Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

On the publication of Government analysis, I have made it clear on several occasions that once Parliament is being asked to vote on a proposal—on a package—it will be appropriate for the Government to publish the analysis that they have, to make sure that that debate is as informed as possible. The future trajectory of household incomes will depend, in part, on the quality of the deal we negotiate as we exit the EU, and we are focused on getting the very best deal for British jobs, British prosperity and British businesses.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

T2. Much champagne, or, in the more discerning households, English or Welsh sparkling wine, was drunk at the weekend, so what is the Chancellor doing financially to help promote and expand this excellent domestic wine industry? Post Brexit, will he address the anomaly whereby fizz is taxed more than still wine, which has a higher alcohol volume?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

I know that my hon. Friend represents some of the finest English sparkling wine vineyards, and I am pleased to say that some new ones have recently opened in Norfolk. We now have record exports of more than £100 million a year of our fantastic sparkling wine and we will continue to look at our policies to promote this brilliant product.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues. To be fair to the Government, we introduced social impact bonds and the troubled families programme, which seems to be working. There are good signs in terms of improved school attendance and reduced youth crime and antisocial behaviour. We do recognise the benefits of early intervention, but I am happy to discuss it with him at greater length over the weeks ahead.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to the Chief Secretary and commend to him last year’s “Building Great Britons” report by the all-party parliamentary group for the first 1,001 critical days, which I chair. The report revealed that the cost of getting it wrong on perinatal mental health and child neglect is some £23 billion. Does he agree that investing in young people at an early stage is every bit as beneficial to the economy as investing in roads and infrastructure? Will he allow the all-party group to give him a presentation on how we can save him and the country a great deal of money and give our children a better future?

[Mr Gauke]

I would be interested in seeing such a presentation, whether with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) or separately—I am happy either way. The Government have already demonstrated a willingness to look at any such case and will respond to the evidence, which I look forward to hearing.

Finance Bill

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

That is absolutely correct. Having observed the history of 40 years of membership of the European Union, as it is now called, we know that it is not going to stay like this. The European Union will continue to develop. The trend of taking more taxation powers away from the member states, in the name of the single market, is enshrined in article 113, so it will continue to do so. Yes, we have a veto, but the European Court of Justice tends to accelerate the pace of tax harmonisation just when we do not expect it to do so. It is the ECJ that extended VAT to certain items and categories of goods when we did not expect it to do so.

The group of amendments also addresses the renewables obligation incentives and seeks to adjust the feed-in tariff regime. Why are we able to reduce taxation on renewable energy products to only 5%? It is because of the European Union. Why could the previous Labour Government not abolish VAT on fuel, which they said they wanted to do after it had been applied by the Major Administration? It is because of the European Union.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying, although I am slightly alarmed by his statement that the shadow Cabinet is a semi-public meeting.

Surely the harmonisation of tax fails on two fronts. First, different countries treat these products at the higher rate, the lower rate or at no rate. Secondly, on equality of treatment, is my hon. Friend able to think of any other product that is taxed so discriminately that it affects only one half of the population of the European Union, who just happen to be women? Is that not the most discriminatory and iniquitous measure that the EU has come up with?

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and raises the spectre of a case to bring before the courts—perhaps even the European Court of Justice—on the basis of discrimination. Perhaps that would be one way of resolving this particular problem.

I am shamelessly using this example as an opportunity to make a far broader and more important constitutional point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have increased the personal allowance, taking low-paid people out of tax, and we are now introducing a national living wage, but we make no apology for supporting aspiration and the human instinct that people have to pass something on to their children. If the Labour party is against that as well, it really is moving backwards rather than forwards.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

T4. The Chancellor’s announcement on the living wage was widely welcomed, but what assurances can he give to residential care homes that offer subsidised places, of which there are many in Worthing, which will suffer from the proposed changes but will not benefit on the other side from the record reductions in corporation tax?

[Mr Osborne]

The reduction in corporation tax now applies to small companies as well as larger ones, and we have increased the employment allowance, which will help with the national insurance bills of companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are of course aware of the pressures on the social care system, and that is one thing we will address in the spending review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Clearly, there are issues in the NHS in Wales, but I would caution my hon. Friend about the tone of his question, because health workers in England and in Wales are working as hard as they can to provide the best treatment they can for people on either side of the border. Of course there are failures in terms of funding in Wales and issues that need to be dealt with, but everyone on this side of the House should unite in respect and admiration for our nurses and doctors and the work they do to keep us healthy in this country.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

6. If he will make a comparative assessment of the level of duty on wine paid in the UK and in other EU member states.

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

Industry estimates show that there are 135 wineries in England and Wales, producing 4.5 million bottles of wine. The UK’s growing and award-winning wine industry benefited from the Government ending the wine duty escalator at Budget 2014.

[Tim Loughton]

There will be much responsible dancing in the streets if the Chancellor completes a hat-trick of beer duty cuts in his Budget and there will be much responsible celebration if he cuts the duty on spirits. But there will be much wailing and irrepressible disappointment if he does not reduce the duty on wine, which has gone up by 54% since 2008 alone and accounts for 67% of all the duty on all wine in the whole of the EU. Will he complete a fantastic treble-whammy by dropping the duty on wine, too, which it has been estimated would generate some £3 billion in extra revenue—and 20,000 jobs!

[Mr Gauke]

If it is not already too late to make this suggestion, I think my hon. Friend deserves a good bottle at lunchtime after that effort. He has put his case on the record, but of course all announcements are for the Chancellor on Budget day.

