Greece

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Lady draws attention to the very poor record on revenue collection in Greece. It is one of the things that most frustrates its creditors and it comes up regularly in the discussions with the other eurozone Governments. There is actually some history to this: there is a tradition of non-payment—if we can put it like that—going back through Greek history, partly because of the Governments it has had in the past. To be fair to the current Government, and indeed their immediate predecessors in Greece, they have talked about trying to improve revenue collection. The British Government have offered assistance; members of the British civil service have been out on secondment and the like over recent years to try to improve revenue collection. Unfortunately, however, at the moment revenue collection has almost dried up.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has many aspects of this on his mind at the moment, but those of us who seek to protect the interests of ex-pat UK citizens know that they will be hugely appreciative of the fact that he is seeking to safeguard their pension rights and exportable benefit rights, but there are others, particularly those living in Cyprus, who are also dependent on the Greek banking system, so will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister for Europe, sitting to his right, and make sure consular assistance is made available to all ex-pat UK citizens who might be affected by the Greek banking crisis?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, we do keep a close eye on the situation in Cyprus. A couple of years ago we provided a lot of support to British citizens or others receiving, for example, British pensions in Cyprus when its banking system collapsed.

One of the challenges with people in Greece who receive a British pension but have a Greek bank account is that if we simply stop the money going in, in order to try to protect the payment from whatever might happen, we do not know whether that might disrupt an agreement they have, for instance, with money coming out of their bank account to pay for rent, or for other things, and of course the Greek Government have not so far put restrictions on pensioners in Greece. We monitor this very carefully, and we have contacted a couple of thousand of the people affected to see if they want to switch bank account and offer them a British bank account facility if they want one. We keep this under daily review.

European Union Referendum Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather far from the dates that are the subject of the amendment. It is fascinating material, but we do not really need another Second Reading debate.

[Mike Gapes]

I was tempted by the interventions, so I apologise to you, Sir Roger, for following the temptation. I will get back to the point.

There is an issue here to do with purdah and how the purdah requirements would apply. There will be great difficulty in holding a referendum at the end of 2017, when we are chairing the Council of Ministers meetings, because of that issue alone. For that reason, I hope that, if we are to have a referendum in 2016, we plan for it now—and that may already be, privately, the Prime Minister’s intention—rather than getting into great difficulties with the way in which it can be conducted, and damaging the United Kingdom’s role and relationship with the other 27 member states of the European Union. Once the referendum is over, assuming that it is won, we must work constructively with our partners to restore the trust and relationships for the future. It is better that we confront the issues early, rather than slipping into some kind of disastrous outcome.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. At various times during this debate, there has been reference to a letter. I was somewhat puzzled because I did not seem to have been sent such a letter. But now, through access to Twitter, it seems I may have found it. What I now have is a letter from the Minister for Europe to various Members on the Conservative Benches—it can be described only as a letter begging for support. I am somewhat disappointed not to have received it, and to have been ruled out of providing such support. If we are debating amendments—this letter specifically gives Government assurances relating to those amendments—should this communications not have been available to all Members, and should it not now been placed immediately in the Library of the House?

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers are responsible for making available their own documentation. It may be a courtesy, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I think I am fairly confident in saying that the starting point of this debate is that every Member of the House—from the Prime Minister and Ministers to the acting Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers to the most newly elected Back Bencher—agrees that if we are to have a referendum it must be perceived to be fair. The most balanced position possible must be taken vis à vis those who wish to advocate yes or no, for a variety of reasons, so that the public hear the broadest possible range of views and can make a reasonably objective judgment.

I have never known a referendum settle any question. It certainly has not settled questions of Scottish independence, elected mayors, proportional representation or AV, and does not seem to have settled the European question either. However, I think that those who believe that a referendum is a valuable way forward agree with me that we should bend over backwards to make sure that all those who feel strongly either way on this subject are treated as fairly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend to the extent that I have every respect for the British people and am sure they are capable of considering two separate issues at the same time. I do not have a crystal ball, but I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend is on the other side of the argument from me. The real problem with holding local or Assembly elections on the same day as a referendum is that Members of a political party—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is becoming almost as long as the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech.

[Mr Nuttall]

The point is that Members of the same political party may well campaign on different sides of the referendum question while at the same time being on the same side for the local elections. That is the key reason we need to have them on separate days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

May I say how much we are enjoying my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech? His casual wafting around of various sections, whether they are the right ones or not, reminds me of one of those lovely days when he said that he had not bothered to read the Maastricht treaty. Will he clarify something that seems to be a bit of a caricature? He says that the whole of Government would have to be closed down and that Ministers would not be able to engage in any business at all, but surely that could only possibly be true if the European Union was so involved in every nook and cranny of this country’s affairs that it could not possibly function without those relationships. Is not that the whole point?

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Before we proceed, in case there was any implied criticism, I have to say that, although the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) might be rambling around the European Union, this is a broad-ranging set of amendments. I have listened to him very carefully and he is, in fact, in order.

[Mr Clarke]

I hope I am not being too light-hearted, but this has been a long debate. I have already confessed that the issues have not engaged me as passionate issues of great principle to the same extent as they have engaged others. I was genuinely surprised to hear Eurosceptics take off and pronounce that there was a monstrous conspiracy in all the details. I am trying to reassure them that if there was any risk of a conspiracy, it could be laid to one side. I will treat the arguments with every due solemnity.

I am not saying that every Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change—although this might apply to them—or the Scotland Office would necessarily find that they could not do anything. It is not like during an election, when they would not be allowed to go into the office or take any decision of any kind, but the proposal could be very wide-embracing indeed. It is all very well for people to dismiss light-heartedly—though perhaps they are not speaking in the same tone as I am—the Prime Minister’s warnings that there would be a serious impact on the conduct of business, but I think that that is what would happen.

To repeat the point I made earlier: strict purdah stems from long before the statute was passed. It stems from the rules for a general election, and they are right. Once we get into the campaigning stage of a general election, the Minister is the Minister only if he or she is required to sign something that has to be signed. When an election comes, the party political Minister is prevented from taking any decisions. Nothing can be changed. The civil service goes into its totally non-political mode because the whole point of that election is to decide which political masters are going to return to the Department, so that eventually we again have a Government who are able to act.

What we are discussing is a referendum being held by a Government. It is part of the Government’s policy to hold the referendum. The Government have been negotiating a deal as part of their policy on reform to supplement the arguments in the referendum. The Government will continue to be the Government for the next three or four years and will have to live with the consequences of the referendum, so what is being argued is that these men and women and the civil servants who support them should all switch off for four weeks, stop having an opinion on these issues and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and myself, the day after the election pretend that they now agree with the enlightened view of the electorate and that they are going ahead and taking all the decisions on whatever is now the position.

