The Economy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that we will start with an eight-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Kwasi Kwarteng.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I think this is the most extraordinary rewriting of economic history I have ever heard in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has not once mentioned the banks and the financial crash. Does he not realise that the public sector deficit in 2007, just before the crash, was about 3%? It only rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have no time to answer you, Mr Meacher, and I am sure that you want an answer.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman has talked me out and I must end my speech, but I am happy to discuss the banks with him at any time. My point today is looking at—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, not least because I was otherwise due to serve on a Public Bill Committee. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I will restrict my remarks to how I see the autumn statement benefiting and assisting the economy in my own region. Many businesses across the west midlands are set to benefit from the plans laid out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week. The 368,000 small businesses in the region, including many in my own black country constituency, will benefit from the business bank, which brings together existing Government finance plans and uses £1 billion to stimulate the market for long-term capital. The decision to increase the annual investment allowance limit from £25,000 to £250,000 for two years, in addition to an extra £25 million per year for UK Trade and Investment’s assistance and guidance on exports, will be of great help to an area such as mine, which is crammed with small and medium-sized engineering and manufacturing firms. In addition, the scrapping of the 3p rise in fuel duty, which means that fuel prices will be 10p lower than they would have been under the plans of the Labour party, will help ease the strain of transport costs for small and medium-sized enterprises.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has demonstrated once again that Britain is open for business. The reduction in corporation tax to 21% from April 2014 means that the UK will have the lowest corporation tax in the G7. It is worth noting that the total amount raised in corporation tax for the year 2011-12 was £43.4 billion—20% higher than it was for Labour’s last year in office. Lower corporation tax is working. It is resulting in the higher yields that the Treasury needs, while also contributing to increased private sector investment and employment.

Prior to the autumn statement, the black country chamber of commerce, which has many members in my constituency, called for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to support a pro-business environment. In response to the measures announced by my right hon. Friend, the chamber’s president, Paul Bennett, welcomed his actions to get British business growing:

“The Chancellor’s Statement was encouraging for businesses and many of our members concerns seem to have been addressed”.

Meanwhile, Mark Hastings, the director general of the Institute for Family Business, described several of the measures as “encouraging”. This qualified support reflects the attitudes of many of the business people whom I have spoken to recently in my own constituency—they recognise that this Government are on their side—and of those in the family business sector, in which I am involved as the founder and chairman of the all-party group on family business.

It is pleasing to see the Chancellor building on this Government’s support for British businesses. Last year, we saw an increase of 250,000 in the number of private businesses, which included 226,000 new small businesses, a good proportion of which were in the west midlands. It is obvious, but still worth pointing out, that every successful large employer in the private sector started off as a small start-up. Even JCB, which was started by the inspirational J.C. Bamford and which I have had the privilege of visiting in Rocester, was once a small enterprise in a small shed. I refer the House to my declaration in the register relating to the last election.

This Government are cutting red tape and making it easier for budding entrepreneurs in this country to set up their own businesses, and that is clearly being borne out by the figures. All of that is in marked contrast to the previous Labour Administration, who introduced the equivalent of six new regulations for every single working day they were in power. It is estimated by the British Chambers of Commerce that those new regulations have cost British businesses almost £77 billion since 1998.

Last week, the Chancellor announced further support for local enterprise partnerships, which the Government created. That is the right approach because it promotes local growth by ensuring that Government spending is aligned with the priorities of local business communities. We have an excellent LEP in the black country, which is ably chaired by the no-nonsense Stewart Towe of Hadley Industries. I am confident that the Government’s approach will help to create the conditions that will enable the private sector to get on with creating more jobs in the black country.

The Government are continuing to demonstrate that they are not afraid to take tough decisions in the face of tough economic times. A clear message is being sent out that Britain is open for business and that Britain has a pro-business Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the new Member for Rotherham, I remind everybody that this is a maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), I remind hon. Members that this is his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), I remind hon. Members that this is his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Once again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is always a great moment when the right hon. Gentleman rises and speaks in this Chamber—even though he has only just turned up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

On a point of clarification, Mr Binley is not a right hon. Member. He has been in the Chamber a little longer than suggested, too.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I apologise. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) must have been so quiet that I had not seen him in his place.

