Changes to the Budget

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady says that the Government were desperate for money-making measures. Why does she think we needed such measures? She might have noticed that her party left the biggest peacetime deficit we have ever faced. The extraordinary thing about the Labour party is that it always believes that there is a magic money tree that we can get money from. I am afraid, however, that we have to take steps to reduce the deficit. Even with these changes, we remain on the course that we set out. This was a fiscally neutral Budget, and we are not taking risks with the public finances, which is the U-turn that the Opposition want us to take.

The hon. Lady asked how a Budget could be changed and why we had departed from what it set out to do. I should like to remind the House what happened four years ago. In 2007, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the doubling of the 10p rate. A year later, his successor had to come to the House—not in a Budget, but weeks later—and set out additional tax cuts of over £3 billion. They had got their policy wrong and they had destroyed their credibility by doubling the income tax rate for the poorest earners in this country. That is an example of a Budget shambles.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Government should not apologise for making these U-turns. This is parliamentary democracy at work. It is because Members of this House argued strongly for changes in the Budget that such changes have occurred. Let us contrast that with what happened under the last Government. When their own Back Benchers asked for changes, the Government would not agree to them. This Government should be proud of these changes; they should not apologise.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically helpful intervention.

IMF

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the fact that, although we have been talking a lot about the eurozone, the IMF does a great deal of important work in low-income countries. As I said, there are 53 programmes, of which only three—albeit they are very large ones—are in the eurozone. At the IMF I specifically intervened to ask that the IMF’s windfall profits from recent gold sales be used to reduce the interest costs for low-income countries that undertake IMF programmes, to make sure that they have access to the increase in resources we are talking about today.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The only way for Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece to become competitive and get their economies growing again is through a return to national currencies. Does not the Chancellor agree that it is a bonkers policy to pour billions and billions of UK taxpayers’ money into supporting the failed euro?

[Mr Osborne]

We are not pouring money into some eurozone bail-out fund. We are providing a loan to the International Monetary Fund. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the decision, but every single previous Government have been part of increases in IMF resources—in 1983 and in 1990, under Lady Thatcher’s Government, we contributed to increases in IMF resources. He says that these countries are lost causes, but in Portugal, where very difficult decisions have been taken, exports are up by 7% and the current account deficit has been reduced; Ireland has gone into a current account surplus and Spanish exports are up. Of course they are having to make the adjustments in a brutal way, by real cuts in wages rather than a currency devaluation, but that is the consequence of being in a single currency. The Governments in those countries, with, in most cases, the support of the public now, are taking those difficult decisions. It is interesting that even in Greece, which is probably the most traumatically affected of those countries, there is a clear and overwhelming public majority for Greece staying in the euro.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There are many marketed schemes that HMRC is convinced do not work, and that will be established in the courts. I suggest that those who are sometimes persuaded by claims that a particular scheme will work should treat them with caution. However, the Government are determined to crack down on stamp duty land tax avoidance. We took steps in the last Budget, we took steps in the autumn statement strengthening the disclosure regime, and there may well be more to come.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

When the banks begin to make profits again, they will offset the losses that they made when they got us into a total mess, and will avoid paying tax. Whenever companies are paying tax on their profits, the banks will be avoiding tax on theirs. Will the Government look at that?

[Mr Gauke]

There are times when taxpayers engage in aggressive avoidance and we put a stop to it, as we did last week. However, the offsetting of losses is not novel—it is a long-standing element of the tax system—and, although of course we keep all such matters under review, the legitimate use of losses does not necessarily count as aggressive avoidance.

Tax Avoidance (Public Servants)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

What we had was a situation where, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, for many years—including for many years under the previous Government —the Student Loans Company was in a mess. This man was brought in to run it, and in fairness I think it is widely agreed that he has done a good job of turning it around. In the context of this conversation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman would also recognise that.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not think there is a problem with what was set up; the problem is that the Inland Revenue allowed it to happen. I do not understand how such a contract can be awarded to somebody working full time. Unless there was some agreement to the avoidance scheme by the Revenue, it is not the law that is wrong, but the interpretation by the Revenue.

[Danny Alexander]

It is precisely those sorts of issues that the review will seek to examine and properly understand, and I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee might wish to take an interest in that issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

We have a plan A, to which we are sticking because it is working—unlike the policies proposed by the Opposition, which have yet to emerge in any credible detail whatsoever.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

12. What recent estimate he has made of the level of the UK’s current account balance with the EU.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

In 2010, the UK had a current account deficit of £49 billion. That deficit results from a deficits of £48 billion with the EU and of £1 billion with non-EU countries.