I am sure there is a balance to be struck. I would deplore it if the Government were to spend taxpayers’ money on sending out ridiculous pamphlets and so on. That would misfire. I expect the Government to be in favour of a yes vote. I will be campaigning for a yes vote. I do not want the Government to squander taxpayers’ money and plainly abusing their position by putting out material that I might not wholly agree with anyway. The electorate would react if it was obvious that the Government were resorting to using the machinery of government for campaigning. But the statute is too severe. I hope we will not all get carried away and that we will allow my right hon. and hon. Friends the chance to come back with a sensible compromise.

Let me move on. I am sure the Whips will be very happy, but I am taking rather longer than I intended. I am attracted by the Opposition amendments, although I am not going to support them, as I shall explain in a moment. The shadow Minister, with unusual naiveté, seems to believe in evidence-based politics. He obviously believes that the more rational information is produced objectively and placed before the public, the more certain one can be that the correct result will be arrived at.

But this is politics. This is the European issue. Nothing of that sort has intruded into the debate on the European Union for the past 30 or 40 years, and it will not do so now. The Government have tried to move in that direction. The Foreign Office carried out the most objective study of the division of powers—the division of competences, in the jargon—[Interruption.] Precisely. I hear colleagues behind me shouting out, “Whitewash!”, by which they mean that the study came to the wrong conclusion, in their opinion. Evidence-based politics was rejected the moment it emerged. It could not find that the balance of competences, as negotiated by successive Ministers of all political persuasions over the previous 40 years, contained anything that was to the disadvantage of the British public.

The reaction was not to try to challenge any of these arguments with any new facts, but to try to bury the document, which most members of the public were never allowed to hear about. I suspect that it has not been picked up—it is pretty voluminous stuff—by very many Members of this House, let alone people outside, but it is a noble aspiration.

I have one serious reservation about what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) proposes. He suggests that those pre-eminently independent bodies, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, should be, as it were, enjoined by this Bill to produce those reports, which is quite attractive. I have the highest regard for the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility. We should all vigorously continue to ensure that their independence is maintained in every possible way, but there is a danger of politicising them. The Bank gives its opinions all the time, as most central Banks do, about the outlook for the economy, the latest statistics and the way things are unfolding. Central bank governors become notorious for talking a kind of obscure, slightly ambiguous mandarin language. That is precisely to try to avoid getting themselves immersed, which the Bank and the OBR would do if they seemed to be leaping into something that is a partisan opinion or appears to be a position of strong partisan support for one question or another.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. The Minister knows whether to sit down or not.

[Mr Lidington]

We will ensure that there is a clear mechanism so that in the four weeks before polling day, the Government will not undertake a range of activities that most would regard as the province of the campaign, such as issuing mailshots, running commercial advertising campaigns and emailing voters in one way or another.

There are various ways in which that might be done. Some colleagues have talked about a code of conduct. The Opposition have tabled a constructive amendment, which we welcome, but there are some technical problems with it, not least how the Government could anticipate what might be published by all public bodies, which is required by the text of amendment 54. As an alternative to a code of conduct, we could include provisions in the Bill that would restrict Government activity to particular named forms of publication or prohibit the Government from taking part in specific forms of communication.

We will not programme the Report stage until the autumn, which provides ample time for Ministers to consult parliamentary colleagues in all parts of the House to understand their concerns and views more closely, and to frame a set of amendments that will command the widest possible consensus in the House on Report. That is probably the best way to ensure that the referendum is conducted on a basis that everybody believes to be fair.

We have always been clear that it is not our intention that the Government should be a lead campaigner in the referendum. It is right that the Committee should seek reassurance from us on that point. We are happy to bring forward the amendments that I have described and, in the meantime, to discuss proposals with hon. Members in all parts of the House. However, I believe that section 125 of the 2000 Act is deficient for these purposes and urge right hon. and hon. Members not to press the amendments that would impose the provisions of that section on the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 6, line 6, after second “period”, insert—

“of not less than 16 weeks”.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum period lasts for at least 16 weeks.

Amendment 20, page 6, leave out lines 23 and 24.

Amendment 28, page 6, leave out lines 23 to 31.

Amendment 24, page 6, leave out lines 25 to 31.

Amendment 53, page 6, line 33, at end add—

“(ix) the total number of permitted participants shall be limited to a number specified by the Electoral Commission to ensure broad equality of resources between those campaigning for each of the outcomes of the referendum and those taken into account for the purposes of this provision will be the first persons to give notice under section 106(1) of the 2000 Act.”.

The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to ensure that during the referendum campaign, the total spend of the campaign on either side of the referendum would be broadly equal by limiting the number of participants, taking into account moneys spent by business, government, the European Commission and the campaigns themselves.

Amendment 32, page 6, line 33, at end add—

“( ) Nothing in this Schedule alters the law governing charitable organisations in any part of the United Kingdom to confer an entitlement to participate in a referendum which would not have been possible prior to the coming into force of this Schedule.”.

Amendment 29, page 7, line 5, leave out “any of sub-paragraphs (v) to (viii)” and insert “sub-paragraph (v)”.

Amendment 22, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 19.

Amendment 30, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 23.

Amendment 26, page 7, leave out lines 20 to 23.

Government amendment 14.

Amendment 33, page 12, leave out lines 18 and 19.

Amendment 41, page 12, leave out lines 18 to 25.

Amendment 37, page 12, leave out lines 20 to 25.

Amendment 10, page 12, line 38, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of paragraph 6 of Schedule 15 of the 2000 Act a permitted participant must not accept a relevant donation, irrespective of whether or not it meets the requirements of the 2000 Act and this Act, if the donation is funded directly or indirectly in whole or part from moneys, resources or support disbursed or allocated by or at the direction of the European Commission, its agencies or any related European institution to the donor or via other parties to the donor.”.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no funds or support provided directly or indirectly by European Union bodies have a bearing on the outcome of the referendum.

Amendment 45, page 12, line 38, at end add—

“( ) Nothing in this Schedule alters the law governing charitable organisations in any part of the United Kingdom to confer an entitlement to make a donation during a referendum which would not have been permissible prior to the coming into force of this Schedule.”.

Amendment 42, page 13, line 6, leave out “any of the paragraphs (c) to (f)” and insert “paragraph (c)”.

Amendment 43, page 13, line 10, leave out “any of the paragraphs (c) to (f)” and insert “paragraph (c)”.

Amendment 36, page 13, leave out lines 12 to 16.

Amendment 44, page 13, leave out lines 12 to 22.

Amendment 40, page 13, leave out lines 17 to 20.

Government amendment 15.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Mr McFadden]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I seek your guidance. The Committee has just agreed to Government amendment 55, which states that the referendum will not take place on the same day as elections in May of next year, but other amendments that we did not get the chance to discuss fully this afternoon also deal with the date of the referendum, including amendment 3, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Can you give the Committee any guidance on whether there will be time to debate those further amendments on Thursday?

