Barry Gardiner
MP for Brent West · Labour · United Kingdom
“Sir Desmond, imagine that the top brains in the country’s security and intelligence community produced a report that told you how to save the world. You would want to see it, right? Well, the report we are discussing is not about how to save the world; it is about what happens if we do not.”
“The nuclear threat will rise as clashes between nuclear powers become more frequent. Those are the cold assessments of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The Government were right to think that those assessments might scare people—they scare me—but they were wrong to think that they could hide them from the public.”
“The Minister will know that the grant structure on which UKRI is based gives out grants for a maximum of three to five years. Very few are for five years—most are for three years or under—yet the sort of long-term scientific development that my hon.”
“My hon. Friend is making a superb case for the importance of funding for her deep earth facility. I had the privilege of going to the National Oceanography Centre’s deep oceans facility, and the innovative science there on carbon sequestration is superb.”
“The Prime Minister has spoken powerfully about the devolution of power and giving back control. Will he therefore ensure that the proposals for commonhold and leasehold reform, for which 5 million leaseholders in this country are waiting with bated breath, do give that power and control back to those people, through the right to enfranchi…”
“We know how much land there is in the UK, and we know the extent of our inland waters and seas, so we can know how much we have to do to protect them, as we are required to do by target 3 of the global biodiversity framework.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,406 lines we hold for Barry Gardiner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 70 of 109.
“She talked about her “aspirations” regarding the number of charities that might try to access the benefits of the scheme, rather than talking about a real assessment by the Treasury Bench. In summing up the debate, can the Exchequer Secretary give us the Treasury’s actual assessment of the likely number, size and scope of the charities that are likely to benefit from the Bill if these restrictions and regulations are kept in place? If an assessment has been made, we need to know precisely what the answers to those questions are, to ensure that the Bill will deliver to the small charities that Members in all parts of the House want to benefit from it.”
“However, that will be required, and it is precisely that threshold that many of these charities will find so hard to match. Many small charities are not even registered with HMRC, and the three-year period will not incentivise them to do so, because they can see the scheme’s possible returns recede into the future. Many small charities receive such small amounts in cash donations that they do not claim gift aid at all. I do believe that these provisions are intended to help the smallest charities, but in fact they will hold that intention back. That is why, when I asked the Economic Secretary about her assessment of the number, size and scope of the organisations likely to benefit from the scheme, I was disappointed by her response.”
“Here, the amount that a charity can claim is limited to £5,000 in donations a year, or, if less, double the amount of donations that have been put through the gift aid process. This provision matches the amount that a charity can claim with the amount it has claimed on gift aid at a ratio of 2:1. Therefore, for a charity to take full advantage of the scheme—claiming the maximum of £1,250 on £5,000 of small donations—it needs to have claimed at least £625 in gift aid in the same year. That is precisely what is so difficult for many small charities to achieve, and the Treasury recognised that in saying that this process would be “without form-filling”. When the Chancellor introduced this measure, he said it would be good for the bucket collectors because it would be without form-filling.”
“The Economic Secretary talked about the problems of fraud and the need to introduce such conditions for small charities, in order to avoid the problems that might arise through charities being able to stipulate the amount of small donations they had received. All Members will recognise the need for the Bill to include protection against fraud for the taxpayer, but in so doing it proposes that a charity has to have been registered for three years, to have made a gift aid claim in three of the past seven years, and not to have had a penalty imposed as a result of such a claim. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to consider whether this is not a question of “belt and braces”, and whether those provisions could be relaxed. Clause 1 includes the matching provision.”
“The amount a charity can claim being linked to the amount of gift aid already claimed—the matching principle—will disadvantage the charities that most rely on small cash donations, as they may not have made sufficient gift aid claims to be able to take full advantage of the new scheme. Charities need to have a three-year record of claiming gift aid, but many small charities that rely on small cash donations simply will not have established that. This Bill was part of proposals designed to meet the problems that smaller charities have in being unable to access gift aid. Creating this matching requirement is therefore going to prove very difficult for them.”
“Qualifying cash donations can be up to £20 each, rather than £10, as initially proposed—we are grateful that the current Economic Secretary listened to some of the objections raised by the industry and amended some of the initial proposals. The size of the top-up payment on each small donation will be equivalent to the tax relief given under gift aid so that a charity can claim a maximum of £1,250 a year. The Bill requires work in Committee. Its proposals are complex and run the risk of disadvantaging some charities. Eligibility for the scheme is limited. That will prevent those who need it most from using it.”