[Mr Bone]

That was a most incredible figure of a deficit of nearly £50 billion to the EU. Does the Minister agree that the Deputy Prime Minister is quite wrong to go around to the television studios claiming that the EU creates 3 million jobs for British workers when it is quite clear from those figures that the EU costs millions of British jobs?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend should bear in mind that the deficit on traded goods between the UK and the EU is £43.9 billion but that the deficit outside the EU is even larger at £54.7 billion. We should be encouraging businesses across the UK to invest more and to export more to places in the EU, as well as to Brazil, Russia, India and China. I encourage him to talk to businesses in his constituency and encourage them to export more to close that gap.

Connecting Europe Facility

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Of course, in a way, the Commission’s view is that it is probably somebody else’s problem to resolve the financing. It put forward measures in the multi-annual financial framework that will increase the amount of money flowing to Europe. It has put forward an EU-wide financial transactions tax, which we object to. Its view is that if such a tax went ahead, the revenues would go not to member states, to spend at their discretion, but to the European Commission to spend. As part of its financial framework, the Commission also proposed the end to our rebate—another proposal we would reject.

The Commission would look to member states to meet the cost of these projects, which is why it is absolutely vital that we work with like-minded allies to restrain the EU budget and ensure that we can spend more money at home, while less money goes abroad. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) chunters, but if he had listened to my speech, he would have heard me say that we have signed a letter with the Chancellor in Germany, Angela Merkel, and with the French President calling for a real-terms freeze in payments. That is the sort of alliance we can build in Europe. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment later, but I am rather bemused: the Labour Government talked tough in EU negotiations, but they happily gave away our rebate, costing this Government €10 billion over the life of this Parliament.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Minister is being far too generous to Labour Members. Over the last five years of the Labour Government, our net contribution to the EU was an extortionate £19 billion. Under this Government, it will be £41 billion, because Labour gave away a large part of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate. That is a disgrace, and Labour should be held to account for it.

[Mr Hoban]

I like to be generous in politics, but the previous Government were generous in giving away our money, by giving away part of the rebate. I will come back to that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the break-up of the euro would be in the UK’s interests, but there are dangers with a permanent deflationary lock in the fiscal policies of the eurozone countries. That is why, both in the UK and across the eurozone, far more must be done to get growth into those economies. They have to grow in order to build their way out of the hole that they are in. In that sense, the ambitions, which many people share, of improving infrastructure across the EU, while laudable, need to be seen in the context of the affordability criteria that must be applied to them. We have to act to unblock the clogged arteries of Europe, connecting the major cities of the continent, making it easier for business and opening new opportunities for growth in the single market. Capital investment in infrastructure is extremely important as a driver for growth.

What progress are Ministers making in shaping the European spending review? That is absolutely at the heart of today’s debate. After December’s phantom veto—the first veto in history that stopped precisely nothing—the UK has to pick up the pieces and try to influence the important EU budget process. The Minister was throwing around history lessons about the common agricultural policy and various other things. However, we need to know what exactly this Government are going to do about the common agricultural policy. What is he going to do about the spending proposals? Rather than walking away before the negotiations even begin and leaving another empty chair, the Minister has to raise his voice, build some alliances and secure a more appropriate level of expenditure that also shifts priorities.

[Mr Bone]

We have an excellent shadow Minister, who is always on top of his brief, but I do not think he was here when Tony Blair gave a commitment that the CAP would be reformed, so that our net contributions to the EU now would be at the same level as they were then. Clearly that was wrong. Would the hon. Gentleman and his party support our most excellent Minister going into battle and saying, “We’re not going to pay any more than our initial subscription was to the EU”?

[Chris Leslie]

I did not quite hear that from the Minister. If that is the Government’s position—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a hotline to the Prime Minister on these matters—I would be very interested to hear it.

I agree that the proposed budgets for EU institutions are still too high. Export refund practices have to be cut back. We have to change agriculture policy so that it is fairer to smaller farmers and ends the ridiculous tobacco and wine subsidies that are lavishing payments on some of the very wealthiest players in the wealthiest EU countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I strongly support the amendment and its heavy emphasis on growth, because growth is the way to reduce deficits. Members who have seen The Independent today will know that our deficit is rather lower than those of many other major European member states, and that our biggest debt is located in the banks rather than in state spending. The fact remains, however, that the way to lower deficits is to achieve growth. Creating employment and ensuring that people pay taxes rather than living on benefits is the way forward.