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments 3 and 7—I think he is—it will be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider them for debate on Thursday. I think the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes, there is the opportunity, or there is likely to be the opportunity, for debate.

[Alex Salmond]

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. Does the same apply to amendment 17, which is also in that category? We would not want to lose any opportunity to debate further the extent of the Government’s humiliating climbdown and acceptance that they should show courtesy to the people of Scotland.

[The Temporary Chair]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no, because that was not debated under the group.

[Mr Baker]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Many colleagues were expecting a Division on amendment 11. May I ask your guidance on when we can expect that vote?

[The Temporary Chair]

Amendment 11 comes later in the proceedings. Whether or not that is the subject of a Division will be a matter for whoever is in the Chair later in the day. My expectation is that there will be a Division, but that is a matter for the Chairman at the time.

[Sir William Cash]

My view about the clause is that we have managed to have a wide-ranging debate. In the interests of brevity, I do not think much needs to be said on the subject. We really ought to get on to other matters, including the question of European Union financing. I have no further comments to make on clause stand part.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

(Gainsborough) (Con) rose—

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. I am at the disposal of the Committee and looking for hon. Members to speak, but there appears to be no one but Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Is it appropriate that I speak to my amendment 53, Sir Roger?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair]

indicated assent.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Amendment 53 would state that

“the total number of permitted participants shall be limited to a number specified by the Electoral Commission to ensure broad equality of resources between those campaigning for each of the outcomes of the referendum”.

I refer the Committee to the Member’s explanatory statement, which states:

“The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to ensure that during the referendum campaign, the total spend of the campaign”—[Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? There are people who wish to hear the debate.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was just referring to the explanatory statement. It is very helpful that the Public Bill Office now publishes explanatory statements, as it makes it much easier for us to understand amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

As I understand it, and I am open to correction from Sir Roger, the sinner may get a chance to repent even before that. Amendment 11 has still to be called in our proceedings, so the sinner may get a chance to repent on Report, at the eleventh hour or at 7 o’clock this evening. Let us all hope that the sinner does repent whenever they choose to.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

As I am being quoted, may I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not be taking repentance at that time?

[Alex Salmond]

I wish to make it absolutely clear for the record that the only sinners to which we are referring are those who were previously located on the Labour Front Bench. I am not talking about anyone else in the House.

There is a serious point. Whatever side of this referendum campaign we want to adopt, and if we are all agreed that it is important that everyone sees the referendum as fair and square, the rules should be drawn up in such a way to give a proper contest—a square goal, as some of my Glaswegian colleagues might say. If there is to be a genuine and fair contest, it does require us, when opportunities present themselves to defeat the Government, as they so rarely do, to ensure that those opportunities are taken. I appeal to the Labour Front Bench Members—perhaps they will communicate this to their colleagues—to see that that opportunity still beckons to ensure that that can happen later in our proceedings.

The Government’s position across a range of matters seems to be somewhat disorganised. I know that there was a great anxiety on the part of Government to rush forward with this Bill immediately after the general election. Perhaps they wanted to catch out the Labour party, which was still in a state of leadership limbo. A number of things already in our proceedings tell us that insufficient thought has gone into the Government’s position. There was that extraordinary climbdown, or cave-in, on Government amendment 55. I welcome the fact that respect has belatedly been shown to the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it does not have the smack of a Government that have considered their point of view. Across a range of matters, particularly with regard to purdah, there is a sign that the Government have not sufficiently thought through their position.

Earlier, I was told that it is in order for the Minister for Europe to circulate a letter, only to his colleagues, that says what might happen on Report if people do not press their amendments inconveniently. I see that the experienced hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who spoke from a sedentary position—we all welcome him back to his place—is smiling. He has been on the receiving end of many such letters over the years—probably more than the rest of us put together. I do think that it is somewhat remiss of the Government to distribute information only to those on the Conservative Benches.

Earlier, I was struck by the actions of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He had not received the communication, but within seconds of it being passed to him, decided that he was in favour of it. That was a remarkable rush to judgment, I would say, both in terms of the climbdown we have seen on the date of the referendum and of the inadequate thought that has been given to this hasty revocation of the purdah considerations.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 1, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent.

(4) The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45 per cent and at 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of—

(a) £150,000 per year; and

(b) £1,000,000 per year.”

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 1 stand part and clauses 2 to 5 stand part.

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Amendment 1 stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It calls on the Chancellor to produce within three months of the enactment of this Bill a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50%. The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45%—the current higher rate—and at 50% on the amount of income tax currently paid by people with a taxable income of £150,000 and £1 million a year.

As we all know, the 50p rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 was reduced to 45p by this Government in 2012. That was hotly debated at the time and it has been hotly debated ever since. The Minister refers to a debate on the additional rate of tax as an annual event whenever we discuss a Finance Bill. Government Members may groan that the debate is rearing its head again, but I am, if nothing else, an optimistic person and I continue to hope that Government Members will be swayed by my arguments and be persuaded to accept our eminently sensible and reasonable amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review, within six months of the passing of this Act, of the impact of a cut of one per cent to the main rate of Corporation Tax for financial year 2016, with particular reference to—

(a) the impact on businesses with fewer than 50 employees;

(b) the impact on investment by businesses with fewer than 50 employees; and

(c) alternative tax measures, including non-domestic rates, which would have a greater benefit for businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish the report of the review and lay the report before the House.”.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The review proposed in amendment 2 would give us a better understanding of the factors that are helping small businesses to grow and those that are limiting their expansion. Most small and medium-sized businesses with a smaller number of employees tend to be run from premises that have a rateable value of below £50,000. I should say at the outset—the Minister and I have had this debate before—that Labour does not oppose the recent changes to the rate of corporation tax that have so far come into effect. That is in keeping with our party’s policy over the past 15 years. When Labour left office, Britain had the most competitive rate of corporation tax in the G7. The rate has been cut several times over the past few years. The small business rate for companies whose profits are less than £300,000 now stands at 20%, and the rate for companies earning more than that will be 21% from April—in just a few days.

Wales Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

I beg to move amendment 36,  page 21, line 18, leave out ‘, with the approval of the Treasury,’.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, page 21, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—

‘(1) On receipt of notice of an appropriate resolution of the Assembly, the Secretary of State shall by order amend subsection (1A) so as to vary, in the manner indicated by the terms of such resolution, the means by which Welsh Ministers may borrow money.”.’.

These amendments would enable the National Assembly to change the way money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including the issuance of bonds, without the need for consent by the Treasury or Resolution of the House of Commons.