“By April 2011, when the relief ends, charities will have had four years since the announcement of the 20% basic rate of income tax to prepare for the change. In 2009-10 charities benefited by £105 million from this relief and it is forecast that they will benefit by £120 million in 2010-11. The Government believe the £100 million transition fund announced in the spending review will better target support on charities most in need.” —[ Official Report , 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 92W.] Much of today’s discussion has been about those charities most in need, and that will be the focus of my remarks. In the 2012 Budget, the Government confirmed their plans to introduce a small donations scheme from April 2013. Under the scheme, charities are entitled to claim top-up payments on income from cash donations totalling up to £5,000 a year.”
“Their needs should be a priority.” In December of that year, the then Economic Secretary, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), wrote to Mr Fanning, and was generally supportive of his report, but ruled out extending gift aid transitional relief on the grounds that prolonging its life would not target support effectively and that it was always “intended to be temporary”—we have heard that from the Dispatch Box today, too, from the current Economic Secretary. In response to a parliamentary question, the then Economic Secretary said: “Gift aid transitional relief was introduced as a temporary measure to give charities time to prepare their financial plans in response to a lower rate of relief from gift aid.”
“Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) became Chancellor he announced in his 2008 Budget a new transitional relief for charities, to compensate them for the impact of that basic rate cut. At the time—in 2008-09—the relief was projected to cost £60 million, and then £105 million in 2009-10 and £120 million in 2010-11. That was greatly welcomed by the charitable sector. In 2010, Peter Fanning, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, submitted a report on improving gift aid based on the gift aid forum’s discussions. Although the report did not discuss donations outside the scope of gift aid, one of its principal recommendations was that “small charities are particularly vulnerable at times of economic stress and some find dealing with Gift Aid difficult.”
“Gift aid has been widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House and by charities throughout the country. That £600 limit was reduced to £400 in 1992, and ultimately a Labour Government abolished it entirely in the Finance Act 2000. In the 2007 Budget, the then Labour Government announced a number of measures to support the take-up of gift aid. The then Chancellor also announced, however, that the 10% starting rate of tax would be abolished from 2008-09 and that income tax on earned income would be charged at two rates: the basic rate of 20% and the higher rate of 40%. The gift aid scheme allows a charity to recover sums at the basic rate, so the cut in the basic rate from 22% to 20% hit them hard. That was why after my right hon.”
“I apologise for having been absent from the Chamber for the past couple of speeches. I was present at the beginning of the debate, however. I wish to right a calumny. This summer I spent a couple of days clearing out my garage, and one of the things I threw into the skip was a short tome entitled, “The achievements of the Major Government”. A friend of mine had given it to me at the time of the 1997 general election, and its pages were, of course, blank—it was a joke. I recall, however, that John Major set up gift aid in his 1990 Budget: he instituted one-off charitable donations being made free of tax for gifts of, I think, £600. That proved extremely popular with charities, and the provision should have been written into that tome, even though it was an achievement not of John Major’s Government but of his time as Chancellor.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for answering the question directly. Could he be slightly more specific than just the number of groups? The concern is not just about the number of charities, because they may be medium-sized or larger; it is about their nature, scope and size. Does he have any evidence about that from Treasury assessments?”
“Since the third-year students came to this country, the visa conditions have changed. For those third-year students who are unable to secure a new university course within the 60-day period, will the Minister apply the same visa conditions that applied when they came to this country—with the full expectation of finishing their courses at London Met—so that their partners will therefore be allowed to work, which for many is an important source of funding that enables them to be here?”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, although I fear that the moment might have passed. I simply wanted to ask him to reflect on the challenges that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) issued to him about doctors and pay. Does he agree that those doctors are now the very people who are in charge of commissioning the services of which they are also the providers? I wonder whether the hon. Lady thinks that that is a good thing or a bad thing.”
“No wonder her latest comment is: “This flawed consultation, which does not allow residents to say that they want to save the A and E, is a kick in the teeth for all local people.” I do not speak Parseltongue—I do not understand it—but I deplore the pretence of opposing a policy that you are pushing through in government. That is really disgraceful.”
“Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), received an e-mail from me today advising her that, if called to speak, I would quote her in this evening’s debate. I wanted to do so, because she made the following three statements. First: “The Tories would be a disaster for the NHS, they plan a part privatised service”. The second quotation: “These cuts will hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest”. The third quotation: “The government must take urgent steps to safeguard our local NHS”. Those three quotes date respectively from 2003, 2007 and 2007, when the hon. Lady was campaigning to keep open the accident and emergency centre at Central Middlesex hospital—campaigning for something which she, in her government, is now closing.”