I agreed with most of what was said by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in the Chamber. In particular, I agreed with the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who pointed out that we do not need the European Union or the European Commission to tell member states what they need and what they should build, and to spend our money for us. Member states themselves know best what they need, and what should be done to meet those needs. International co-ordination is best achieved through bilateral and multilateral agreement and collaboration, rather than through the bureaucratic controls imposed by the European Union.

Big infrastructure has indeed been built by European national Governments, especially rail freight infrastructure. We have our own channel tunnel, which is a product not of the European Union but of a collaboration between France and Britain. We have the channel tunnel rail link, which is also nothing to do with the European Union. We have rail tunnels through the alps, built to a broad gauge that enables trains to carry lorries and double-stack containers and providing a freight link from southern to northern Europe. Those were built by states using state funds. The Brenner pass, a 28-mile tunnel built to a broad gauge through faulted rock, also carries freight between northern and southern Europe, and it too is the work of member states rather than the European Union. We have the Betuweroute, another broad-gauge freight route linking Rotterdam to the Ruhr. When I visited it, I asked who had paid for it. I was told, “The Dutch Government, of course.” The state bears the cost, not the European Union.

We know that the EU offers token amounts to investment projects to try to confer some relevance, presence and significance on itself, but that is not the real deal. The real deal is that states decide what they want and need and pay for it—sometimes with private finance, but largely with state funds—and, on occasion, collaborate with neighbouring states to ensure that things work well.

What the United Kingdom needs is investment in a dedicated rail freight line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow. Although we are somewhat peripheral to the continent in geographical terms, we need to be linked with its economy. I refer to the continent rather than the European Union because we are talking about the whole continent, which extends beyond the bounds of the European Union as it is currently constituted.

We need to be linked to the continent by freight as well as passenger rail, and that will be possible only if the delivery system on this side of the channel is capable of taking trains carrying lorries and full-scale and double-stack containers, and, indeed, continental-gauge trains, which cannot gain access to our platforms or our tunnels. In fact, I have been involved with a scheme—which I have mentioned in the Chamber a number of times in the past—to build a line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major conurbations of Britain and capable of doing all the things that I have just mentioned.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making an enormously powerful speech, as he normally does on these issues. Does he share my concern about the fact that, although members of his party and the nationalist parties have been in the Chamber today and the Conservative Benches are full, not a single Liberal Democrat Member has been present? Given that the Liberal Democrats make such a fuss about Europe and restrict what the coalition can do about it, where on earth are they?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I have to say that the Liberal Democrats are in a coalition with his own party. It is his grief rather than ours, I think, so I will not intrude.

To an extent, work on a dedicated rail freight line has already begun. A terminal at Barking is taking trains from as far afield as Poland. However, although they can travel as far as Barking using the channel tunnel rail link, they can proceed no further because the gauge will not allow it.

According to an old chestnut, if we build HS2 we shall be able to take the passengers off the west coast main line and free it up for freight, but making that line capable of taking continental-gauge trains, double-stack containers and lorries would be prohibitively expensive. We need to build a line to take the freight off the west and east coast main lines and off our roads, so that the lines can be freed up for more and faster passenger trains and we can provide more capacity for passengers travelling to the north while taking as much traffic as possible off the roads. It is estimated that we could take 5 million lorry journeys off our roads simply by building that route, which would be economically viable and cheap to build.

The scheme has a precise route that uses old track bed and under-used lines, and requires only 14 miles of new track, mostly in tunnels. It will be easy to construct, it will not cause any environmental problems as the track bed is already there and it will be cheap to build. Some estimate that the whole route will cost as little as less than £4 billion. We have put in an estimate of £6 billion, which is still a third or so of what we will spend on Crossrail—I support Crossrail—and a tiny fraction of what will be spent on HS2, yet we would get an enormous advantage to our economy and transform road transport in Britain as we would not get the road damage caused by lorries, as the freight would be on trains instead.