Amendment 35, page 21, line 31, at end insert—

‘(6) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for an independent report to be compiled on the issuance of bonds by Welsh Ministers.

(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report specified in subsection (6) before each House of Parliament within three months of this Act being passed.’.

The Scotland Act 2012 enables the Secretary of State, by order and consent of HM Treasury, to change how Scottish Ministers can borrow money for capital purposes, for example, allowing the issue of bonds. Clause 19(5) of the Wales Bill contains the same provisions. This amendment seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds.

Amendment 34, page 21, line 38, at end insert—

‘and if that amount is more than the amount for which it is substituted it shall not thereafter be reduced below that higher amount’.

This amendment would ensure that when the Secretary of State raises the borrowing for investment limit, it cannot subsequently be reduced.

Amendment 5, page 21, line 38, at end insert—

‘(3B) The figure mentioned in inserted subsection (3A) shall be recalculated on an annual basis to maintain its value in real terms against inflation.’.

Clause 19 stand part.

Clause 20 stand part.

[Hywel Williams]

Amendments 36 and 37 would enable the National Assembly to change the way that money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including the issuing of bonds, without the need for the consent of the Treasury or a resolution of the House of Commons. Amendment 35 seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds. Amendment 34 would ensure that when the Secretary of State raises the borrowing for investment limit, it cannot subsequently be reduced.

First, on the issuance of bonds, subsection 32(5) of the Scotland Act 2012 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to change the manner in which Scottish Ministers can borrow money for capital purposes—for example, to permit borrowing by the issue of bonds. Subsection (5) of the Wales Bill contains the same provisions. This amendment seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds.

Following the Scotland Act 2012, the legislation left the door open for the Secretary of State to enable the Scottish Government to issue bonds in future. The UK Government later launched a consultation on bond issuance and announced in February of this year that Scotland is to get the power to issue bonds. There is only one problem: it will have that power only in 2015. In the meantime, the small matter of the independence referendum in September might intrude.

Scotland aside, I refer Members to the cross-party Commission on Devolution in Wales. Recommendation 19 ends with the words:

“We also believe that the Welsh Government should be able to issue its own bonds.”

Given that local government throughout the British Isles can issue bonds, it is an anomaly that the devolved nation Governments cannot also do so.

The Silk Commission’s first report stated that

“while bonds may be more expensive at present, a possible future scenario where they may be cheaper or more attractive to the Welsh Government cannot be ruled out. We therefore see no reason in principle for preventing the Welsh Government from being able to issue its own bonds in addition to borrowing from the National Loans Fund and other sources such as commercial banks.”

Our amendment calls for greater clarification and seeks to expedite the ability of the Welsh Government to issue bonds. We need movement on this issue to enable the Government of Wales, should they choose to do so, to drive investment in infrastructure, and so improve our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, page 23, line 17, at end insert—

‘(d) the scrutiny of reductions of, and additions to, the block grant to reflect expenditure and income arising from the provision of certain services in England to people resident or otherwise eligible for such services in Wales and the provision of such services in Wales to people resident or otherwise eligible in England.’.

Amendment 14, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

‘(g) a Welsh Minister responsible for a service falling under section 13(d) (definition of budgetary procedures)’.

Government amendment 29.

Clause 21 stand part.

Amendment 17, in clause 22, page 24, line 46, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment 18, in clause 22, page 24, line 46, at end insert—

‘(ae) an estimate of the costs of providing services in Wales to people resident in England; an estimate of the monies received from HM Treasury to fund such provision; and an assessment of the effectiveness of any relevant agreements in place governing cross-border service provision, and’.

This amendment and amendment 17 to Clause 22 are intended to make the operation of agreements that govern cross-border services, such as the NHS protocol, more transparent to residents of both England and Wales.

Clause 22 stand part.

New clause 1—Review of options for Barnett formula reform—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for a review of options for reforming the Barnett formula in order to meet the objective of calculating the block grant funding for Wales on the basis of need.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report of the review mentioned in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’.

New clause 3—Cross-border health care—

‘After section 1 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, insert—

“1A Duty to have regard to impact on services in certain areas

In exercising functions relating to the health service, the Welsh Ministers must have regard to the likely impact of those decisions on the provision of health services to persons who reside in an area of England that is close to the border with Wales.”.’.

This New Clause places a duty on Welsh Ministers to consider the impact of their decisions on the provision of health services to people who reside in England, analogous to a duty already placed on the NHS Commissioning Board in England to consider the impact of its decisions on people residing in Wales and Scotland.

New clause 10—Welsh Government Finance Department—

‘The Welsh Government may, by resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, rename its finance department and this shall be recognised as its official title in all dealings with the Treasury.’.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this amendment because I believe in the national health service. I know that I speak for all members of my political party in saying that we believe in having a truly national health service. The changes I am attempting to insert into the Bill would bring back the national health service that we once had but no longer have. At the moment, contrary to what people think, we have a regionalised health service with different systems in Wales, in Scotland, in England, and in Northern Ireland. It is a sad fact that in Wales, under the leadership of members of the Labour party, the Welsh national health service has been failing patients and letting people down. I care about that.

I also care about the patients who come to see in my surgery. They include Mariana Robinson, who has been speaking out in national newspapers over the past few weeks. I did not ask her to go the press; she came to see me to ask how she could tell the story of the scandalous treatment that she has been receiving. She was treated very well in a nearby hospital in England but then told that she could no longer have that treatment because funding was not available and she would have to be treated in Wales.

Only a few weeks ago, I spoke to a patient who had been suffering from cancer. She had been told that she was terminally ill and would not last more than a few months. She believes that she was, in effect, written off by the national health service in Wales. She found out about experimental treatment in England and accessed it. She is still alive. Her cancer appears to be in remission at the moment, and I wish her all the best. She obviously wants to continue to receive this experimental treatment in the same area, Newcastle, yet she too has been told that there will be no further funding for her.

There has always been a problem in getting cross-border funding, but it seems to have got a lot worse in the past 12 months, when a decision was taken somewhere along the line that meant that virtually anyone with an illness in Wales would have to be treated in Wales. I believe that this is part of the whole National Assembly mindset about doing everything in Wales because it feels that it can do it better.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 2, line 11, at end add—

‘(3) The Chancellor shall produce a report on subsection (1) which shall include an assessment of the impact of changes to taxation on the living standards of basic rate taxpayers which shall be placed in the House of Commons Library within three months of Royal Assent.’.

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box. Had amendment 4 been selected for debate, we could have engaged in further discussion about the mansion tax and the 10p income tax rate. However, I think that some of the broader issues that I shall raise in relation to clause 3 are relevant to that subject.

Clause 3 sets the 2013-14 basic rate limit for income tax at £32,010. In doing so, it overrides the indexed amount, which would otherwise have been set at £35,300 as announced in the 2012 autumn statement. The explanatory notes on the clause state that it is

“part of a package of measures”.