Beer Duty

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I am delighted to have secured this debate. I recognise that the final Adjournment debate of the week is not exactly the shift that every Minister wishes for, but I am delighted that she is here today for this important debate. It is important because I am the first MP for more than 10 years to be able to say that beer sales are on the up; beer sales are in growth. That is a direct result of the decision taken by the Chancellor and this Government to scrap the hated beer duty escalator, and to cut beer duty not once, but twice. It is those decisions that have led to the renaissance in brewing that we see at the moment.

In this short Adjournment debate, I intend to make the case to the Minister about why she should complete a hat-trick that would be more memorable than Michael Owen’s hat-trick when he put three past Germany in that magnificent victory for England. I pay tribute to all the people who helped to deliver that important scrapping of the beer duty escalator, and those two cuts. In particular, I pay tribute to the Campaign for Real Ale and its 170,000 members who led the campaign, lobbied Parliament and their MPs, and made the case so vigorously on behalf of the brewing industry and the beer that they love so much.

I also congratulate the British Beer and Pub Association that represents brewers and pub companies across the country, and the Society of Independent Brewers—SIBA. The Minister knows that there has been a renaissance in small brewers across the country. Some 1,700 brewers are now producing excellent beer across the country, and that is as a result of economic decisions taken by this Government as part of their long-term economic plan.

I also wish to thank the TaxPayers Alliance, which ran the Mash the Beer Tax campaign, and The Sun newspaper. As we know, The Sun is always on the side of the hard-working man and woman in Britain, and it got behind this campaign to cut beer duty so that Britons could enjoy one of those simple pleasures: a pint of great British beer. The Minister will know about the great support that has been shown for this campaign by the Burton Mail—an august publication. I had the privilege of sending her the front page of the Burton Mail, which supports this campaign for the third cut in beer duty.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

While revelling in the congratulations that my hon. Friend is dolling out left, right and centre, may I slightly rain on his parade? Although we are delighted with the abolition of the escalator, the last Budget, which of course introduced the 2% cut in beer duty and a freeze for spirits, actually increased duty on wine by 2.47%. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary wine and spirits group, may I ask whether he agrees that we need a better deal for wine drinkers as well?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I would be forced to agree with him as Mrs Griffiths is no stranger to a large pinot grigio. I point out that the campaign last time was led by a doughty Back Bencher who argued vociferously for cuts in alcohol duty, and I hope that there is some consistency in that argument in the weeks to come.

I thank colleagues on both sides of the House. Although the hated beer duty escalator was Labour’s design, colleagues from all political parties supported the campaign. I would particularly like to pay tribute to members of the all-party parliamentary beer group, the all-party parliamentary save the pub group and, of course, my colleague the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who was instrumental in that campaign.

I am the MP for brewing. Burton is the home of British brewing, and some 5,873 people in my constituency are employed in beer and pubs. A thousand of them are young people, and it is interesting that this industry can offer great opportunities to the 16 to 25-year-olds the Government are trying to get into work and off the unemployment lists. The hospitality industry, and the pub industry in particular, represents a massive opportunity to help in that respect. I point out to the Minister that 1,136 people in Witham are employed in beer, pubs and brewing, so she will understand the issue’s importance.

In my constituency, the gross value to the local economy is £348 million, and we contribute £438 million to the Treasury—something that, I am sure, delights the Minister. Nationally, the industry contributes £10 billion in taxation. At a time when we want to pay off the debt and pay down the deficit, that contribution must not be underestimated. Beer and pubs are vital to this country, and 1 million people rely on the beer and pub industry for their employment. I have alluded to the fact that 46% of those people are between the ages of 16 and 24.

Beer is a success story. We brew the best beer in the world, and 82% of all the beer consumed in this country is brewed here by brewers big and small, producing a fantastic product. Although I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), wine is imported into this country—[Interruption]—ostensibly, but I have sampled, as has Mrs Griffiths, some fine English and Welsh wines.

[Tim Loughton]

I am delighted to hear about Mrs Griffiths’s delectation of fruit-based drinks for ladies, as I believe someone calls them. Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now 448 commercial vineyards and 131 wineries in the United Kingdom, and that the hectarage given over to vineyards here has more than doubled in the past 10 years, with 4.5 million bottles of excellent quality, world-beating English wine produced in this country and not imported?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely understand the points that my hon. Friend makes, but I gently point out that seven out of 10 drinks that are drunk in pubs are beer. If we value our community pubs, we can support them by supporting the great British brewing industry. Beer gets people into our community pubs, which are the backbone of our society, and each pub contributes £80,000 a year to the local economy. Of course, some of them offer other services—they are the post office, the local shop, and offer many facilities. We have heard of groups who have meals on wheels in their pubs. Pubs play an important role, and, as I have said before, they form the fabric of our community: the great British pub.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have spoken about this at the APPG. The pub is absolutely pivotal to boosting Great Britain’s brand. Tourism and our rural economies are part of that. When we speak about pubs, it is about enjoyment—the fact that people enjoy them. As a policy maker and a Minister, I sometimes think that that is not sufficiently taken into account.