The scheme would attractive to hauliers because they would not need to worry about drivers’ hours problems. They could put their lorry trailers on trains in Glasgow, south Lancashire, south Yorkshire or the north-east and, eventually, in the south-west and south Wales, and overcome such problems. On the question of unemployment, there is a shortage of long-distance lorry drivers because it is not a popular job. It takes people away from home and it is very difficult. The little group proposing the scheme even has a major haulier working with it.

That scheme is what Britain needs. It has nothing to do with the European Union, which would not pay for it—we would. It would offer value for money, it would be profitable and economical and it is vital for our future. I hope that both the Government and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will listen carefully to our suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The problem with this over-arching proposal is basically that it will be carried by qualified majority vote and is therefore, in effect, a form of taxation. Whatever proportion of that overall budget of £43.7 billion eventually falls on the United Kingdom, the Committee of which I have the honour to serve as Chairman believes that the scale of the Commission’s ambition for the 2014 to 2020 financial period is clearly unacceptable. On that basis, there is no doubt that the thrust of the Government’s motion is correct.

Although I happen to agree with the proposals on growth in the Opposition motion, the fact is that the Opposition are guilty of having severely restricted any opportunity for growth through the massive increase in public expenditure that they imposed on the United Kingdom. I and two or three other Conservative Members continually attacked that increase for the best part of three years and, as I repeatedly said at the time, there was no proposal for growth, which was connected to the problems of over-regulation, of which these proposals are yet another example.

The truth is that there should have been a full debate—there still may be opportunity for such a debate—on what is going wrong with the European Union as a whole. That debate is necessary because, as the Government have pointed out, the EU is calling on member states such as ourselves to produce more money for projects that could be better carried out under the so-called principle of subsidiarity at a national level.

At the same time, it is abundantly clear that there is no money in the European coffers. We should be debating the eurozone crisis as a whole in a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, which my Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide, but when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) repeated our calls this morning for a general debate it was denied by the Government, yet again.

[Mr Bone]

On that point, the Backbench Business Committee can, of course, grant a full-day debate on Thursday of next week if the Government release that day, which they are holding back for a general debate. Would my hon. Friend urge the Chief Whip to consider doing that?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly would. I endorse that course of action, and I would be grateful if the Whips on duty would pass that message to the Chief Whip—and, indeed, the Leader of the House—because we are faced with a monumental crisis in the European Union. That is only a symptom of the problem, which is generated by the intrinsic defects of the accumulated treaties, particularly since the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s.

So much is decided by qualified majority vote despite the fact that we currently face such severe restrictions and so much austerity, which is causing difficulties for our hospitals, schools, transport and so much else. Proportionality in respect of allocations is required. Getting that balance right is vital for our national interest. We should therefore have a debate on the Floor of the House, and not only on this one issue, important though it is.

I attended the multiannual financial meeting of about eight weeks ago as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the United Kingdom national Parliament, and I felt compelled to get up and complain bitterly about the complete “Alice in Wonderland” attitude that prevailed there. People were calling for an ever-greater increase in the amount of money that should be made available to the EU, and they were justifying that by reference to the Lisbon treaty, for example. They said that as the functions had grown, there ought to be more money. There is absolutely no recognition of the fact that there is simply not enough money to go around. We should be proceeding on the basis that we must reduce, rather than merely freeze, the budget.

The Government motion is right, therefore. However, we are facing demands from the financial transaction tax—I accept that we can veto that—and there are also attempts to stop our rebate and proposals to increase own-resources. Cumulatively, those moves are putting pressure on us to move in the wrong direction. There are great opportunities for the UK in a trading environment that is global—across the world, rather than just in the EU, important though that may be—and that is the direction we should be going in. All transport issues, including aviation policy and the development of our local infrastructure, should be taken by ourselves in the interests of the UK, rather than determined by QMV involving the other member states.

The European project is completely misconceived, and it is failing; the eurozone crisis will ultimately lead to collapse. The current situation is rather like the phoney war of 1938 and 1939: everybody knows the situation is doomed, but they are continuing to pretend that somehow something will turn up.

My message is that the Government motion is right in general, but that there is not enough determination to renegotiate the treaties. I welcome the veto, but once we cross the Rubicon, we cannot cross back. The reality is that any attempt to do so will meet with disaster, division and acrimony.

I am glad that we have had this debate, but there are also more important matters that must be debated as a matter of urgency. As I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough, for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Bury North and many others have said, we must have a proper debate on the extent, range and depth of the eurozone crisis and its impact on the UK.