I shall say something further about the implications of that package of measures as we go on. Effectively, the rise in the personal allowance from £8,105 to £9,440 for this year and the rise to £10,000 from 2014, however welcome they are and regardless of the difficulties raised concerning those who will not necessarily benefit, will in part be clawed back by the measures implemented in this clause and a further reduction in the basic rate limit next year to £31,865.

Air Passenger Duty

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Most Members have made the point about the value of the aviation industry to the UK as a whole. It is of considerable value to all the UK’s major conurbations, and particularly to the south-east. Historically, Heathrow has been one of the major—if not the major—hub airports in the world. The interlining that has gone on through Heathrow over decades has been worth almost incalculable sums of money, not merely to the aviation industry but to business as a whole through the people who hold business meetings in airport meeting rooms and the people who come through London and spend money doing business in the City or as tourists. That is what is at stake and it is difficult and dangerous to ignore those facts.

At the moment, the United Kingdom is losing business. Not in 10, 15 or 20 years—it is happening now, today. Every day we lose business to Schiphol, to Frankfurt and to Charles de Gaulle. Would not the French, give or take Mr Hollande, like to create in Paris the financial centre of Europe, to replace London? It is not a pipe dream on their part; it could happen if we drive the business travellers away from the south-east of England. I am sorry that this is to some extent a south-east problem, but that happens to be where the City of London is and we cannot change that.

There are two issues: airport capacity and air passenger duty. My friend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) both made the point that people are now travelling short haul to interline and take long-haul flights from Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle. They pay APD on the short-haul flight and get a much cheaper and better deal on the long-haul flight to the far east, Brazil—a developing market—and, of course, the United States. It is happening now.

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend is making an articulate case about the impact on the economy of Great Britain, but there is also an impact on overseas economies. For example, the APD banding is so arbitrary and wrong that the APD for somewhere such as the Caribbean is more than for somewhere as far away as Hawaii. Surely that shows the illogicality of this blunt tax.

[Sir Roger Gale]

If I wanted to use one word to describe the banding, it would be chaotic. That is what it is. We are losing business now.

We have an opportunity—I have a constituency interest in this—in Manston, Kent’s international airport. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is aware, I think, of the opportunity Manston presents. It has one of the longest runways in the country and also one of the widest—three runways wide—because during the war it was used for landing planes one after the other. There is no suggestion that it should ever become a fourth, fifth or sixth London airport, but it could be developed at very modest cost to take the pressure immediately—not in 10 or 15 years’ time—off Gatwick, which in turn, with released capacity, could take the pressure off Heathrow. That would create the breathing space we need while the Government work out whether to have a third runway at Heathrow, a second runway at Gatwick, a second runway at Stansted or Boris island—that is not the purpose of this debate. If we are to develop Manston and use its capacity, we must give it a chance to breathe commercially, and air passenger duty is damaging that chance.

We need a modest investment in infrastructure, and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has responsibility for aviation, will visit us very soon. As long as the air passenger duty element of travel from the United Kingdom is as high as it is, regional airports such as Manston, and the many others that Members across the House have represented this afternoon, will suffer. Because Manston is in the south-east, it will presumably be banded at a south-east price, which in itself is nonsense. We must take into account the nature and capacity of each individual airport. I want air passenger duty to go completely, but I believe that in the interim, as a short-term measure, we have to look seriously at banding, which has been referred to, and at some kind of variation between regional and hub airports.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury might be new to his role, but he is very bright and he can do sums, which is why he got the job. It is very easy to say glibly that something is worth £2 billion, £5 billion or whatever to the Treasury without taking into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) referred to as the downside. The real cost must be calculated in terms not just of aviation lost, but of lost business, tourism and all the other things that flow from being a world-class, international centre, which is what London is, always has been and must be allowed to remain.

There is a Treasury mantra—I am looking to the civil servants’ box—which says that more tax equals more money. That card was played earlier this afternoon with regard to beer duty. It is wrong. A modest amount of tax might raise a modest amount of money, but there comes a point, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary must recognise this, when a tax kills the goose that lays the eggs, whether they are gold, silver, bronze or straightforward eggs. We cannot go on killing this industry, and that is what is happening. Of course, another huge concern has been voiced by holiday travellers. The impact on family holidays is dramatic and costly.

[Adam Afriyie]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. It strikes me that at the heart of the debate there is an absence of evidence; there is an evidence-shaped hole at its heart. All the points that have been made, including his points, could be dealt with cleanly and crisply if the review takes place.

[Sir Roger Gale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point leads me swiftly to a conclusion. The sums have not been properly analysed and so we need the review. There is no evidence to support the case that the Treasury is making. In the meantime, United Kingdom Ltd is being damaged. We need the review. I ask the Minister, please can we have it?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Beer Duty Escalator

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that 95% of all Scotch whisky is exported. In the UK, 87% of all the beer that is drunk in this country is brewed in this country. Beer is a great British manufacturing success story, which is why we need to support it.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Shepherd Neame, a Kent family brewer, and Thorley Taverns in Margate are both major employers in one of the areas of highest social deprivation in the south-east. They are both under threat, paying huge amounts of their revenue in tax while companies such as Starbucks pay virtually nothing at all. Putting the beer duty escalator to one side, I remember going to see John Cope—now Lord Cope—when he was a Treasury Minister about 20 years ago, and our parliamentary delegation demonstrated then that the more we tax, the less revenue we take in the end. Is that not the nub of this argument—it is counter-productive?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The point about an escalator is that we stop when we get to the top. We have reached the top of the escalator and we are in danger of going off the edge of a cliff. That is why we must do something about the beer duty escalator.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I beg to move amendment 7, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

‘(6A) In any agreement to give financial assistance in this section the Treasury or Secretary of State shall give reasonable consideration to clawback provisions which safeguard best value for the taxpayer.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

‘(f) the beneficial owners of any debt issued by a company receiving infrastructure assistance or one of their subsidiary companies,

(g) the beneficial owners of any company which has entered into an agreement to receive infrastructure assistance,

(h) for the purposes of this Act beneficial owner has the same meaning as that conferred by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.’.

New clause 3—Customer due diligence measures

‘(1) Before any infrastructure assistance is given the Treasury must apply customer due diligence measures on any business requesting infrastructure assistance.

(2) For the purposes of this Act customer due diligence measures will have the same meaning as that conferred by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.’.

[Chris Leslie]

Amendment 7, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to ensure that the Bill provides a safeguard for taxpayers’ money. After all, £50 billion of guarantees could be underwritten for the private sector on pretty much any kind of scheme, and we heard fuzzy logic from the Minister earlier, when he said that infrastructure is not quite as defined as it appears in the Bill, and that some projects could be national and some foreign.