I agree that the schools and colleges in this country must no longer downgrade apprenticeships, and must no longer say to students, “If you don’t pass, you’ll be an apprentice.” That is an outrageous statement for schools to make. It is time they woke up. I must say that it is also time that this Government’s Department for Education woke up to the fact that going to university is no longer the be-all and end-all, because there is far more to life than going to university.

I am a little upset that the Secretary of State for Education does not think a right lot about careers advice, because I believe that careers advice in schools is crucial. Young people need to be told about, and shown, what is available these days outside the school gates. The Secretary of State and his Department must realise that and advise schools that careers advice is crucial to young people’s futures. Perhaps even more importantly, it is crucial to the economy of this country, because if we do not train people for the jobs of the future, we will all go down the pan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

The fact is that 7,000 jobs have gone under this Government’s plans, and the gap between what we collect and what we are owed is estimated to be £35 billion, which is twice the housing benefit bill. Independent research commissioned by the Public and Commercial Services Union reckoned that the real figure was more like £120 billion, which is six and a half times the housing benefit bill. Whatever the true sum, the fact is that without a sufficient number of tax inspectors we cannot ensure that the rules apply to everyone. Everyone should pay tax; it should not just be for the little people. Paying one’s taxes should not be some sort of charitable gesture, and I have little understanding as to why it was seen as appropriate for this Government to continue to cut back on tax inspectors. If we are to have rules, they need to be applied. The Exchequer Secretary says that there were many processing jobs, but presumably people in that job need to make sure that the sums add up, that everything has been claimed that should have been claimed and that everything has been paid that should have been paid. Without that essential processing we will never know whether or not tax avoidance has been taking place—this is not just about major companies; it happens throughout the system. At a time like this, we need to make sure that everyone plays by the rules. If everyone does that and if the rules apply to us all and we have a fair society, we have the very one nation that Labour Members have been talking about.

Of course, the rules also apply to those who claim benefits and of course if someone can work, they must work. That is what unites this whole House. What does not unite this House is the language used by Government Front Benchers—the language of “scroungers”. Such language is simply offensive, as the highly eloquent maiden speech by my new hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) so well set out. Such language is a smokescreen that covers up a great deal of what this Government are actually doing. Although they talk about scroungers and those who stay in bed, keep the curtains closed and do not go out to work—the remarks are highly offensive—they do not address the issue, which is that many, many people who are out of work want to work, but the fact of the matter is that people cannot go from welfare into work if the work is not there.

Furthermore, many of the changes that this Government are making and announced in the autumn statement will affect those very people who work. I want to go on to address the issue of not just those who are poor and not working, but that of those who are working in my constituency and are dependent on benefits. Sometimes I feel as though I live in a different world where Government Members believe that only those who are out of work claim benefits. In fact, many people who work depend on benefits. Surely that is a conundrum. Many people meet me on the street and say, “How can the welfare benefit bill be going up if a million additional people have got work?” The truth is self-evident. Many people who are now working work part-time or are self-employed rely on housing benefit and tax credits, the very things that the Minister will be cutting as a result of the autumn statement. Let us use the terms that he uses, such as the strivers. Those very strivers are having their support system cut away by this Government. Even in the hon. Gentleman’s offensive terms, that cannot be justified.

I want to talk specifically about housing benefit because the issue affects my constituents particularly. I hear Government Members say, “Why should it be that people on average earnings receive less than people on benefits?” That has a certain ring to it and I know that the Conservatives are out of touch, but surely some of them must know someone who rents a flat and who understands that housing benefit goes not to the tenant, but to the landlord. It is because rents have gone up so much in London and the south-east that the housing benefit bill continues to rise. In the past two years, private rents in London have gone up by 25%, according to London Councils. In those circumstances, how can it be justified to attack housing benefit, to put an arbitrary cap on housing benefit, or to believe that housing benefit should be the same level in London as it is anywhere else in the country? How can that be fair?

It is not the fault of my poor constituents that their rent is high. It is the fault of my Government and of Conservative Governments who did not build enough housing. There was a time when Conservative and Labour Governments used to compete with each other as to how much affordable housing they could build. In the 1970s, four fifths of the housing budget was spent on building new homes and one fifth on housing benefit. Now it is completely turned on its head and we continue to pay the price of failure. We must build more housing and we must not simply dance on a pin, analysing what affordable housing means.