We must also explore the other key issues facing us, such as why we are being confronted with QMV decisions to impose what is, in effect, a form of taxation to provide for certain facilities. Such decisions should be made on a bilateral national basis. It is not anti-European to say that is what we should do, because doing that is in the interests of Europe. What Europe is doing, however, is determinedly pursuing a completely false prospectus and then compounding that—sadly, with our Government in agreement, it appears—by proposing that we should find yet more devious means of providing money through the IMF to support what is an insupportable project. That simply flies in the face of common sense.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is, as ever, absolutely right in all he says.

On the issue of our having a day-long debate on Europe, I am pleased the Deputy Leader of the House is present. The Leader of the House is right that the Backbench Business Committee has been given the authority to authorise debates. If we were to have a bid for such a debate at one of our Committee meetings—which are held on Tuesdays at 1 o’clock—I think it would be given very careful consideration. The problem we have is that the Government do not allocate days to us far in advance. From what the Leader of the House said, we know that Thursday of next week has been allocated for a general debate, although at present a general debate in Government time. If the Government were to release that to the Backbench Business Committee, we could consider this question on Tuesday, and if there was a representation from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and, perhaps, other Members—we could have such a debate on Europe.

It concerns me that so few Liberal Democrat Members are present for the debate on this motion. I am not concerned that we are missing their contributions, because what they would say would not be worth hearing. My concern is that they might be boycotting again. Is this the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempt to have another boycott?

[Mr Clappison]

The general debate that my hon. Friend is arguing for is directly relevant to the motion, because tens of billions of pounds in extra expenditure will have to be found, and a large and disproportionate amount of that will have to come from this country. Some of that will come out of general taxation under the funding mechanism for the EU, adding to our indebtedness—and presumably other member states will face a similar situation.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

As he always is.

[Mr Bone]

I concur with that remark, of course.

I do not blame any Member currently sitting on the Opposition Front Bench for this, but the real scandal of the last Labour Government is what Tony Blair did. I do not blame Mr Blair either, because he may well have believed at the time that what he was saying was true. He stood at the Dispatch Box and gave away an enormous amount of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate, which has led to an enormous increase in the amount we are having to contribute to the EU budget. He believed that would not happen because there would be major reform of the common agricultural policy. That has not happened, but I give him the benefit of the doubt on that. The Labour Front-Bench team may well support Mr Blair’s original position, so will the Labour Opposition and the splendid ministerial team we have combine and go to Europe and say to them, “Because you haven’t kept your part of the bargain in reforming the CAP, we will only pay the amount of money we were paying under the previous Government”? The sum in question is £19 billion over a five-year period. That is an enormous amount of money to join a club that does nothing for this country. But if we kept to that £19 billion, we would free up more than £21 billion during this Conservative coalition Government.

Many hon. Members have talked about growth, but nobody has really suggested how it could be achieved. I suggest that the £21 billion of extra money that would come to the Government as a result of paying only the amount that we were paying previously could be used either for tax cuts, which would be my preference, or for infrastructure plans, as the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) were suggesting. Alternatively, some of the money could go on tax cuts and some could go on infrastructure. That would not cost the taxpayer a penny, because all we would be saying to Europe would be, “We are paying just the £19 billion over five years as the ridiculous amount of money for our subscription to the European Union.” So instead of paying £41 billion for joining this club we would be paying £19 billion. If hon. Members think that I am being unfair to the European Union on this point, they should consider the reality of what happens. This is not just about the £7 billion or £10 billion that our “net contribution” is each year, because the EU actually takes £14 billion or £15 billion. [Hon. Members: “£18 billion.”] Oh, it has gone up. The money goes to the European Commission, which then gives some of it back to be spent on its pet projects, which it thinks should be what we want in this country—we should have control of that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

What is even worse is that the EU, when it has spent our money, then has the cheek to fine people for failing to fly the European flag. The way in which it wastes British taxpayers’ money is absolutely disgraceful.

[Mr Bone]

Of course my hon. Friend makes eminent sense, as always.

There is something even more worrying about this situation: all these billions of pounds are going into the European Union but it cannot even get its auditors to give it a clean bill of health—the accounts are rejected year after year. We would not give money to any other organisation—in this country—that did not have audited accounts.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is raising an interesting point about how much of this money, were it to be granted—I hope it is not—is likely to be spent in this country. Has it escaped his eagle eye that a substantial proportion of the money referred to in the documents before the House—€10 billion-worth—is ring-fenced for the cohesion countries, and so not a single penny of that can come to this country? I have looked at these documents and if they are approved—I hope they will not be—it appears unlikely that very much money would come to this country as a result.