In some circumstances, underwriting can be beneficial and welcome—it can make schemes viable that were not viable previously and unlock infrastructure developments that might not otherwise take place, but in other circumstances there are disadvantages to underwriting. Underwriting means that gains from a private endeavour are privatised, but that any losses are socialised. The entrepreneur, the shareholder and the owner of a private company or project that benefits from the safety net provided by the taxpayer could profit well for many years if a scheme bears fruit, but if the scheme goes wrong and if there are failures in it, the losses fall on you, Mr Gale, on me, on hon. Members and, most importantly, on our constituents.

I make no apologies for standing up for the taxpayer’s best interests. It is important that we ensure that Ministers consider introducing clawback provisions that safeguard best value for taxpayers. The amendment is so unobjectionable that I cannot understand why the Government would object to it. The Opposition are simply saying that, in any agreement to give financial assistance, the Chancellor or Secretary of State

“shall give reasonable consideration to clawback provisions which safeguard the taxpayer.”

What do I mean by “clawback provisions”? Hon. Members who have served on the Public Accounts Committee will know that from time to time Governments have entered into contracts and sold privatised parts of the public sector. The purchasers have then gone on to make millions of pounds when they have sold on some of those assets. In this case, the guarantor has ended up facilitating a project, but the beneficiary of the guarantee went on to make significant sums.

We are simply saying that the Treasury needs to make sure that there are clauses in the underwriting contracts—the offers—that ensure that if significant gains are made in the long term, the taxpayer can have a share in some of the future profits. It is a basic principle—if the taxpayer helps to create profitability for a person and bears the risk of loss, that person can reasonably be expected to share some of the excess profits with the taxpayer. It is a basic principle of prudent stewardship of taxpayers’ money. It would also ensure that we deal with the question of moral hazard. We know that in some circumstances underwriting can cause difficulties if a scheme that might be shaky goes ahead as a result, which is of course a distortion of the market environment.

If schemes go ahead and make significant gains and provide future returns that are in excess of what might be expected, the taxpayer could have some rights to those. For example, in a prime executive housing site in central London developed thanks in part to the Government underwriting property market risks, the units may sell at multiples of expected initial prices, with vast profits for the developer. In the current situation, what would the taxpayer get? Foreign-owned energy companies want a pipeline stretching from our shores across the continent, which could well be underwritten by the provisions in the Bill. If we fund part of that as taxpayers, but the company makes significant long-term returns on the oil and gas, what should be the taxpayers’ share in that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley]

On a point of order, Mr Gale. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. Surely, the point of a Committee stage is to allow a Bill to be considered at greater length and in greater detail than is possible on Second Reading. Owing to reasons beyond your control, Mr Gale, we have less than half the time for debate in Committee that we had on Second Reading. We have not yet finished clause 1. All the other clauses will go unconsidered in Committee. Would it be in order, Mr Gale, for you to make a report to the Chairman of Ways and Means about how this Committee stage went, so that he and the Panel of Chairs can consider whether it is appropriate for us to have such short Committee stages on the Floor of the whole House?

[Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

The Chairman of Ways and Means will undoubtedly read what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the proceedings are in order according to the programme motion agreed by the House.

[Simon Hughes]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am beginning to find it a little difficult to relate this debate to amendment 5 or the related matters. Perhaps we could return to them.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to you, Sir Roger, although I found that debate terribly entertaining. [Interruption.] Oh no, I am more than happy to talk about tax avoidance all evening, especially about the Swiss deal, which is particularly disgraceful. No doubt we will do that upstairs in Committee.

I return to the question of the bank levy and the bank bonuses tax and which was the most effective measure. It is clear that, as the OBR said, the bank bonus tax raised £3.5 billion in 2010, which is almost twice what the levy raised in 2011. Those are not disputable facts; they are there in black and white in the Red Book and the OBR’s analysis. Choosing not to reinstate our bank bonus tax represents an effective tax cut for the banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Yes, I recognise that. I also recognise the Ernst and Young ITEM club, which uses precisely the same methodology and precisely the same numbers as the Treasury in calculating its growth projections. It said earlier this week that it did not expect to see 0.8% growth as the OBR anticipates, but 0.4% growth over the next year. It is not expecting 2% growth, but 1.5% growth in the following year. Very few credible commentators believe in the heroic suggestions of a bounce back next year, the year after and the year after that. Those suggestions are clearly a load of nonsense, just as it is a load of nonsense to assume that we will see 0.8%—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I assumed the Chair in anticipation and excitement at the prospect of listening to the debate on amendment 5 and the bank levy. We really are straying a long way from it. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has now been on his feet for more than 40 minutes, yet he has still not finished speaking to his amendment.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful, Sir Roger. I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion.

The amendment we have tabled is very simple. It simply requires the Government to look at the possibility of reintroducing a payroll tax on the banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

There are still 1 million unemployed young people in this country. That is the highest rate since records began. Long-term youth unemployment is growing as never before. In my constituency of Pontypridd, there has been a 333% increase in long-term youth unemployment in the last year alone. The point of the amendment is to highlight that problem in the real economy. We are trying to connect this out-of-touch Government to the reality of youth unemployment, and to get them to do something to tackle it and to get growth in our economy. I have not been persuaded to withdraw the amendment and we will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Review of VAT Exemption for small vehicles—

‘The Treasury shall, within two months of Royal Assent to this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the effect on the availability of transport services on the VAT exemptions for small vehicles.’.

New clause 3—VAT impact of changes—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fully reviewed the impact of those changes on jobs, living standards and businesses and placed the review in the Library of the House of Commons.’.

New clause 4—Definition of ‘hot food’—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which amends the current definition of “hot food” in the Act.’.

New clause 5—Value Added Tax: baked products—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which shall affect baked products when no attempt is made to keep the product hot for consumption.’.

New clause 6—VAT on caravans—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which amends the Act to apply to holiday caravans that are currently zero rated.’.

New clause 7—VAT: protected buildings—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which amends the current definition of “protected building” in the Act.’.

New clause 8 has not been selected because it is outside the scope of the Bill. I indicate to the Committee that it will be for my successor in the Chair, the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, to determine, once she has heard more of the debate, whether to call any of the new clauses other than new clause 1.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to follow some excellent speeches. As we heard earlier, the harsh reality of the Budget is that it has done nothing to give Britain the jobs and growth we desperately need. We have heard how it has failed—[Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. Will Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? I wish to hear the debate.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you, Sir Roger. That gives me the opportunity to repeat, for those unable to hear because of the conversations, my point about the harsh reality of the Budget, which has done nothing to give Britain the jobs and growth we desperately need, and about how it fails the fairness test. It has done nothing to help support families and pensioners on modest and middle incomes. We will discuss that further tomorrow so I shall not dwell on it now. It would, of course, be outwith the scope of the new clauses. I shall only say that families are already finding out just what the Government’s decisions will mean for their household budgets. As we will hear, businesses are also now finding out that the botched Budget makes no economic sense for them either.