The case for supporting pubs and brewers as institutions is overwhelming. We see that across the country, beyond pubs, in the supply chain and the wider industry. Maltings and other factors in the supply chain are crucial and pivotal to our economy.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made a fantastic economic case for the beer industry that the Minister is fortunately echoing. Will she apply the same criteria to the wine industry, which accounts for some 22% of sales in pubs and restaurants, accounts for no less than 67% of all the wine duty paid in the whole of the EU, and contributes £3.7 billion to the Exchequer? Will she see a delegation from the all-party group on wine and spirits, led by me? If we can combine that with happy hour at the Treasury, I will gladly bring along a bottle of Nyetimber, Ridgeview, or my favourite champenois, Breaky Bottom—“Probably the best bottom in the world”, as it markets itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is right that house builders should be seizing the opportunity to make homes as energy-efficient as possible. That does not, however, detract from the very important point that the Help to Buy scheme was started to try to regenerate growth in the housing market, and that is an achievement that all Members should be proud of.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Stamp duty on homes is a major money-spinner for the Treasury, yet it is paid disproportionately by hard-working families in the south-east of England who have to pay at least twice as much for a family home and therefore twice as much stamp duty as they might for a home in the shadow Chancellor’s constituency, for example. Is it not time to consider regional stamp duty rates so as to be fairer to hard-working families?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I accept my hon. Friend’s suggestion as a lobby to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, to whom I shall chat in due course, no doubt, in the Members’ Tea Room.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hoyle. I rise to speak to the Opposition’s amendment to clause 11 regarding the coalition’s proposed tax relief for married couples and civil partners. Before I begin, let nobody be in any doubt that the Opposition believe that marriage and civil partnerships are a force for good in society. Making a binding lifelong commitment to a partner in that way is truly to be celebrated. Let us not pretend, however, that the Government’s marriage tax allowance, introduced by clause 11 of this year’s Finance Bill, is anything other than a complete and utter dud of a policy.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

If that is the case, why in 13 years did the Labour Government not do a single thing—such as introducing a transferrable tax allowance, for example—to recognise married couples in the tax and benefits system? They did not do a single thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The proposal under consideration only gives any sort of tax benefit, small though it is, to a third of married couples. I am surprised that Government Members are not more keen to explore the potential alternatives to this dud policy.

[Tim Loughton]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

Let me make some progress. We are left in a position in which the Minister now finds himself trying to defend a policy that neither his boss nor his deputy support. It is an absolute farce, but clearly Government Members do support it, and quite vehemently. I hope to persuade them to consider the Opposition amendment and take a second look at the policy. If that fails and the policy is implemented in the Finance Bill, I want them to agree to review its impact within six months of its implementation to ensure that it is having the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people.

What is it about this policy that is so bad? Frankly, it is hard to know where to start. Let us begin by looking at who will benefit from this highly restrictive and very complicated measure, which will allow couples to transfer up to £1,050 of their income tax personal allowance to their spouse with effect from April 2015. Of course it applies to married couples and those in civil partnerships, but not just to any old marriages or any old civil partnerships. No, the Government have decided that there is a very particular form of marriage or civil partnership that they wish to recognise in the tax system. Unintentionally, misleading statements were made by the Prime Minister to this House—[Hon. Members: “What!”] Unintentionally, I said. The marriage tax allowance introduced by clause 11 applies only to those couples where one spouse is a basic rate taxpayer and the other does not use their full personal allowance. That scenario has been described by the “Don’t judge my family” campaign as a fantasy 1950s family with a breadwinner and a home maker. The policy will therefore exclude married couples and civil partners on the very lowest incomes where both spouses earn below the income tax personal allowance; couples where both spouses, possibly both basic rate taxpayers, have incomes higher than the personal allowance and therefore have no unused portion to transfer; and couples where either spouse pays the higher rate or the additional 45% rate, with an ever increasing number having been drawn into the 40 pence rate under this Government.

How many people are we taking about? How many households across the country will benefit from the Government’s flagship policy for supporting families? Their own recent estimates suggest 4.2 million couples, which equates to a grand total of one in three married couples and civil partnerships in this country. Two thirds of married couples and civil partnerships will not benefit from a policy intended to recognise marriage in the system.

[Tim Loughton]

I agree that there is a flaw in what the hon. Lady is discussing. Presumably, like me, she wishes to see that relief being extended not just to those on the basic rate but to a greater number of married couples with children. That is the logical conclusion of what she is saying, unless she admits once and for all that the Opposition do not support marriage in the tax system.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We have a much better suggestion as to how the money that has been allocated to the marriage tax allowance can be used to support millions of taxpayers up and down the country, including families with children. So what about those families with children who are hoping in vain for any sign of support from this Government whose tax and benefit changes will result in households being, on average, £974 a year worse off by 2015 than they were in 2010? The Exchequer Secretary, who is in his place, has conceded that of Britain’s 7.8 million families with children, just 1.4 million will benefit from this policy. Yes, that is right—one in six families with children will gain from this marriage tax allowance. To put it another way, five in six families with children will not get a penny from this Government’s flagship policy to support them.

The policy does nothing for widows, widowers, lone parents, long-term co-habiting couples, the 300,000 children living with grandparents or kinship carers or for the spouse who has left their partner for good reason, perhaps because of domestic abuse. It will not help the wife who has been left to bring up the kids after the husband has run off with another woman. If her husband chooses to marry that other woman, who have the Government decided will get the reward within the tax system? It is him.

How much will the allowance be worth for those lucky married couples who will be eligible? Just how much value are Ministers putting on the role of marriage in our society? Yes, for the one in three couples who will benefit, it could be worth up to £200 a year, almost £3.85 a week. To put that into language that people on the Labour Benches might understand—that is just over one pint of beer or a one-off peak game of bingo a week! Who does the Government expect to reap the benefits from this largesse? Let us take a look at their own assessment of the equality impact, which clearly states that while

“couples will benefit as a unit...the majority...of individual gainers will be male.”

But it is not just any old majority. The Government’s own assessment indicates that a staggering 84% of individual gainers will be male.