[Mr Bone]

That point was made eloquently in the debate earlier, and I noted with interest that only two regions in this country would benefit from any of that funding. My objection is not at all to what the Government are doing in this motion—it is a fine motion and in recent months the Government have been absolutely spot on. I will not say when they started to change their position on this—[Interruption.] If Ministers want to know when they changed it, I shall tell them. I believe it was after that little vote on a Backbench Business Committee motion when there was some division within the Conservative party. I urge all Members to support the Government today and oppose Labour’s opportunistic amendment—let us win handsomely.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Public Service Pensions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This excellent deputy Chancellor is very self-effacing, but he has achieved a considerable feat in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. Does he agree with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), that what he did in putting the national interest first should be considered equivalent to what the Prime Minister did in Europe?

[Danny Alexander]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Over the last few months, I have sometimes felt less like a Chief Secretary than a chief negotiator. I certainly think that, in this as in every other aspect of our policy, the Government as a whole have indeed put the national interest first.

Autumn Statement

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I set out the borrowing figures to Parliament and what the hon. Gentleman should admit is that the plan he is pursuing would add to the borrowing. We cannot borrow our way out of a debt crisis, and as long as the Labour party goes on advocating that approach, I suspect that its credibility will fall and fall.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am slightly concerned about whether the health of the shadow Chancellor is in order, as he has spent the past hour muttering to himself. However, may I ask the Chancellor whether he thinks that new Government policy should be announced to Parliament first?

[Mr Osborne]

I am always keen that Parliament is kept fully informed.

Taxation Freedom Day Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is very kind. I would not be so bold as to say that my amendments would improve his Bill, as it is perfectly good in its current form. I am merely using this opportunity to suggest some ways in which it could, perhaps, be strengthened. If my hon. Friend is seeking cross-party consensus and therefore does not entirely share my agenda, I could, perhaps, be persuaded to ditch some of my more strident amendments in order to get the basic measures through. I merely offer these amendments up now to show that the Bill could be improved.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend was making a very good speech up to that point; the idea that he should retreat or give in on any issue is appalling, but when he is absolutely right, as he is on this one, I must ask him to press it very firmly in Committee.

[Philip Davies]

Again, my hon. Friend is very kind. I am probably more strident than my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is clearly more strident than I am, so I invite him to take part in more debates that I am involved in to show what a moderate I am. His presence is very helpful in that regard and I thank him for that.

The country is in a massive financial hole. I want to stress that I do not think that the Bill is simply something that will add transparency to the situation so that people can see where they stand; I think it has the potential to be much better and more radical than that. It will give an opportunity for people in this country to start questioning seriously why our rates of tax need to be so high, given that other countries, often ones doing better than us, seem to manage with a much lower rate of tax. If we can get that agenda discussed in politics, we can do something that will transform the British economy—it does need transforming.

We cannot carry on as we are, trying to get ourselves out of huge debt by scoring a few quick singles here and there. We need to go for some boundaries—we need to go for some fours and sixes if we are to get ourselves out of this. Quick running between the wickets, on its own, is not going to make any impression. The Bill has the potential to change radically the way we think about taxation in this country, and about how we press our Governments to do the right thing and be more efficient in the way they do government.

I do not want to overstay my welcome, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will close on that point, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that, once again, he has put a vital issue on to the political agenda. Although my speech will certainly not have persuaded the Government to support his Bill, I still see no reason why his speech would not have done so. I look forward to the Government supporting the Bill and at least allowing it to go into Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that if there were to be such an oral statement by the Chancellor, it should be made to the House first rather than being given to the media in advance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

No, that is not our stance. If the hon. Gentleman would like us to be a bit more like Cyprus, he might want to look at it in the round, because, as I said, Cyprus is one of just three countries in the European Union that has grown at a slower rate than the UK this year.

Conservative Members have spoken about the difference between taxation freedom day in the US and in the UK. One of the reasons taxation freedom day in the US will come a little earlier is that it does not have a national health service, and, as a result, people have to pay from their own income for the health service. If hon. Members took into account how much individuals and businesses contribute towards health care insurance in the US, they might find that its taxation freedom day came a little later in the year—perhaps even later than in the UK.