There was a time when people might have given the Chancellor some credit for his strategic brain. Some on middle incomes and small businesses might even have given him the benefit of the doubt on economic policy, notwithstanding our many warnings about cuts that go too far and too fast. They might have given him the benefit of the doubt even if they did not completely agree with everything he was doing. But how times change. The Chancellor has had several weeks of torrid headlines—The Mirror: “Half-baked Tory tax a mistake-and-bake from Osborne and co”; The Sun: “PM David Cameron is urged to show leadership over pasty-gate”; The Guardian: “‘Pasty tax’ is the last thing people need”; the Evening Standard: “Heston says pasty tax will stop artisan bakers earning a crust”; and even “Tax on beloved Cornish pasties sparks furore in Britain” in USA Today and “‘Pasty tax’ row heats up for British PM” on the al-Jazeera website.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I want to give plenty of opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to the debate. It is not just a debate about pasties; it is also about caravans. I know that many Members will wish to speak on that issue because of its importance for their local industries. [Interruption.] I would be happy to take an intervention from Ministers or from one of those senior Tory MPs quoted as having met the Chancellor today to lobby on the issue of caravans. Does anyone want to give us an update on that? No, I see no takers at the moment. Perhaps we will hear about it later. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again. The hon. Lady must be heard, and she really should not have to shout from the Dispatch Box to put her message across. Many Members on both sides of the Committee want to participate in the debate. Whether or not they are called will depend to some extent on their behaviour in the Chamber, and it will also depend on the amount of time available to us.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will do my best to bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion so that others can contribute.

Let me briefly mention other issues. I have already mentioned caravans, but building work on churches is also important, and I know that some colleagues will speak about it later. One other area, if I can be pardoned a very bad pun, not yet highlighted in the headlines is the whole issue of hairdressers’ chairs. I mention it simply because the Government’s proposal shows once again a lack of understanding of the operation of many small businesses.

People and women—and it is often young women—starting out on their hairdressing careers, perhaps on their first business opportunity, often rent a chair in a larger salon. I see some nods of agreement from Government Members. It is welcome if some of them understand the issue, but it does nothing at all to help those people setting out on their first business venture if they suddenly find that they are going to have to pay more costs. The National Hairdressers Federation has highlighted further anomalies. Conservative Members might not be aware of it, but it is common practice in hairdressers’ businesses to rent out space not only to other hairdressers, but to others in the beauty and therapy professions. The anomalies highlighted by the NHF are made worse by the Government’s proposals.

Budget (North-East)

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I need to make it plain before we start that I have applied to the office of the Chairman of Ways and Means for a time limit on speeches. A significant number of Members have written to the Speaker indicating that they wish to participate, and even more Members are present. Given that we will need to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.35 am at the latest, I suspect that we will be down to four minutes per person, but that rather depends on Mr Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I thank the Speaker’s Office for allowing me to initiate this debate, and also the many Members who have come along. The debate has created significant interest, particularly in our north-east region.

In the Chancellor’s millionaires’ Budget, which will hand back tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds to some of the richest people in our society, including some of his Cabinet colleagues, it is clear who will suffer the most. It will be the poorest, those looking for work when few new jobs are available, pensioners, families, the hard-working, the squeezed middle and the working poor.

Following the Chancellor’s Budget speech, the Treasury produced a briefing highlighting the measures that will benefit the north-east of England. The region has borne the brunt of this Government’s policies. February 2012 figures show that unemployment in my constituency has risen from 8.3% to 10.5% since the coalition took office, and in the latest Office for National Statistics survey, up to January 2012, the figure for the north-east as a whole has risen to 10.8%, yet the Treasury’s briefing runs to a grand total of three measures that it claims will specifically benefit the region.

Although the first measure—the increase in personal allowances—is welcome, it can hardly be regarded as specific to the north-east. The second measure is that Newcastle will receive the princely sum of £6 million, and become a super-connected city. Perhaps the Chancellor and the Treasury do not realise that Newcastle, as important as it is to the entire region, is not the entire region—in fact, it has about a tenth of the region’s population. Finally, in the month when the north-east is losing its regional development agency, its local enterprise partnerships will receive a paltry £10 million from the Growing Places fund.

In the Budget statement, the Chancellor notably consigned to the dustbin of history the phrase, “We’re all in this together.” The imbalance in this Budget means that most of us are in this together, but the few at the top of society will be exempt from it all. The regional disparity is all too plain to see. In the three south-east regions— London, the south-east and the eastern region—nearly 195,000 taxpayers will reap the benefit of the Chancellor’s higher-end tax giveaway, but in the north-east the figure will be fewer than 5,000, and about 4,000 in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. In view of the large number of Members who wish to participate in the debate, I will exercise the power granted to me by the Chairman of Ways and Means and limit speeches to four minutes. I intend to commence the winding-up speeches at about 10.40 am. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has kindly indicated that he is willing to curtail his remarks to about five minutes. It would not be reasonable to impose any such limit on the Minister, because of the large number of Members who want to participate and who will expect answers to the debate. Members will notice, if they do the math, that I have built in a five-minute leeway, so one way or another we hope that we will get to where we want to be. The same rules apply as to the main Chamber. We will add a minute to the four-minute time limit for up to two interventions, but Members will appreciate that if that happens, someone will fall off the end of the list.

This is an exception—we do not normally do this—but it might help Members if I indicate now the order in which I intend to call them, because a significant number have written to Mr Speaker requesting the opportunity to speak. Those who are not on the list will appreciate that I have to give priority to those who have taken the trouble to write to Mr Speaker. They may, therefore, choose to exercise their right to intervene, although that, of course, is not in my gift, but in that of the person speaking. The order for Opposition Members is Grahame Morris, Phil Wilson, Pat Glass, David Anderson, Ian Lavery, Iain Wright, Sharon Hodgson and Stephen Hepburn; and that for Government Members is James Wharton and Mr Swales.

Westminster Hall does not have the countdown clock system of the main Chamber, but we do have the high-tech alternative of a bell, which will be sounded at one minute prior to a speech’s conclusion. Without further ado, I call James Wharton.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

I was, of course, referring to private sector investment. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but we have to look at the figures realistically. A lot of the spending that has been announced is for specific large projects, some of which are in London, such as Crossrail, and some of which will potentially benefit the north-east, such as High Speed 2. Although it is not yet coming to our region, the benefits are real.