Before last year's autumn statement, we knew that the net impact of this Chancellor’s tax and benefit changes since 2010 would hit women three times harder than men, not least as a result of his decision to give a £3 billion tax cut to the top 1% of earners in this country, 85% of whom just happen to be men. As a result of the autumn statement 2013, in which the marriage tax allowance was confirmed, that appalling record has worsened even further, such that the Chancellor’s tax and benefit strategy is now hitting women a staggering four times harder than men, raising a net £3.047 billion from men, and £11.628 billion, or 79%, from women—[Interruption.] I hear the word scandalous uttered from a sedentary position, and I quite agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly pertinent point, and expresses her case powerfully. Child poverty is set to increase by a staggering amount under this Government, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly said that that is a direct result of the tax and benefit changes that they have implemented. The measure, which Government Members are keen to support, will do nothing to alleviate child poverty or to turn the tide of increasing child poverty over the next few years.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady has cited the IFS, which has conducted an analysis of the distributional impact of the transferrable allowance, demonstrating that it is profoundly progressive, disproportionately benefiting those in the bottom half of the income distribution scale. Perhaps she would read us all the research, rather than a selective part of it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman is incredibly selective. If he genuinely believes that the policy will transform the Government’s appalling record on child poverty and the impact of their tax and benefit changes on women, he is deluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady’s comic timing is exemplary. I will develop my more detailed arguments, if she will allow me, given that she had the thick end of 46 minutes to develop her own. That is probably the record for an Opposition spokesman—or spokesperson—although I accept that it was on the Opposition’s amendment.

This has been a long time coming—

[Tim Loughton]

Forty-seven minutes.

[Mr Jackson]

Indeed—47 minutes, as my hon. Friend says. However, it has definitely been worth waiting for.

In presenting a 10% partly transferable allowance, clause 11 may not yet be worth a huge amount, but it is of seminal importance in supporting marriage in the tax system. For the past 15 years, our tax system has been unusual in not recognising marriage, or indeed any other aspect of family responsibility. Our fiscal policy has been extraordinarily individualistic. Clause 11 changes that by inserting into our system of independent taxation the transferable allowance that former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, the architect of independent taxation, has argued it always should have had. I genuinely believe that qualifying the individualism of our current fiscal policy should be something we can all agree on, and that should appeal to Labour Members. The Opposition spokesperson failed on two occasions to answer the specific question of why, in 13 years in office, her party failed to support the institution of marriage in the tax system in any meaningful way. That is regrettable on her part, because it is disingenuous to say, “We disagree with the policy but, incidentally, this is how you can improve it.” It is churlish and mean-spirited from a party that claims to support the family in the tax system, and children as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

Plymouth has one of the largest percentages of single parents in the country—I will return to that point—and my constituents think that the measure is unfair. How people in other countries view it is entirely up to them, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my constituents do not see it as fair.

The transferable allowance—a tax break of about £1,000—discriminates against millions of families, especially those headed by single parents, as well as against non-married couples. We know from the Office for National Statistics that there are about 2 million single-parent households. They find life complicated enough at the moment. They are being hit with the bedroom tax, while some will definitely not benefit from this tax change, and most feel that this Government are not on their side. They face the same challenges as married couples with children, but they face them alone. They have to survive on one income, and they are mostly not single parents from choice. Sadly, death, divorce and separation take their toll on relationships, and financial pressures mount in every one of those circumstances. What have this Government done? They have introduced a measure that will favour just a third of couples and just one in six families with children.

I am almost speechless about this measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) drew attention to the fact that men will benefit from it far more than women. She highlighted other areas in which men have disproportionately benefited from changes brought in by this Government—this predictably male-dominated Government—and that fact has not been lost on the electorate. Quite frankly, women feel that, for some reason or other, they are becoming second-class citizens in tax terms and all other terms. I am picking that up on the doorstep, and my guess is that we will see it reflected in the ballot box in the elections ahead.

As I said, my constituency has an above-average number of single parents—roughly 38%—who, as I am sure other hon. Members will acknowledge, are struggling to make ends meet. It is wrong for the Government to encourage one type of relationship over another. The policy discriminates against widows, single parents and couples who both work, as well as parents who choose not to marry. Importantly, this tax break might discriminate against children who grow up in single-parent families, and against adults who leave abusive relationships.

In its recent report, “The Home Front”, Demos has argued:

“Evidence shows that it is the quality of relationships rather than relationship status which has the greater effect on…children’s outcomes. There is no evidence of a ‘marriage effect’, rather marriage is probably a proxy for more successful relationships… many married couples do not have children, making this proposal both moralising and inefficient, as it draws resources away from some of the most at-risk families.”

This is a tax change to please the Tory few, but it discriminates against millions of hard-working families. It should be scrapped. We should support the amendment, which demands a closer look at and a review of the measure’s impact, so I will support my hon. Friend in the Lobby this afternoon.

[Tim Loughton]

I do not think that the Opposition are being honest with us. Last week, they tabled a reasoned amendment declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, one reason being that

“it offers a marriage tax allowance which will help only a third of married couples, rather than a 10 pence starting rate of tax which would help millions more families”.

Coming from a party that dispensed with a 10p tax rate when it was in government, those reasons show inconsistency and brass neck, while the opening speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made a good case for extending the transferable married couple’s tax allowance to make it fairer and more inclusive.

Amendment 3 does not offer outright opposition. It is a fudged amendment, which calls for a review, including

“a calculation of the proportion of married couples and civil partners who are eligible…;…an assessment of the impact…;…the cost to the Exchequer…; and…an assessment of alternative tax reliefs”.

For starters, we know all that. There is a contrast between that and the Labour Opposition’s new clause 1 on child care provision, which was considered yesterday. It asked for a different sort of tax relief or public subsidy, but it did not have any conditions attached to it about a review after six months, a calculation of the proportion of people who benefit, or an assessment of its impact.

The Opposition are entirely disingenuous and inconsistent. Why do they not just come out and say, “We fundamentally—completely and utterly—disagree with and oppose the concept of transferable married couple’s tax allowances”? Why have they not done so in the amendment that we are debating? That would have been more honest, and we could then have had a proper debate. I think that the Opposition are being disingenuous.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

On the subject of inconsistency, the hon. Gentleman voted against giving same-sex couples the right to marry, so having opposed that union, does he now support their having a tax break?

