Select Committee reports under different Governments. The matter has been actively debated for something in the order of eight years, and we have moved quickly on it in comparison with what went before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Let me declare a non-declarable interest, as it were. My sister, along with her husband, runs the local pub, The Village Inn, in Twyning, the village I live in, so although I do not have absolutely first-hand experience of the pub trade, I have what must pass as a close interest.

I echo what has been said about the value of pubs to communities. They are not only places where people drink; they are places where they eat and meet. Many golf societies, darts clubs and pool tournaments are hosted by pubs, and they are of great value to local communities in rural areas especially. Pubs also raise a lot of money for charities. Just this Saturday gone, I had the honour of presenting three cheques totalling almost £4,000 to local charities, and that picture is replicated across the country.

However, we have concerns. We are seeing many pubs closing, as has been said, and many landlords getting by on very little money. Their profits have been squeezed by the business model under which many of them are operating. There are no easy answers to the problem. As I said in an intervention, I held an Adjournment debate on this issue in the last Parliament, during which there were other such debates. The then Government were accused of not responding to a report that came out in that Parliament. I do not seek to make a party political point about that; I merely suggest that it is fairly unusual for the House to be almost in total agreement when discussing a problem, as it is today, yet for us all to be struggling to come up with a solution that will actually work.

As has been mentioned, the idea was tried with the beer orders in 1989, when breweries were barred from holding more than a certain number of pubs. That gave birth to the pubcos that we now see, which then bought pubs and other properties at high prices. As has been rightly said, they are now trying to recoup that money, in some cases quite desperately.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely concur with my hon. Friend’s point. He mentions the history of this. Would he be surprised to learn that the number of pubs owned by pubcos doubled under the last Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I am not at all surprised to hear that. I do not know the exact figure, but I do know that that is what has given rise to the problem, to the extent that it is one.

I recognise that there is a problem, and I want us to move on as quickly as we can, to help hard-working people who are keeping pubs going at the centre of communities. There are problems—I want to stress that point—but I want us to come up with a lasting solution that will not make matters worse. There are some benefits to the existing situation—I will come to the weaknesses in a minute. For example, a pubco can allow people who do not have a great deal of capital to enter the trade. They might be unable to afford to spend £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000 on buying a pub outright or to borrow that money. They also get their accommodation basically covered—certainly in most cases—while they run the pub, which gives them some security.

I do not recommend the tie at all, but I am concerned about what would happen to the rent if there were no tie. I am not speaking against reassessing the rent against a market level, but if we do that, what do we compare it with? If we are looking beyond pubs, we might look to McDonald’s, for example, or other franchise organisations. Is that a direct comparison? I am not quite sure how the proposal would work in detail—and of course, the devil is always in the detail. What about the repairing side of the lease? Will people with a fixed market rent be required to do more repairing of the fabric of the building than they are now? I am not throwing those questions out as stumbling blocks or trying to cause a problem, but they need answering.

[Toby Perkins]

I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman on that. The valuation would be done with transparency against the performance of other pubs. We need much greater transparency in the industry. Under the specific proposals that we have made today, the publican would be able to decide, knowing what a fair market rent was, whether they wanted to throw their lot in with the pub company, on the offer being made, or to opt out and buy their beer from wherever they chose. I hope that has answered his questions.

[Mr Robertson]

Not exactly, no, because how do we determine what the market rent level is? Is it the level for those with a tie or those without a tie? What about a repairing lease or a non-repairing lease? These are all details that need filling out, but I am not aware that they have been properly addressed. I want to deal with them and to make progress, but I am not sure we are there yet.

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I can help him. BIS Ministers have a copy of the definition of a market rent only option, which sets out how it would work and when it would be triggered. In essence, it is about simply paying a rent, which would be independently assessed according to statutory guidelines, and then being able to buy everything directly from the market. He seems to be making a mistaken comparison. The pubco tied leases are generally “fully repairing and insuring”. One of the scandals was when, as part of a tied lease, all the responsibility for that was shifted. A market rent only option is exactly what I have set out, and I will send that definition to him.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; perhaps I could now move on to how rents are assessed. As has been said, quite often they are assessed not on the turnover of a pub, but on the potential turnover, which takes in things such as food and non-tied products. There is therefore an unfairness in the way that rents are assessed now. If we can move to a better system, I will certainly support that.