My main question is why we need a Bill on this. Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kettering, have spoken about the work of the TaxPayers Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute. If they have all the facts and figures, why do they not organise a celebration for taxation freedom day? Why do we need Government legislation? If we had Government legislation on taxation freedom day as a result of passing this Bill, the day might fall a little later in the year because of the additional costs.

[Mr Bone]

Surely the hon. Lady is not saying that the cost of announcing taxation freedom day would shift it by one day—that is patently absurd.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, though, that there would be costs associated with the legislation, the statutory instrument, and civil servants’ time. I wonder why hon. Members want more legislation when presumably they really want less legislation and less money spent on civil servants and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

That does not seem necessary to me, but I guess that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree. If the work of the TaxPayers Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute is as fantastic as he thinks, why could they not organise a celebration, as other groups organise days to celebrate things? One does not necessarily need legislation in order to celebrate a day that one thinks important.

[Mr Bone]

There is a serious point here. Everyone knew when anti-slavery day was, but its official recognition by the Government lent weight to its importance. That is the reason taxation freedom day would be so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

The reduction in VAT would put money in the hands of families. Of course, most people who run businesses are also part of a family, so they would benefit from the reduction in VAT. Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth also includes a national insurance holiday for small businesses taking on new employees, so that plan would help families and businesses up and down the country.

[Mr Bone]

Are Government Members to assume that the hon. Lady has absolutely no support from her party, as the Opposition Benches are completely empty?

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I’m here.

[Mr Bone]

Well, they were empty.

[Rachel Reeves]

I think my hon. Friends are where I would like to be today—in the constituency meeting constituents, rather than here. I usually try to go back to my constituency on a Thursday, as do many other MPs. Of course, the Members who are here today think that this issue is more important than doing work in their constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am sure that the combined brains of the Treasury could make those calculations, but I regret to say that my brain, combined or otherwise, is not agile enough to engage in such mental arithmetic on the spot for my hon. Friend’s benefit.

I think that learning of the existence of a “tax app” has enhanced all our lives today. I have only recently acquired a more sophisticated phone. I could not possibly reveal the brand name, but Members should note that I am now tweeting. They may wish to begin following my tweets, as no doubt others will.

As I have said, I noted what was said about taxation on items such as cigarettes and fuel.

Regional variation has been mentioned. My hon. Friends clearly do not want centralised uniformity in any shape or form, and I do not imagine that they would want taxpayers in London, by dint of legislation, to have to pay the same as taxpayers in Wales, or vice versa. I am sure that they support the Government’s actions in not only rebalancing the economy in the direction of a thriving private sector everywhere in the United Kingdom, but creating a thoroughly localist agenda to give people as much freedom locally as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned Belgium and Cyprus. He will be aware that Belgium has had no Government at all for the past 528 days. He might welcome that in principle, but regrettably I am not sure that the average Belgian punter does.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North took us for a canter through many different types of tax. He cited Twain, mention of whom, as a lover of literature myself, I always welcome in any debate. He also succeeded in teaching me about the crystal and glass industry—and perhaps you as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you knew that the stems of some glasses are hollow, but I had no idea that that was the case. In the words of Abba, if I had a little money in a rich man’s world, I might know more about expensive glass and crystal.

[Mr Bone]

The Minister is making a delightful speech, but it has very little to do with what we are discussing today. It appears to me to be a filibuster, intended to prevent the Bill from securing a Committee stage. Is that what the Government are up to?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Had I heard a filibuster I would have stopped it, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Northern Rock

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I have made it very clear that we acted on the advice that we had received from our independent advisers. They put forward the case that it was better for Northern Rock to be sold to Virgin Money than for us to sit on it or have it remutualised in one form or another, and I think that that is the best outcome for Northern Rock and its employees. I also think that Labour Members should recognise their role in the circumstances that led up to the failure of Northern Rock and show some contrition about the regulatory system that they left behind.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

For Northern Rock’s employees, borrowers and depositors, who does the Minister think would be better to run it: the Government or Virgin? It appears that Labour Front Benchers think it is the Government.

[Mr Hoban]

I have always taken the view—I think my hon. Friend will agree with me on this occasion—that these things are better run in the private sector than in the state sector. I think we will see good management and good leadership from Virgin Money, which will provide a long-term foundation for a credible competitor in the retail financial services sector.