[Tim Loughton]

During consideration of last year’s Finance Bill, when my hon. Friends and I put forward in an amendment the concept of the married couple’s tax allowance—the hon. Lady can look this up in the record—I specifically said that the allowance would apply both to civil partnerships and to married couples on enactment. That has never been in question, and the allowance should be absolutely consistent. The law now, however I may have voted, is that we recognise same-sex marriages and that the tax and benefit advantages that go with marriage must be applied to those new circumstances. That is not an issue. There are many issues that we may debate, but that is not one of them.

The Labour party did not and continues not to recognise marriage in the tax and benefit system. Labour chooses to ignore the fact that marriage, whether we like it or not, happens to be the most stable environment in which to bring up children. I was slightly surprised by the lengthy contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North because, given her previous role as shadow children’s Minister and her great interest and expertise in that area, she did not once elaborate on the benefit for children of an arrangement such as we are seeking to introduce. As far as I am concerned, the heart of what we should be achieving is the creation of greater stability for children, and it so happens that marriages do that best of all.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Opposition are committed to supporting families and children. The fact is that this marriage tax allowance benefits only one in six households with children and only one in three marriages. Although the hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech, the policy completely fails to address the issue.

[Tim Loughton]

That is a good reason for going further. The debut of a married couple’s tax allowance in this Bill is a starting point, and it is the first recognition of marriage in this country’s tax and benefit system. I would like to include many more married couples, particularly concentrating on those with children under the age of five. That is where the allowance can have the greatest impact. We need to provide the greatest stability for young children in their most formative and impressionable years.

[Mr Burrowes]

The married couple’s tax allowance is a starting point, but I want to revise my hon. Friend’s description of this being its debut. Marriage was recognised in the tax system until 2000. We are only properly restoring what countries across the world, including more than 80% of European countries, recognise. We are simply going back to what was the case. We should not have moved away from that recognition in the first place.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is right. He has been a pioneer in this area for a long time. The previous Government abolished the recognition, and they had 13 years to try to do something about recognising families in the tax system. Despite the easy words of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, the previous Government did absolutely nothing in practice. That is the record on which they should be judged.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

If the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is correct about his party being pro-marriage and wanting to prevent divorce, how does he account for the decline of divorce between 2003 and 2009? The divorce rate only started to go up again after 2010.

[Tim Loughton]

Very simply, because the number of marriages went down. The change in the divorce rate is a simple statistical manifestation of the number of marriages.

The Liberal Democrats, who are heroically represented here today by the lone star hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), have perhaps been more honest about the married couple’s tax allowance, which they have never supported. Their leader has some bizarre reasons for not supporting it, but they have been absolutely honest. If they had not been involved in some sort of deal, of which we are completely oblivious, they might have been here to vote against the measure, and of course we are very disappointed that they are not here.

The measure will benefit 4 million couples, including 15,000 in civil partnerships and hopefully a good many who adopt the new status that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned earlier. My hon. Friends and I welcome the last-minute inclusion of the transferable married couple’s tax allowance in this Finance Bill. The allowance was promised in our manifesto, and it will initially be worth up to £210, but I contrast that with the up to £10,000-worth of subsidies rightly being made available for child care assistance—albeit that that will be available also for higher rate taxpayers whose household earnings may be as high as £300,000—which is still very far from a level playing field. That is why some of us, when the economy has recovered to the extent that it needs to recover after the car crash of 13 years under Labour, ultimately want to see a fully transferable married couple’s tax allowance—the full £10,500-worth, not just 10%. The married couple’s tax allowance is linked to the personal allowance in the Bill.

[Ian Swales]

As with other Government Members, the hon. Gentleman is making a passionate case, but we are considering the detail of the policy. Is he not concerned that the policy will effectively introduce a new 20% tax rate below the personal allowance as the married couple’s tax allowance is progressively withdrawn on the second earner between £9,500 and £10,500?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) addressed some of those problems, which I hope my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will consider as the Bill progresses. Perhaps they can come back with an amendment either in Committee or on Report.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I am being terribly generous, but of course I will give way.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous. He mentioned that his long-term aspiration is for the transferable allowance to be extended to the full £10,000 of the personal allowance. Does he know what the distributional implications of that would be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

Interestingly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has done a lot of work in that area—this also relates to what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said about child poverty—and its report states:

“The risk of poverty is much higher for children in couple families where only one parent works; sole earner families account for a significant minority of poor families with children. Many fathers”—

this applies to mothers, too—

“have to work long hours, making it harder for them to get involved in family life and more difficult for mothers to work. To enable more low-income families to have both partners in work”.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation makes a case for why such recognition helps lower paid families, too. My long-term aspiration is that we should fully extend the allowance, but at this stage, as I stated in my proposed amendment to last year’s Finance Bill, I would like us to concentrate on families with children under the age of five. If it meant that we could extend a more generous allowance to families with children under that age, I would be happy for the allowance not to extend to married couples generally. Such an amendment has been costed at between £700 million and £750 million, which is affordable in the context of what else is happening.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s definition of a family? He keeps talking about families, rather than married couples with children. Does he consider a family—I hope this is not what he intends—only to be one in which a couple is married?

[Tim Loughton]

I am talking about married couples, which now take different forms. As we have already discussed, the definition includes same-sex marriages, civil partnerships and conventionally married couples. That is to whom the allowance should apply, which has never been in doubt. The allowance is about making it easier for parents to choose the best way to bring up their children. Frankly, it is insulting to describe the measure as discriminating against single parents.

[Alison Seabeck]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I am about to address the hon. Lady’s point. She may then want to intervene.