The Minister represents a party that defines affordable housing as costing 80% of market rent. He and his party should get some sort of George Orwellian prize for double-speak. Eighty per cent. of market rent in my constituency could not be afforded by ordinary people in my constituency. I went on to the Rightmove website this morning and looked at the prices of three-bedroom flats in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman know how much the rent for a bog-standard three-bedroom flat in my constituency would be? Four hundred pounds a week. How much is the housing benefit cap? Three hundred and forty pounds a week. There was only one flat on Rightmove that was under the amount of the cap so how can people in my constituency, who will be subjected to the housing benefit cap, afford to continue to live in Islington?

There is an argument that the poor should not be living in Islington, but I respectfully disagree. My constituency should be a mixed constituency and should have rich and poor. Generations of poor people who live in my constituency should be allowed to continue to live there. Furthermore, the housing benefit cap is one atrocious measure that this Government have introduced, but we wait for the next, which is universal credit. There will be a cap of £500 a week for a four-bedroom flat in my constituency. There were 69 that were under the £400 current housing benefit—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Financial Services Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 59.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendment 60, and amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto.

Lords amendment 61, 62, 79, 115 to 121, 139, 140, 142, 146, 182, and 203 to 205.

[Greg Clark]

I come now to the Government’s implementation of the independent review of LIBOR conducted by Mr Martin Wheatley. I announced the Government’s response to the Wheatley review in mid-October and three sets of amendments to the Bill have been made to implement those recommendations that require legislation. The first is to enable activities in relation to benchmarks, such as LIBOR and potentially others, to be brought within the scope of regulation under FSMA. The second is to create criminal offences designed to tackle misconduct in the financial sector, including a new criminal offence for making false or misleading submissions in connection with the determination of a benchmark. The third is to provide the FCA with a rule-making power to require banks to submit to LIBOR and other benchmarks. Those amendments complement the market-led reforms to LIBOR as recommended by the Wheatley review. Martin Wheatley recommended that submission to, and the administration of, LIBOR become regulated activities, and amendments 59 to 62 create a framework to enable activities in relation to benchmarks to be specified as regulated activities under FSMA.

Amendment 60 defines “ benchmark” as an “index, rate or price”, defined from time to time by reference to the state of the market and used in relation to investments. A benchmark is capable of being regulated only if it meets that definition. The precise benchmarks that are subject to regulation will be specified by way of statutory instrument. The Government recently published a consultation paper on this legislation. Initially, the activities to become regulated will be LIBOR submission and administration, as recommended by the Wheatley review. However, further benchmarks can be added and the Government are considering and consulting on whether additional benchmarks should be brought within the regulatory perimeter. The types of benchmarks that could be eligible include equity or bond indices, derivatives and commodity or energy benchmarks. The definition of benchmark, as drafted, requires that it be used for one or more purposes that relate to section 22 of, and schedule 2 to, FSMA.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has tabled an amendment that would extend that definition to include commodities. Let me say first that I totally understand the requirement that we should be able to address some of the alleged abuses that have taken place and have the powers in statute to include those benchmarks that are relevant to some of the concerns that have been expressed recently. We do not believe that there is any requirement to extend the legislation on that. In fact, the Bill was drafted to anticipate the Wheatley review and the work going on in other benchmarks. Benchmarks can represent many things, including commodities or energies, provided that they are traded financially in the way we often see. Under the definition, regulation by the FCA extends to benchmarks that involve financial matters consistent with FSMA and the objectives of the FCA as the financial services regulator.

The Wheatley review also recommended that banks should be encouraged to participate in LIBOR—participation is currently voluntary. In the absence of such submissions, LIBOR would cease to be a representative benchmark and, in an extreme scenario, would not be published at all. Therefore, Lords amendment 79 allows the FCA to require firms to participate in particular benchmarks, while making reference to a “code or other document”. That allows the detail of the requirement to be determined by the benchmark administrator, not by the FCA. It might not be necessary for the FCA to use that power immediately, if at all, and it has recently opened a discussion on how and when the use of that power could be considered.