“On 2 July, a consultation entitled “Shaping a healthier future” was launched in north-west London, and residents can submit their views until 8 October this year. The consultation, promoted by a transitional body called NHS North West London, aims to centralise and rationalise hospital services in the area. Each proposal outlined in the consultation includes the closure of the A and E at Central Middlesex—not overnight provision, but the 24-hour facility—for good. The motion speaks of “the growing gap between Ministers’ statements and what is happening in the NHS”. I may have trouble agreeing with that, because it depends on which Minister and which statements. The Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon.”
“Thank you, Sir. I shall try to respect your advice. In November 2011, the following announcement appeared on the Central Middlesex hospital website: “A and E at Central Middx Hospital is temporarily closing overnight between 7 pm and 8 am starting from Monday 14 November 2011. The urgent care centre next to A and E will remain open 24 hrs a day 7 days a week to treat patients with minor injuries and illness. We are making this temporary change to ensure we continue to provide a safe service to patients during the winter months.” In those three paragraphs, we hear twice over that that overnight closure is temporary, which gave minimal comfort to my constituents in Brent who used the facility. The overnight closure is indeed temporary.”
“The EU decision on the oil embargo on Iran has caused great joy in the paint shops around the Arabian Gulf, as vessels have gone into dry dock to be repainted, renamed and reflagged. Can the Prime Minister set out for the House what practical steps are being taken to monitor Iranian vessels to ensure that there is an embargo in fact as well as in name?”
“We can stand here and call black white, but it is incumbent on us not to take the public for fools, and I am afraid that the speech from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) did that. I regret that, because he is not a disingenuous character—he is quite a lovable character in this House—but to say what he did is to treat people with contempt. It is treating them as though they do not understand their own affairs, when it is their own affairs—their own pennies, in many cases—that we are talking about. That hits hard.”
“It is interesting that the year before, it was not the Chancellor, but the Prime Minister, no less, who promised that the allowance would increase in line with the retail prices index. “No net losers”—those who believed the Prime Minister’s promise to pensioners might be excused for feeling that they were losers under the change. That is what happens. People listen to what the Prime Minister says, and make their financial plans on the basis of it: “The Prime Minister promised me, so of course I can expect to have that.” Well, it did not happen, and I think that is disingenuous. We heard in this Chamber that there are no net losers, but what about people who are about to become pensioners? Are they net losers? They certainly expected an age-related allowance, but they find that, for them, it is not frozen, but cut.”
““No cash losers”: I must say that I think that those are the most disingenuous words that I have heard in this Chamber for a great many years. I remember that in the Budget the Chancellor was not particularly keen to draw the House’s attention to this change. In the Budget, the Chancellor glossed over the whole issue of the granny tax very quickly indeed, yet only a year before, he came to the Dispatch Box on Budget day and said that he would not hide anything—he would tell it like it was. He would tell the bad with the good. That was just a year before, but in this year’s Budget, he glossed over the granny tax altogether. “No net losers”—how accurate is that if we look at the total picture for pensioners? For existing pensioners, the age-related allowance will be frozen.”
“Indeed, the Labour party does not want that, as was made very clear when my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), as Chancellor, introduced the tax before the 2010 election. He made it quite clear that we felt it was necessary in the short term, but would ultimately wish to get rid of it. There is no desire on the Labour Benches to see a 50p tax rate imposed for ever more.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I absolutely recognise the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) laid before the House, and of course I think that they are accurate. He is right to say that we are talking about a cut—a cut in what people were, with legitimacy, expecting. That is the point. It was legitimate for somebody coming up to pensionable age to expect that their retirement could be based on the figures that they were using. They had a promise from the Prime Minister that that would be the case. That promise was not honoured, and they have experienced real hardship as a result. I want to focus on one other aspect of the debate: people’s behaviour at different rates of taxation. Let me be clear that I do not, in principle, want a 50p rate of tax to continue in place in perpetuity.”
“From a more-than-sedentary, almost recumbent position, he says, “Hear, hear! Let’s go to 20%!” Does he really think that there is not a limiting point at which the argument tips? Does he really think that there is not a point below which, instead of more revenue coming into the Exchequer, there is a dramatic loss of revenue? Of course there is.”
“Well, there we are: the Great British public are being treated to an experiment. “We want to test how far the Laffer curve theory can go.” Is that really the Government’s policy? Is it really their policy to see how low they can get tax before the economy collapses?”
“I do not want to see dissent break out on the Government Benches. No fighting amongst yourselves, please, gentlemen. These are serious matters. They cannot be treated as an experiment because people suffer.”
“The people who are being excoriated in the public conversations around the country for what they have done and what they continue to do to our economy—those are the people who will benefit, and it is the poor in our constituencies who will suffer.”