Most single parents are not single parents by design or intention. Many are single parents because they have been deserted, subjected to violence or for other reasons, and they are doing an incredible job of bringing up children in very difficult circumstances. We are doing things for them and we probably need to do more for many of them. However, that should not preclude our wanting to do more for people who get no recognition whatever in the tax system, who are also often bringing up children in difficult circumstances. Just because one is in favour of introducing a transferable married couple’s tax allowance, the implication is not that one is in some way against people who happen to be single parents or to be bringing up children on their own. It is a typical Labour argument that if someone is for something, they must be against something else. This is about achieving a much more level playing field for people who choose to engage in a relationship of marriage.

[Alison Seabeck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he will allow me, I will read a text that I have received from one of my constituents. She says:

“As one of YOUR 38%…nonsense I and kids should be disadvantaged because I chose to leave abusive relationship and bring them up alone in happy home!”

I am really sorry, but that is the view of the public on this measure.

[Tim Loughton]

That is the view of one constituent who has not yet listened to the whole debate. Introducing a married couple’s transferable tax allowance in no way disadvantages that constituent. [Interruption.] In what way is she financially disadvantaged? It is a typical Labour response to say that if someone is in favour of something, they must be anti something else. I am in favour of doing a lot more for constituents who find themselves in that position through no fault of their own and who need help, support and recognition. However, there are also many married couples who need support in bringing up their children, often in difficult circumstances. Just because we want to help them, it does not mean that we are disadvantaging somebody else.

[Andrew Selous]

Of course, everyone in every part of this House is against abuse in any type of relationship. If we want to reduce abuse, does my hon. Friend agree that we should recognise that women and children are significantly more vulnerable to violence and neglect in cohabiting families than in married families? What we are doing today is part of addressing that issue.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend has done a great amount of work on this issue and there is a much bigger picture.

This policy is popular among the public. It is popular with a majority of Labour voters. It is even popular with an awful lot of Liberal Democrat voters, despite that party’s policy being against it. Last May, the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills attacked the “prejudice” directed at stay-at-home mothers. I am sure that he would have included stay-at-home fathers to be inclusive. It is deeply insulting to the many millions of married couples who have decided to make a lifelong commitment to each other that is recognised in law in front of their family and friends to suggest that we are discriminating in some way against other people.

Some 90% of young people aspire to get married. Some 75% of cohabiting couples under the age of 35 also aspire to get married. There are many forms of family in the 21st century and many people do a fantastic job of keeping their families together and bringing up children, often in difficult circumstances. However, as many of my hon. Friends have said, almost uniquely among the large OECD economies, the UK does not recognise the commitment and stability of marriage in the tax system until one partner dies. Worse still, one-earner married couples on an average wage with two children face a tax burden that is 45% greater than the OECD average, and that gap continues to widen.

To introduce such a recognition of marriage, particularly in the modest form suggested in the Bill, is not to disparage parents who find themselves single through no fault of their own, nor to undermine couples with two hard-working parents, all of whom rightly get help and support from the state in other forms and for whom we might need to do more. Uniquely, married couples, civil partners and same-sex marriage partners are discriminated against in our tax system.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and fluent case. He spoke about the popularity of the policy with Labour voters. Is it not also the case that significant polling evidence shows that young people across all classes, ethnicities and races support the institution of marriage and hope one day to be part of it?

[Tim Loughton]

Absolutely. It sends out a very poor message to those people for Labour to say that marriage is very nice, but we will not recognise it in the tax and benefit system.

Frankly, it is those who oppose this measure—we have heard them again today—as some sort of 1950s throwback who are being judgmental about how certain people choose to live in their relationships. Disgracefully, they are seeking to pit working mothers and dads against stay-at-home mothers and dads, who are no less, and often more, hard-working. That certainly applies to the increasing number of stay-at-home dads who have made a conscious decision to give up a career because they think that is how they can best bring up their children. The state should respect that.

My support for a transferable married couple’s tax allowance has never been based on a moral stance on types of relationship. My concern, as one might expect from someone who formerly had responsibility in government for children, has always been based on what is best for children. That is why I favour the allowance for families with young children.

Quite simply, if a 15-year-old is living at home with both parents, there is a 97% likelihood that their parents will be married. There is a one in 10 chance that married parents will split up by the time their child reaches five, but a one in three chance that unmarried, cohabiting parents will split up by that time. As the Centre for Social Justice has shown, those who do not grow up in two-parent, married families are 75% more likely to fail at school and 70% more likely to be involved with drugs or to have alcohol problems. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which I have already quoted, has identified poorer outcomes for children from separating families. Importantly, a stable home can raise a child’s chances of escaping the poverty trap by 82%. Let us not forget that family breakdown, the prevention of which is the thrust behind this measure, is costing us £46 billion. That is about £1,460 for every taxpayer in this country every year. Marriage accounts for 54% of births but only 20% of break-ups among families with children under the age of five.

I am therefore surprised that nowhere in any of the contributions from Labour Members in support of the amendment did they touch on the outcome for children. That is the most important target at which the measure is aimed. The poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said.

Clause 11 alone will not solve all the problems I have set out. I am not naive enough to suggest that £210, or whatever the result is, will represent the difference between staying married and getting divorced or between getting married and cohabiting. However, it does send out the clear and strong message that we value couples who take the decision to bring up their children within marriage. There is a need to address the lack of a level playing field in bringing up children between couples who are not married and those who are. There are 2.2 million households in which one partner is in full-time work and the other is not earning. Those households include 1.2 million children and 700,000 of them include a youngest child who is under the age of five. Those are the families we should start with. Those are the families who deserve our support and recognition most of all. This clause, at last, goes some way towards rectifying that.