The Wheatley review also recommended the creation of a new criminal offence in relation to the manipulation of benchmarks such as LIBOR and the re-examination of the criminal sanctions for market manipulation under FSMA. Although such conduct could already be a criminal offence under legislation, this is a helpful clarification of some of the powers. There will be three criminal offences: first, we are re-creating the offence of making a false or misleading statement; secondly, we are widening the offence in section 397(3) to include creating a false or misleading impression as to the market in, or the price or value of, an investment for the purposes of making a profit or avoiding a loss; and thirdly, we are creating a new criminal offence related to misleading statements and impressions in respect of specified benchmarks.

The amendments also replicate the penalties for existing offences: a person found guilty might face a prison sentence of up to seven years and an unlimited fine. The detail of the investments, agreements and benchmarks for which those criminal offences apply will be set out in secondary legislation. That is included in the public consultation currently under way.

Under the current arrangements, where enforcement action results in a firm paying a financial penalty, that is applied as a discount to fees paid by other firms the following year. Without reform, unprecedented fines, such as those relating to the attempted manipulation of LIBOR, would have represented a significant windfall to regulated firms. In future, regulatory fines revenue in excess of enforcement case costs will go to the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Member for Nottingham East and I had an exchange about that earlier. The regulators will be able to net off enforcement case costs before handing over the penalties to the public purse. The new arrangements will apply to FSA fines received from 1 April 2012, so the measure will include the penalty imposed on Barclays in relation to the attempted manipulation of LIBOR.

The Government have announced that £35 million of fines imposed from attempted LIBOR manipulation and other unacceptable behaviour received this year will be used to support Britain’s armed forces community. In addition, £5 million will go to the creation of new, groundbreaking first world war galleries at the Imperial War museum. I hope that the House will agree to these amendments but, of course, I stand ready to respond to any points Members make.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3A) Scheme regulations shall not make any provision which would have the effect of reducing the amount of any pension, allowance or gratuity, insofar as that amount is directly or indirectly referable to rights which have accrued (whether by virtue of service rendered, contributions paid or any other thing done) before the coming into operation of the scheme, unless the persons specified in subsection (3B) have agreed to the inclusion of that provision.

(3B) The persons referred to in subsection (3A) are the persons or representatives of the persons who appear to the responsible authority to be likely to be affected by the regulations if they were made.’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 6, line 27, in clause 10, at end insert—

‘to be agreed with employee representatives’.

Amendment 5, page 11, line 8, in clause 19, at end insert—

‘with a view to reaching agreement’.

Amendment 34, page 11, line 24, in clause 20, leave out from ‘—’ to ‘(b)’ in line 27 and insert—

‘reach an agreement through consultation with the persons specified in subsection (3), and’.

[Chris Leslie]

Clause 3 is an important part of the Bill, as it makes a series of arrangements for scheme regulations. Hon. Members will now be turning to page 2 in their copies; when they merrily flick through to it, they will discover that subsection (3)(c) states:

“Scheme regulations may…make retrospective provision.”

The theme of retrospectivity gives the Opposition great concern. Essentially, the Bill allows the reduction of accrued pension benefits.

The measure is not qualified in any way: it allows all retrospective provisions, including, essentially, the reduction of the savings that people have put aside, which many regard as sacrosanct—the contributions from their monthly salaries or income into a pensions pot that is supposed to safeguard their financial future in retirement. We now discover that the Bill contains a provision that allows the Government to dip their hand into what are normally regarded as safe amounts of money—the accrued benefits for which people have paid in over their years of service. The Opposition believe that that breaches a central tenet of pension provision. Benefits that have been accrued are deferred earnings and should not be reduced. Retrospectively reducing accrued rights is essentially akin to taking back a portion of an employees’ wage that has already been paid; there is very little difference.

Many hon. Members and many of my constituents find it difficult to resist the grey mist that descends and the heaviness of the eyelids that pensions law tends to bring about, but hon. Members should wake up and realise what is in the legislation. They should recognise that we are talking about the Government’s ability retrospectively to reduce the amounts that ordinary employees have saved for their retirement, which they believe are safe.