“The hon. Gentleman has already said once in the debate that he does not believe the Treasury’s figures. He has now reinforced that. The Treasury has made the calculations. He can choose to say, on a personal level, “I think the Red Book is a load of tosh,” but he cannot say that that is the Government’s position. The Government’s position is that the measure will cost £3 billion a year. [Hon. Members: “No, it is not.”] The Government cannot get out of this one. They say that it will cost money. That money will be taken away from some of the poorest people in our society to pay for it. That is what people find so distasteful about the way the Government are behaving. They are taking away from some of the poorest in our society, yet feel that it is so important to send that signal out to some of the wealthiest.”
“They think it is more important to focus on what they understand about their involvement in society, and they do not give the same attention to getting those messages to the poor in society. What the Government have done in the Budget is to say, “If you are poor, we know that the best thing for you is to cut your benefits to make sure that you work harder, and if you are rich, we know that the best thing for you is to cut your tax so that you work harder.” People look at that and say, “This doesn’t make sense. It’s one law for the rich and another law for the poor.””
“My hon. Friend, yet again, makes an excellent point. There is an implicit acceptance that people will try to avoid tax, and that therefore it is better to reduce the level of taxation so that there is not the same level of avoidance. Most of my constituents listening to this debate and to the debate that has been going on since the Budget think the Government do not understand what people are going through, what they are feeling and just how difficult it is for some of them to make ends meet. They do not understand that precisely because of the sort of signals the hon. Member for Dover just mentioned. The Government consider it more important to make those signals to the wealthy.”
“The electorate look at that, see the analysis, see what steps were taken and ask, “Who was right?” They know, because we are back in double-dip recession, that the Government got it wrong. We are at a point where there is £150 billion extra borrowing, the largest single increase year on year in the UK’s history.”
“The hon. Gentleman talks about the way in which wages have broadly stagnated. We are now seeing wages going down and jobs being lost, and we are back in recession. He should look at the promises of his Government in that first Budget. The promises, commitments and assertions were that the measures in it would pull us out of the problems that we were in and get the economy back on track. They would deliver growth and prosperity, but they have not. He will remember, because he is an honest fellow, to use his word, that at the time, on the Opposition Benches, people were saying, “No, this will lead to a double-dip recession.” All those on the Government Benches told us in unison that we were wrong and that the Budget would pull us through the problems.”
“I accept your ruling, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are right. We have strayed wide of the initial focus of the amendment. It was not my intention. All I can say in mitigation is that I was led down the path by the interventions that I took.”
“I welcome the frankness with which the Deputy Prime Minister delivered his statement on the outcomes of Rio, which were not what we could all have wished for. I think he recognises that one of the real strengths of the processes surrounding Rio is what is happening at national level. In that context, would he care to comment on the success of the world summit of legislators, which was held during the weekend before the high-level session, and on the progress that was achieved there at national level? He referred to Mexico, but there has also been progress relating to natural capital, the marine environment and deforestation.”
“Does the Secretary of State agree with the Environment Agency’s assessment that it should spend an additional £20 million on flood defences each year? Instead of disputing whether there is a 6% or 27% cut, does she not realise that the failure to invest that money costs Great Britain plc far more in the costs of clearing up after floods?”
“There is growing bewilderment in Europe and concern among the Danish presidency that the UK is dragging its feet on proposals for Rio+20 that the Government had previously advocated. Will the Leader of the House obtain a clear commitment—perhaps from No. 10 or the Cabinet Office—that no instruction to that effect has been given to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, so that the Prime Minister, who has been appointed by Ban Ki-moon to do the follow-on from Rio, might look extra good afterwards by ensuring that expectations of the outcomes from Rio are dampened?”
“Feed-in tariffs are a means of ensuring that investors’ risk relating to future prices is resolved. The Minister has talked about listening to the industry and about long-term certainty. Will he speak to his fellow Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who is responsible for energy policy, to make it clear that the proposals on feed-in tariffs published earlier this week in the draft Energy Bill do not address any of the other four risks that investors in the industry face when looking at long-term renewables? In particular, investors are not satisfied that they do anything to address construction risks. If they do not, there will be no new build and the lights will go out.”
“In the interests of transparency, will the Minister share with the House the benchmarks he has set for the uptake of the green deal scheme in the first to third years and what emissions reductions he has set as the benchmarks for the success of the scheme?”
“In his preparation for COP 18, what analysis has the Secretary of State made of Professor Sir David King’s proposals for common but differentiated cap and trade schemes, using the human development index as an appropriate measure?”
“That will be because this Government are failing the absolute cast-iron test of putting through real structural reform in the energy market. That is what business has called for, that is what business knows it is not getting and that is why business has condemned this Government for a weak and feeble Queen’s Speech.”