As has been said, there is also the inflated cost of tied products. For example, certain pubcos will charge £130.70 for a keg of Carling when it can quite easily be bought—we have looked at these figures—for £95. That is a huge difference, which squeezes the profits of the landlord and makes the beer more expensive for consumers. To give another example, Stowford is sold for £112.70 when it can be sourced for £79.99. Those are just two examples; I could go on and on if I had the time. I think hon. Members realise that this is a problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both mentioned this, but this debate is not just about the rent and the tie. We make a huge mistake if we believe that. We can look at those aspects at the beginning of a contract taken out with a pubco, but the relationship goes on from there, and sometimes it is the behaviour of the pubcos that causes the problems. For example, pubcos have the power to install fixtures and fittings and charge an exorbitant amount to the landlord, but he will not get anything back for them. Basically, the fixtures and fittings rule, which has been in existence for a long time, is a con, I am afraid. I thought carefully about whether I should use that word, but I think that rule is a con. It is an additional rent that people have to pay, which again squeezes the profits.

When people go into a pub owned by a pubco, they often have to go on expensive courses run by that pubco, for which it can charge exorbitant amounts. The cost of carrying out electricity checks, for example, has doubled in one year at the local pub I mentioned. It is the same pub, so why has the cost doubled? These are the sort of extraordinary charges that pubcos sometimes make in the course of running their ordinary business.

Extraordinary decisions are sometimes taken. The local pub I mentioned needed about £100,000 of work carried out, but the electrics and the roof were not completed when that work was done. There seemed to be an obsession with putting up new wallpaper, which was not necessary and not at all important. The work needed to be done over a six-week period, yet the period covering the jubilee week of last year was suggested. That is unbelievable—the busiest week of the busiest year in memory was chosen, and when the landlord refused to have the work done then and asked why it could not be done in January, there was a startled reaction.

I am providing examples to show that it is not just about the rent or the tie; it is about the behaviour of the pubcos as they go through the period of the agreement. I do not know how best to assess and tackle the problem, which is as important as other issues discussed today.

I have had my 10 minutes. I would have liked to talk about more issues, but in summary, I believe it is important to be careful to get this matter right. I think we need to take a little longer—I suggest not years, but months. Sometimes Government interventions can make things worse; sometimes Governments can be the problem rather than the solution. As I said at the outset, I believe that there is a problem and that it needs fixing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for his support for our cross-party campaign to reduce beer duty. That campaign did a lot to help publicans, and I hope I will be able to call on his support again as we move forward.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the difficulties involved in reaching a solution, as I tried to do in my speech. Does he agree that one clear way for the Government to help pubs would be to cut the tax charged on beer, which can amount to 37% on the average pint? That is a huge amount of money, and any tax cut would benefit customers and landlords.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Government increased the duty by 60% during their time in office, and it is no wonder that 9,000 pubs closed on their watch as a result.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We do have progressive taxation, and under this Government the top 1% of earners pay 27.7% of all income tax at a higher rate than at any point in our history. While considering the universality of child benefit, what is being done was not our first choice, but given the position that we were left in it was necessary. When a Government need to raise revenue it makes sense to turn to a measure with a broad base where a significant number of recipients are not reliant on the additional payments they receive, and child benefit is just that sort of payment. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that we would seek to withdraw child benefit from higher rate taxpayers. We always said that we would consider how to implement the measure, and we have been clear that a complicated new means test is not a sensible way forward. Instead, we should look to the existing systems and processes to ensure that we can achieve this goal.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I am still confused about why we cannot assess all the incomes in a household in the same way as when we quite correctly limit the benefits a household can claim to £26,000. What is the difference?

[Mr Gauke]

For those who are in the tax credit system, we currently make an assessment of household income. If a person is not in the tax credit system, we do not make an assessment of household income and so have information only on individual income. Were we to try to do this on the basis of household income—I understand the argument made by hon. Members that that is the right thing to do—we would have to accept that that would involve putting everybody claiming child benefit, all 8 million, into the tax credit system which would be a substantial administrative burden on the state and on those individuals.

A number of points have been made in the course of the debate. Let me see whether I can pick up on those, rather than addressing every amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) argued that the provision should apply only to a household income of £100,000 or more. Not only would that result in the administrative challenge I have set out, but it would cost an additional £900 million, which would be unaffordable as well as impractical.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) asked about providing information at constituency level. We can release the information by region, but the survey data are simply not good enough at constituency level. I can say that 63,000 people in Scotland will gain as a result of the changes we announced in the Budget, compared with the previously announced policy. She asked what the £5 million for customer information will pay for. It includes provision for an online calculator and guidance for customers, and a letter that will go out in the autumn to all individuals above the higher rate threshold. We will also be updating existing guidance and testing it with customers, and there will be marketing spend to highlight the policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked why the legislation refers to “high” rather than “higher”. He is right that “higher” is mentioned in some of the other documentation, but the point, which parliamentary counsel considered, is that “higher” begs the question, “higher than what?”, so we used “high”.