[Steve McCabe]

I support the amendment and oppose clause 11. I fear that the clause shows all that is wrong with the modern Tory party. It is based on an illusion—the idea that the Tory party has some special affection for marriage that is shown in its policy actions. Conservative Members have been keen to say that Labour was wrong not introduce such a measure during our 13 years in government, but of course we were not wrong. Had we done so, we would have got into exactly the same mess the Government are in today. We would have been perpetrating a con on the electorate by pretending a level of support for married couples and families with children that our policy simply could not deliver. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but we have heard that he suffers from that delusion. He thinks that he is helping people with children, but in fact he is helping a narrow band of those people.

As we have heard, the policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the tax system. It is a policy for a few married couples and some in civil partnerships—perhaps as few as 3.4 million of the UK’s 12.4 million couples who are married or in civil partnerships. In some ways it is a classic coalition policy, because it does not really satisfy anyone. Those in the Tory party who favour traditional marriage never intended that the tax relief should go to those in civil partnerships—that was not what they were arguing for at the outset. [Hon. Members: “Yes, it was.”] No, it wasn’t. If Conservative Members want to tell me that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is a keen advocate of civil partnerships, I guess that they have missed his speeches and blogs in recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Lady is right, and Government Members have attempted to make that point before. She is absolutely right that the VAT rise put enormous pressure on both petrol costs and all sorts of other family incomes.

At its best, the Government’s measure will reward about 3.4 million of the country’s couples who are married or in civil partnerships with £4 a week. That is the figure from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but if the Government have better figures and want to challenge the IFS, that will be welcome. I would be interested to know not only the cost of the tax relief but the administrative costs of a £4 a week benefit for 3.4 million couples. It does not strike me as the best way to reduce the overall costs of tax collection or harmonise the system.

As was acknowledged earlier, the transfer of allowances reintroduces an element of joint taxation, a measure that the Tory party sought to abolish when it moved to individual taxation as long ago as 1990. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talked about all the countries that recognise marriage, but the move to individual taxation is a much bigger trend in tax systems across the world. It seems to me that it is the Tory party that is moving in the wrong direction, because as we have heard in this debate, Conservative Members want to move to a fully transferrable tax system. They want to go back to the days of old, and that is exactly what they are going to do. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has something to say. Would he like me to give way to him?

[Tim Loughton]

No.

[Steve McCabe]

Oh, he just wants to mutter in the corner. Well, nothing new there.

[Tim Loughton]

Okay, I will intervene.

[Steve McCabe]

Oh, he has changed his mind. He wants to mutter more loudly now.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman tantalises me too much. Will he undertake that, in the highly unlikely and disastrous event that there is a Labour-led Government after the next election, he wants this tax allowance to be abolished in their first Finance Bill, so that 3.4 million married couples—or 4 million or however many—will no longer benefit from it because of Labour’s warped priorities?

[Steve McCabe]

I have never thought of myself as someone who tempts the hon. Gentleman, but I can give a commitment that a Labour Government would move to a fair tax policy. That is what this is all about, which Conservative Members fail to recognise.

[Tim Loughton]

Is that a yes or a no?

[Steve McCabe]

As I said, I am in favour of fair tax. I say it again, so that the hon. Gentleman understands. That is the problem with his party’s policy—it is unfair. If the policy is for only some civil partnerships and married couples, we could target it better. He and I share common ground on one group—people with children—whom we might want to help through the tax system. However, how on earth have we got into a situation in which only 1.4 million couples with children benefit from a proposal? That is an example of a policy that completely fails to do what he would like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

If the hon. Gentleman would pause for a second, he must surely understand that giving people an extra £200 a year is not likely to enable them to continue their marriages when they are under stress. It does not make sense. For £4 a week, the couple could not even have a pint of beer together. The whole thing is absurd—

[Tim Loughton]

It should be higher.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman says that, but the policy is not well targeted. The transferable marriage tax allowance will help just one third of married couples. If we scrapped this allowance and had a mansion tax on homes worth more than £2 million, we could have a tax cut of £100 for 24 million people.

This allowance will go to a third of married couples, and 85% of the benefit will go to men, not to women. Only one in six families with children will get it, and families will only get it if they have only one earner in the family. My test for whether or not this is a good policy is a conversation I had with a constituent of mine recently. She is a shop worker in a supermarket and works 16 hours a week. She has two school-age children. Her husband is not working, because he had an industrial injury. He is on employment and support allowance which, under this Government, will come to an end after 365 days. I simply do not know how a family of four can be expected to live on 16 hours at minimum wage and two lots of child benefit. She cannot. She will lose her tax credits, because she cannot get a shift to increase her hours to 24 a week. Instead of dealing with people like that, who are doing the most responsible things and struggling against all the odds, we have this totally mis-targeted transferable allowance proposal. The Chancellor does not agree with it and the Prime Minister does not agree with it, so why are they doing it? They have made it absolutely clear, in all discussions, that this is about seeing off the Tory right.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is not in the Chamber. He had three articles on this subject in the newspapers this morning. The one in The Times is headlined, “Davis the kingmaker plots the next leadership challenge”. He wrote an article for the Daily Mail online promoting large-scale new breaks for married couples and making many of the points we have heard repeated by less elevated hon. Members this afternoon. Let us look at the response the article received from the public; they are not Guardianistas, but people reading the Daily Mail:

“No…I do not want my taxes going to ‘stay at home’ (eg gym/lunch/shopping) women. I want them to go to help vulnerable, disadvantaged people, not the ‘I’ll park my 4x4 on the pavement even if it inconveniences other people’ bunch. Bad idea.”

Another comment reads:

“This is ridiculous. Surely tax should be calculated on household income rather than basing this on a wife staying at home…some people are carers for the elderly, some are in full time education - just focusing on stay-at-home mums is very unfair.”

Then there is this:

“Thanks to this government telling us what we must believe and what we must not believe…This whole article is politically and socially incorrect and out of date.”