“With the North sea tax regime changes, they sent shock waves throughout not just the big oil companies, but the whole investor market. Of course, with the solar photovoltaic feed-in tariff, the Government became a laughing stock for investors. But the laughter will stop as the desperate truth sinks in that business no longer regards the UK as a stable investment regime, and the UK courts have compounded that by ruling against the Government on these issues. That is what is going to undermine the possibility of growth in this economy: the lack of business investment in the energy markets and the way in which generation capacity will go off stream after 2017, with businesses then not just paying more for their power, but not being able to get it.”
“Does any Government Member seriously believe that EDF, a company owned by the French Government, will not be under Gallic pressure to invest in its home market in preference to the UK and that that will not have a dramatic impact on the investment capacity and potential in the UK over the next five years? Only two out of the big six—Centrica and Scottish and Southern—have the UK as their primary investment focus, and what all of them look for is a clarity of purpose and a stability of regulatory regime that creates the right investment climate for long-term energy investments to achieve their expected return. This Government, in just two years, have spectacularly undermined business investors’ confidence. With the carbon reduction commitment, the Government retrospectively snatched £1 billion from business.”
“It is worth reflecting on the fact that although the total amount of Greek debt owned by UK banks and the UK Government together is an eye-watering €14.2 billion, the French Government alone hold €15 billion of this debt and French banks hold a catastrophic €42 billion, giving France a €57 billion exposure. We now have a French President calling for a growth package to go alongside the financial stability and austerity measures agreed by the 25. France needs Germany and the European Central Bank to fund an ever-expanding Greek bail-out to stop the implosion of French banks. Simultaneously, France needs Germany and the ECB to provide liquidity to stimulate the growth that the new President has made his political priority.”
“Some £200 billion of investment is required in the energy sector and the price of that investment, in the Government’s mind, is a quiescent Government, cowering in the face of the big six and unwilling to regulate to open up the market to the competition and the free market forces that they say they believe in. The effect will be higher costs for small and medium-sized businesses and, of course, for domestic consumers. The energy crisis facing this country will do more to undermine prosperity than anything else in the next 10 years, except perhaps the impact of the death throes of the eurozone. I am not a traditional fan of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but today they rightly pointed out the effect on the UK of the shrinking of the European economy.”
“The Government’s draft Bill to reform the electricity market to deliver “secure, clean and affordable” energy will need to go a great deal further than the current four pillars set out by the Department. The Government are not prepared to introduce real competition into the electricity markets, because they do not dare break up the vertical integration of the wholesale and retail elements of the big six electricity companies as they fear losing the investment they so desperately need to replace the 25% of existing energy generation that will go off stream by 2020.”
“He mentioned the energy Bill and the regulatory reform Bill. While he said he did not have much confidence in the regulatory reform Bill, he said he thought there was a chance that the energy Bill might help in this regard. I wish that were the case, but I fear Mr Cridland has let his optimism get the better of his customary forensic analysis. We have been promised sight of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny on 22 May —or, to be more precise, we were promised it for 20 minutes on the Department of Energy and Climate Change website on the afternoon of the Queen’s Speech, but then the commitment to the 22 May was taken down. Will the Minister responding to the debate tell the House whether, and when, that Bill will be published in draft form?”
“That is just one part of the injustice that lies at the heart of this Queen’s Speech—which explains why so many Opposition Members have spoken about it. It is not just an unforeseen consequence, and it is not proposed merely in the mistaken belief that it will get the economy going. We recognise this for what it is: a deliberate political philosophy. It is a deliberate attack on the rights of working people, and I have to say that while one would expect that from the Conservatives, the fact that the Liberal Democrats have colluded in it in quite the way that they have is to their eternal disgrace. I hope working people will punish them accordingly. The director general of the CBI identified a different test by which to judge this Queen’s Speech: whether it will help business to grow.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having spent the afternoon cutting my speech, I shall now have to cross out all the omissions—but, seriously, I am delighted by your ruling. If asked to identify what is most surprising about the Queen’s Speech, I would have to say it is finding that this Government consider it a priority to remove the rights of ordinary working people and to make it easier to fire people—and not just to fire people, but to fire them unfairly. We have 2.7 million people unemployed, we have a double-dip recession—the first in 37 years—and we see this Government putting through legislation to make people more insecure. How does that build confidence in our economy? How does that serve to increase productivity? It does not.”
“The estimable Hansard Society released a report earlier this week that said that the number of people volunteering in the country had gone down by 8%. May we have a debate on why the Big Society is shrinking under this Government?”