Public sector workers and their representatives are extremely concerned about the retrospective powers that the Bill gives to this and any future Government. Understandably, they believe that as long as the Bill contains those powers, the pensions of ordinary working people—public sector employees—are not safe. On 29 October, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was asked about the retrospective provisions in subsection (3) by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The right hon. Gentleman replied that there was no need to be concerned about the reduction of accrued benefits, because the Bill mirrored the Superannuation Act 1972 in that respect. It is important to read out his exact words:

“The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the clause to which he refers mirror directly those in the Superannuation Act 1972, which this Bill in many cases replaces. It was passed in the year I was born,”—

in the year I was born too, but let me not digress—

“and it has been used by a number of Governments to make adjustments to public service pensions.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 60.]

The Chief Secretary went further than that when he gave one of those famous quotes—a bit like the George Bush “read my lips” quote—in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 20 June 2011. He said:

“We will honour, in full, the benefits earned through years of service. No ifs, no buts.”

Well, it turns out that the Bill does not mirror the Superannuation Act 1972 in relation to accrued benefits. The 1972 Act provides that accrued benefits can be reduced only with the consent of scheme members—in other words, only if members of those schemes, employees, agree to such retrospective arrangements—whereas the Bill allows for retrospective reductions without the consent of scheme members.

Given that the Bill does not mirror the Superannuation Act protections in the way the Chief Secretary said it would, we can only assume that it must have been a drafting error by the Minister—perhaps some sort of oversight or typo. We are not sure why the Government did that. We tabled an identical amendment in Committee to ensure that the protections for accrued benefits in the 1972 Act were retained, but, surprisingly, our amendment was rejected. The Economic Secretary said that there was no need to mirror the protections in the 1972 Act, which prompts the question: why on earth did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say that the Bill contained certain protections when it obviously does not? It may be, as we have said, because the Chief Secretary is from a different political party from the Economic Secretary. We are not quite sure why the Chief Secretary said that it mirrors the Superannuation Act provisions, but this Minister, the Economic Secretary, resisted that arrangement.

As we have said time and again, when employees in the public sector find themselves facing changes, without any consultation, to their contribution rates and radical changes to the valuation arrangements for their pensions, the question of trust comes up again and again. This Minister says, “Oh, don’t worry, we’re not going to use this provision on retrospectivity,” but when employees voice their doubts and say, “Hang on a minute. Why on earth are you putting it in the Bill?” we have to sympathise with them. They will be extremely sceptical of the Government’s motivations.

We tabled the amendment to give the Minister another chance to include the protections that the Government—or at least one Minister—said were already in the Bill. When accrued benefits and retrospective changes were raised in Committee, the Minister did not dispute that the Bill allowed the Government unilaterally to reduce members’ accrued benefits, but he said repeatedly that the Government had promised not to reduce those accrued benefits. He said that that promise—a verbal promise—offered adequate protection to public service workers and that legislative protection was therefore unnecessary. That is an extraordinary argument. Even if this Government intend to keep their promise—that is a big “if”—their words will have no effect on a future Government, particularly a Conservative Administration. Surely the Government appreciate that, among the public, the level of trust in politicians and Ministers is low and that our request that they enshrine this protection in statute is a basic one.

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 17, leave out ‘maximum donations limit’ and insert ‘the specified amount.’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 19, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

This amendment removes the matching principle from the bill.

Government amendment 23.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ‘double’ and insert ‘triple’.

To increase the maximum claim to triple the amount of gift aid claimed each year. Cathy Jamieson

Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out ‘for the purposes of section 1(4)’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 6, page 4, line 27, leave out ‘for the purposes of section 1(4)’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Amendment 17, page 4, line 38, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a) the sum of the small donations that are made to the charity in the community building in the tax year, or’.

This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that donations under the community buildings amount can only be made by group members while the charity is running its charitable activities.

Amendment 18, page 5, line 3, leave out ‘by group members while it is running charitable activities in the buildings’.

This is consequential on amendment 17.

Amendment 19, page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (6).

This is consequential on amendment 17.

Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 20 and 21.

This is consequential on amendment 17.

Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 6, line 29, leave out ‘for the purposes of section 1(4)’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Government amendment 30.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, I hope not to detain the House to any great extent. As the Minister will recall, we consistently pushed the Government to reconsider the matching principle in the Bill as we believed that it was too onerous for many small charities and would mean that many of them could not benefit from a scheme that was supposedly set up to help them.

The Government amendments show that the Minister has bowed to the pressure not just from members of the Committee but from people in the charitable sector who had serious concerns about the impact of the measures from the very start. I will not repeat all the comments made by the different organisations over the course of our discussions about the Bill.

We could of course continue to argue for the matching principle to be dropped completely and could make a case for that. However, given that the Government have seen fit to introduce changes that will take the ratio from 2:1 to 10:1, I think we should recognise that they have moved a significant amount, which has been welcomed by the sector. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about his amendments and I want to make it clear that I do not think our amendments are required at this point as they have been superseded by his.

Fuel Duty

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On the day that the International Energy Agency has warned that two thirds of fossil fuels need to remain under the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, does the hon. Lady not see a contradiction in arguing for lower fuel prices, especially since the cost of motoring has fallen in the past 10 years while the cost of public transport has risen? Would a more consistent position not be to seek to support struggling households directly, using the money—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady is testing the patience of the House. It is unfair. We are going to have to introduce a time limit already. If she wishes to speak, would she please put her name down? She cannot make a speech now. Short interventions are needed on both sides

[Cathy Jamieson]

I gave way because I respect what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has to say, but I hope she will understand the real pressures on families and the pressures that individuals are facing as they try to get to work and go about their business.

It is not just Labour that is calling for the increase to be postponed. FairFuelUK, backed by the RAC and the Road Haulage Association, among others, has consistently and determinedly campaigned for lower fuel duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

If the hon. Lady is patient, I will give way in a moment—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not need an answer back; I am just saying that the hon. Lady does not need to keep jumping to her feet. The Minister has promised to give way, but I do not know whether he is giving way now.

[Sajid Javid]

Not yet.

The hon. Lady does not want me to tell the House what the Labour Government did when they looked at this tax loophole. They declared:

“The Government has considered all the consultation responses and believes that on balance the negative effects of changing existing legislation outweigh the benefits"

To address just this issue, this Government have already strengthened HMRC's enforcement and compliance teams, and protected tens of millions of pounds of revenue. So the nub of today's debate is a call to clamp down on avoidance of a relief that the Opposition declared they could do nothing about, to pay for a cut in fuel duty that they supported. Mr Deputy Speaker, you couldn't make it up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members that the time limit on speeches is seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the Opposition motion openly states that there is a fragile economic recovery. Will he do likewise and acknowledge that there was a fragile economic recovery in June 2010?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, I remind hon. Members that, if they intervene, and if they drop down the speaking list, they will understand why—they keep adding minutes to the debate.

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment, because it helps me to remind her that, when Britain was in recession at the back end of 2008, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession at the beginning of 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession in September 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When there was a faltering recovery—which was probably credit fuelled—in March 2010, on the eve of an election, at the point when the figures showed that the economy was recovering, fuel duty went up by 1p. So much for the correlation between recession and fuel duty increases.

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Those who think they are bottom of the list will also have minutes removed.

[Bill Esterson]

I am always happy to be guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the research—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman speaks from the experience of his own constituency, and the Chancellor will need to consider that very serious point when he sets out his Budget later this year.

There has also been a huge increase in housing costs. Average house prices are now 11.5 times higher than the median income, and private rents are set to rise by an estimated 65% over the next 10 years. That will create huge cost of living issues for people in my constituency. Road fuel prices are higher by about 2.1p a litre in rural areas and, on average, people who live in rural areas travel 53% further than those who live in urban areas. They are also less able to access public transport alternatives. In my area, there are poor rail services down to Plymouth and we have no airport. All those factors push people into cars, and rises in the price of fuel make it extremely difficult for our economy and the economies of individual families to thrive.

I shall finish my speech early because you pulled me up for intervening, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Chancellor will have listened to his colleagues on the Government Benches, and that he will also take seriously those on the Opposition Benches as we go through the Lobby tonight to make it absolutely clear that we need a temporary halt to the increase.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I should just like to point out to the hon. Lady that she has not given me back a minute, because she has taken an intervention. So we ended up with nothing!

Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The Fourteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, on Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union, HC 86-xiv.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Mr William Cash.

Beer Duty Escalator

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I will have to drop the time limit to four minutes. I ask hon. Members not to make interventions so that we can get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Graham Evans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British brewing sector, British pubs and the British people have paid a heavy price for the previous Government’s beer duty escalator? May I urge him to hold a review and then do what Treasury Ministers have done to the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator, which is to stop it? In that way, he will deserve a celebratory pint from all my constituents in Gloucester, a pint of beer from the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Minister will not have time to drink the pint if we have such long interventions.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that point.

The Government really do recognise the importance to the British economy of pubs and brewers. I fully support the industry, and I know that Members of all parties would like to see it prosper. We have heard a lot from hon. Members about beer duty, but let us be clear that the previous Government introduced the escalator. They increased beer duty by 60% while they were in office, and in fact for the poorest households it went up by 80%. That was the inheritance that we had to deal with. At the same time, as we all know, we were burdened with a huge budget deficit of £159 billion, or 11% of gross domestic product, which was greater than that of any other developed country. That inevitably meant that the incoming Government had to take some difficult decisions that the Labour party dodged. We had to deal with that legacy.

We set out a clear plan to deal with the deficit, part of which was the planned increase in beer duty rises until 2014-15, about which we have heard so much today. We have announced no changes to that policy. Cancelling the planned 2% duty rise represented by the escalator portion of beer duty would cost £35 million next year and £70 million the following year. If that tax were cancelled, the revenue would have to be recouped one way or another, either through further public spending cuts over and above what is already necessary or by finding increases in other taxes or duties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for you to discuss with Mr Speaker the conduct of the previous debate? Injury time was given on numerous occasions owing to hon. Members almost wandering in off the street, lobbing a bit into the debate and then disappearing. Perhaps injury time should not be allowed. In particular, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), were prevented from giving their thoughtful speeches in full, yet they were signatories to the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, although as he knows, that is not a point of order. He may wish to take the matter up with the Procedure Committee and it will then be for the House to decide.

Air Passenger Duty

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have a lot of Members who wish to speak and they should recognise that if they have already intervened, they will go down the list—and not be upset about that.

[Priti Patel]

I take on board the hon. Lady’s point.

As well as compromising trade, the cost of APD is felt by the aviation and tourism sector across the country. Last year, more than 30 million visitors came to Britain and spent £18 billion in our economy. We all want to see that number increase, and I want to see more foreign tourists flying to our international airports and travelling to see attractions elsewhere in the country—including the county of Essex, where the tourist sector supports 54,000 jobs and adds £3 billion to our local economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am introducing an eight-minute limit. I hope that I will not have to reduce that, but interventions cause problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Surely the idea behind devolving APD would be to cut it to make Scotland more competitive.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I warned the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar Mr MacNeil) that he would be at the bottom of the list, but there is a danger that he will fall off the list because the amount of time available is disappearing.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is not just people in the public sector; people in the private sector, particularly in construction, which has shed 120,000 jobs since the Government came to power, are also worried about their jobs and futures and about how they will get the money to feed and house their families. There is real concern and a real lack of confidence among households and businesses.

This summer showed that things could be done differently. The Olympics showed what can be achieved with an inspiring vision—the right combination of public, private and social enterprise, with the nation united behind it. We delivered on time and on budget, and it was a perfect platform for Britain at its best. Let us hope that the Olympics provided a much-needed boost for our economy, but the lesson to learn is not that we can now rest; if we really want to seize the economic opportunities before us and build a better future, we need to repeat that effort on a much bigger scale, with a nationwide plan for jobs and growth. Let that be the lesson for today and let us get to work on laying the foundations of the economy we need to build for the next generation. Let us have a Government who follow up their rhetoric with real action.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that the limit on Back-Bench speeches will be nine minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I make a quick point? The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of interventions and obviously wants to speak later in the debate. If he moves down the list of speakers, I presume he will understand why.

[Geraint Davies]

I got the point. May I ask my right hon. Friend—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have more than a point; I have control.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am going to introduce a 10-minute limit, so we should get everybody in.