I do not think that this proposal will deliver the political benefits that Government Members are hoping for. It certainly will not deliver the social and economic benefit.

When I was first elected to this House, I sat on the Finance Bill Public Bill Committee with the Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke). Throughout the Committee’s proceedings he told us, on many issues, what Mrs Gauke thought. I hope we will hear what Mrs Gauke thinks this afternoon.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Budget mentioned two of the biggest issues in my constituency, which are housing and child care. However, the Help to Buy provisions solve the problems for only some people, but not for those who rent. That is a real issue in my constituency, and I will touch on it in a minute.

On child care, another initiative has been announced, but the practicalities of it have not been addressed. We still have a Government who are looking to threaten the quality of child care, which, for parents in my constituency, is a real concern.

One of the key things that is missing from the Budget statement today is a Treasury commitment to freeing up public land for housing. Under Treasury rules, public land needs to be sold at the highest price. Years ago, when I was a councillor in Upper Holloway in Islington, I had to fight over the then Royal Northern hospital site to ensure that it was sold to improve housing in the area. Most of the housing there ended up being privately owned because of that very Treasury rule. Some 20 years later, we still have that same rule.

The Budget provided a great opportunity for the Chancellor to allow land to be sold at slightly lower than market rates so that more affordable homes could be built, thus improving public health and the general and economic well-being of people in my constituency. The St Leonard’s hospital site in my constituency is a worry as it is now owned by NHS Property Services and will have to be sold—if it is sold—for the highest rate.

Support for affordable housing in areas such as mine is very important. There are now more private renters than home owners. However, both private renting and ownership are out of the reach of people who live in social housing, and the waiting list for social housing is immense.

This Government treat the country as two halves. Over the past six months, a home owner in Hackney will have seen property prices increase by 3.58%. Someone could earn £15,060 in six months on an average property. The average price of a property in Hackney is now more than half a million pounds—£554,306. A flat would cost £347,000. Someone owning a property could earn £45,000 in a year—nearly double the national average wage. It is fine for those people who own properties, but for those who do not, ownership is a long-distant dream.

Let me quote from a letter from my constituent, Tommy. He said:

“I have been looking to purchase my first home. I am 35, and in full time work since I left university in 2001. I have worked hard my whole life but I still require assistance from my parents to purchase my first home.”

In some ways, Tommy is one of the lucky ones. Although he has not found a home, he has parents who may be able to provide him with some help. Many of my constituents are not in that situation.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some good points about the shortage of affordable housing. Does she support an increase in the threshold of £4,250 for the rent a room scheme, in which landlords can rent out a room or floor of their house tax-free, which has not changed for many years, and does not reflect current rental values? I do not see such a measure in the Budget, but would she support an increase?

[Meg Hillier]

I completely support that. Only last night, I was talking to tenants in Haggerston about rent a room and the ability to take in a lodger. They worried about getting into tax and so on, and they were worried about the threshold. That is exactly the concern. In my constituency, someone could legitimately rent out a room in their home for £200 or even £250 a week, so they would quickly reach the threshold. That is a real issue: it is one small way in which we could help some people to find a home, but it does not solve the major problem.

New home starts in the UK have gone down by 10% from February 2013 to just under 9,500, according to figures from the National House Building Council. Completed homes were just over 8,000, so we are a long way short of the target for the new homes that need to be built, and certainly for those that are genuinely affordable. I commend to the House the Co-Operative Housing Tenure Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). It is a great shame that the Chancellor did not take the opportunity to look at co-operative solutions that enable people to be much more in control of their own destiny.

I mentioned at the outset that child care is a huge issue in my constituency. I represent a very young borough, and parents want quality. It is a great shame that the Government took a “pile them high, teach them cheap” approach, although that was eventually dropped after their surprise at the backlash from parents. The tax break is welcome for those it helps, but there is confusion about how it will work. It is really important in child care policy that these things are simple, clear and do not change too often, as that makes it confusing for parents to navigate their way through.

Mix 96 (Digital Radio Switchover)

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I will come to that later in my speech. I am glad to welcome the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) to the Front Bench. His constituency is within the footprint of Mix 96 and he is keen to support this debate.

For a national station, the cost of broadcasting in DAB need not be very different from broadcasting in analogue. For a small local station, however, with a single FM transmitter, the cost of broadcasting on a local DAB multiplex with half a dozen transmitters could well be unaffordable, especially while it is still also paying to broadcast on FM. If small stations made that leap to DAB, they would invariably find that they were paying for coverage far greater than they had on FM, whether they wanted it or not. DAB is fundamentally the wrong platform for genuinely local radio stations such as Mix 96, which is a hugely popular and commercially successful station. The geographical areas that DAB multiplexes cover are significantly greater—often two to 10 times greater—than those areas covered by many local FM-operated stations.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I would be grateful if I could join the queue to plug a local radio station. Splash FM serves the Worthing part of the coastal area, and the point my right hon. Friend has made about increasing geographical coverage would mean that it would pay a lot of money to broadcast to the sea, or perhaps to France. That is of no benefit to my constituents or local people who want the excellent local news and entertainment that local radio stations such as Splash FM provide.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am glad my hon. Friend had the opportunity to intervene, and I hope that several other colleagues will do so because they feel so passionately about the issue. Sadly, I am old enough to remember Radio Caroline, when broadcasting to the sea was an important part of building the culture of listening to the radio. We take my hon. Friend’s point, however, because from the perspective of Splash FM, that money would effectively be wasted.

As hon. Members know, the role played by local radio stations is a considerable one. As things stand, the Government are forcing many of them to change their editorial areas out of all recognition. It strikes me that forcing a breaking of that editorial link between the local community and its radio station flies in the face of the Government’s localism and big society agenda.