The RDA has been mentioned. I have my differences with Opposition Members on that issue. I always felt that the RDA was too focused on Newcastle and as the hon. Member for Gateshead said, we must remember and acknowledge that Newcastle is not the entire region. I welcome the new local enterprise partnerships because they are more localised and more focused on the areas where the growth that we want to see needs to be delivered. From the growth that we are seeing and the investment that is being announced, the signs are that LEPs are already doing a good job. The LEP in Teesside is certainly doing an excellent job. It hit the ground running and is making a difference to securing the growth that we need in that part of our region.

There were, of course, a number of announcements in the Budget that will both directly and indirectly benefit our region. One of the most significant is the increase in the personal allowance. In total, across all the Budgets we have had so far from the Government, 82,000 people have been lifted out of income tax altogether in the north-east region. That significant and welcome benefit will make a real difference to the lives of tens of thousands of families across the north-east who are on the lowest incomes and who most need that support.

The increase in the personal allowance will also, of course, deliver improvements for our regional economy because that money is not being taken in tax and spirited away to London to be redistributed in accordance with the diktat of the Government—whoever they are. That money is staying in the pockets of families in the north-east, so that they can spend it in our local economy, provide a welcome economic boost and create jobs and growth, which is what we all want to see.

In the north-east, the income tax bills of nearly 1 million people will decrease, although some of them will not be entirely lifted out of income tax just yet. The child benefit tapering changes are a welcome mitigation of the impact of the need to control the child benefit bill because of the financial situation in which the Government find themselves. That will benefit 14,000 families across the north-east and is another welcome measure in the Budget that will leave more money in our regional economies and in the pockets of the people who live and work in the north-east and elsewhere. That policy will make a difference to our regional economy and the lives of those who live in the regions.

Negatives in the Budget do exist. Stamp duty land tax is increasing. However, we are lucky in the north-east because only 1% of the properties affected—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Mr Grahame Morris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend is right. That proves how much we have to celebrate what the previous Labour Government did for the north-east of England. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been frozen for people under the age of 21. It has gone up by only 11p this year as a consequence of the decisions made by this Government. At the same time, 4,000 to 5,000 taxpayers on the 50p tax rate in the region will on average receive a tax cut of £10,000 each. If that does not show that we are not all in this together, I do not know what does. The Government put VAT on pasties, but they did not put VAT on caviar.

The 40p tax rate has been ignored by many people. The threshold has been reduced from £42,475 to £41,450, so that 300,000 people will be brought into the 40p tax rate. How many more people will lose a proportion of their child benefit because of the reduction in that threshold? Will the Minister indicate whether she knows that figure? By reducing the threshold, the number of people paying the 40p tax rate in the region has gone up by 8%. There are now nearly 110,000 people paying the 40p tax rate. Little by little, the Government’s fairness agenda is being found out—actually, we are not all in this together.

I am very concerned about regional pay. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned the flexibility in local pay in the court system, but we reduced the number of bands from 40-odd to five; we did not increase the number of bands. The latest survey by the TUC states that 68%—more than two thirds—of Conservative voters do not believe that regional pay in the public sector will boost jobs in the private sector.

The Budget is divisive. It is also complacent. It does nothing for growth, not just in the north-east of England, but in the rest of the country.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend in full flow, but it is important to place on the record that, although we welcome the additional jobs and the announcement about Nissan, it must be put in context. Does he agree that although 250 jobs are welcome, they do not go anywhere near even offsetting the private sector job losses in my constituency alone? Reckitt Benckiser has lost 500 jobs; Fortress Doors has lost 100; Carillion, Cumbrian Foods and, most recently—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is beginning to make another speech. This must be an intervention. I remind hon. Members that each of the first two interventions adds a minute to the time that the speaker is allowed. Hon. Members are in danger of pushing one of their colleagues off the end of the list, if they are not careful.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.

We in the south-east of Northumberland are a million miles away from Nissan. The perceived jobs bonanza at Nissan is two bus journeys, a Metro journey and a further bus journey away. We wish that we had the same opportunities as there are at Nissan. We hope that they will come. We have not even got a rail service in my area: there is a railway line but no trains to run on it. We cannot even get to Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough city centre from where we live, because there are not the transport links and the much-needed transfer links.

I want to focus on a strong appeal to the Minister to hear the case of the people in south-east Northumberland. If we in Wansbeck are to have an opportunity for growth, a Northumberland extension of the North Eastern local enterprise partnership enterprise zone—the port of Blyth and the estuary—needs to benefit from capital allowances and rate relief at the same time. It is not enough to extend the enterprise zone without the provision of the additional allowances and incentives necessary to attract businesses and jobs. We need those guarantees. In addition, with the appropriate allowances and incentives, further extension to the enterprise zone is desperately needed, so that it stretches through Wansbeck as far up the coast as the Alcan site. A failure to do so will place Wansbeck and south-east Northumberland at a distinct disadvantage, by further damaging employment opportunities for our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. Hon. Members have participated in the debate and should do the Minister the courtesy of listening to her response.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Sir Roger. The new right-to-buy discount introduced by this Government is more than three times the current limit in the north-east of £22,000.

In his opening comments, the hon. Member for Gateshead used words such as “outdated”, and various other words have been bandied around today. I think that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, need to look around and see the threat to today’s economy, which in one word is debt. Debt is a problem both in the UK and globally, and this Government are determined to sort it out. Fiscal consolidation is necessary. Those in the Labour party seek to spend more, borrow more and owe more, and therefore to pile more debt on their children, and indeed my children. The hon. Gentleman, and those on the Opposition Front Bench, still believe that child benefit should be claimed by millionaires. We do not; we believe that there should be consolidation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid that I do not have time because I must respond to concerns about local government funding and the claim that local authorities in the north-east have taken disproportionate cuts. As I have made clear, the previous Government left an appalling economic and financial mess, and we have a moral obligation to pay back our debts as quickly as possible. Therefore, tough decisions are necessary. The hon. Member for Gateshead will know that the formula grant in his area will be nearly £555 per person in 2011-12, compared with an average of £372 across England. That reflects the higher level of need in Gateshead, and I expect him to welcome that. In the light of issues raised by hon. Members, the Government’s key priority is returning the UK economy to sustainable, economic growth.

Before time runs out, I want to talk about local enterprise partnerships. Such partnerships have radically reshaped the way businesses and the Government interact at local level, and they mark a sharp break from the top-down, politically driven regional policy of the previous Government. The winners of the first two rounds of the regional growth fund are expected to create over 13,500 direct jobs and 25,000 indirect jobs in the north-east, including at Gateshead college in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The Government are taking forward an ambitious work programme that will assist with city deals for core regions, and I encourage all hon. Members present to engage with that.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Will hon. Gentlemen and Ladies who participated in the last debate and are leaving please do so quietly? As they are doing so, I thank everyone for their courtesy and patience this morning, which has allowed every hon. Member to have at least some say.