| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Primarolo: The Prime Minister referred to the targets that have been set by the Government for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. Why did the Government panel on sustainable development say in January that, to meet the targets, the Government would have to use all appropriate means to achieve greater energy efficiency and energy saving by domestic users, industry and transport? Will he confirm that he will support amendments Nos. 25 to 31 as the beginning of that process?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We shall debate that subject when we get to it. The point that I made, and which the hon. Lady does not dispute, is that we have signed up to a target reduction of CO 2 emissions by 2000, and it is clear that we shall achieve it. We use a range of mechanisms to do that, and they include vehicle taxation.
The hon. Lady evidently believes that vehicles are undertaxed. I had half hoped that, in her intervention, she would state Labour's thinking on the subject rather more clearly. The intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment drew from the hon. Lady the fact that she altogether failed to support a move effectively to increase the price of fuel and power--a move that would have helped to achieve these targets. For purely opportunistic party reasons, she and her party did not support the Government and environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth when we urged putting VAT at the standard rate on fuel and power, which is done in practically every other country with a VAT system. No one can take either Labour or Liberal Democratic environmental policies seriously because those parties drew back from supporting an environmental measure simply for opportunistic reasons.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South spoke about fuel poverty, but she overlooked the fact that, even with the addition of VAT, gas and electricity prices to consumers are now lower than they were two years ago. I have not even mentioned the impact of schemes such as the home energy efficiency scheme, which deliberately caters for those who live in houses that are or have been inadequately energy-efficient.
The report for which the hon. Lady is calling is not only unnecessary and bureaucratic, but conflicts with a superior method to improve the environment--the setting of targets and the use of a range of measures, not only those in the Budget, to achieve them. We in the Conservative party believe that economic instruments have an important part to play. That is why the switch from leaded to unleaded petrol was, in part, achieved by creating a duty differential. We have also established the landfill tax to reduce the quantity of waste going to landfill. That environmental achievement is gained from an economic instrument.
We are also committed to increasing fuel duties by, on average, 5 per cent. a year in real terms. We have also reduced the duty on liquified petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. We are also increasing the duty on super unleaded petrol in case increased usage of that fuel were to increase the emissions of benzene and other harmful aromatic compounds. We do not shrink from using economic mechanisms as part of the overall picture. They were all carefully laid out in the White Paper, and are reported on at the time of the Budget.
The hon. Lady may have overlooked the fact that, at the time of the Budget, we drew together the measures used to reduce vehicle emissions. They specify the increases and, in some cases, decreases in fuel taxes that were introduced to achieve our environmental aims.
Possibly the best example I can give of where we drew on published information to put forward a specific environmental policy was the preparation of the landfill tax. Officials and Ministers drew on a study by Coopers and Lybrand, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, to design and legislate for the structure of that tax. Officials also drew on the report by Professor David Pearce on externalities of landfill and incineration. All that information is publicly available. We do not need another report to bring before the House and the public information that is already freely available.
The conclusion that I must reach at the end of this short debate is that the Opposition are, characteristically, more interested in reports than in delivering on published targets. I end with the simple assertion that, whereas the Opposition talk about the environment, we deliver on it.
Ms Primarolo:
We intend to deliver on the environment later this evening and to defeat the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. David Hunt:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for taking such an interest in this matter and for helping to ensure that the new clause is technically workable.
The history of this matter is that legislation on overseas electors has always had all-party support. I believe that all parties have run up against a difficulty, however, because there is some uncertainty about whether registering to vote and then voting might have an effect on an individual's tax position. A person's domicile is relevant in establishing certain tax liabilities--for example, inheritance tax in the case of non-residence. I feel strongly that there must be no unnecessary disincentives to people exercising their democratic right wherever in the world they may live. There should also be no uncertainty about any possible financial consequences of registering to vote and then voting.
My new clause would, of course, apply to all voters. I believe that it is non-partisan and I hope that the Government and the Opposition will accept it. The United States has a comparable rule. When a United States citizen who lives abroad registers to vote in federal elections, it is clearly stated in the law of the United States that that in no way affects that individual's residence or domicile status for federal, state or local tax purposes.
Finally, I am encouraged in my belief that the new clause will be accepted by the Government and the Opposition by the news that, last month, the Opposition launched their campaign to win overseas voter registration. I pay tribute to the fact that there are a number of individuals in the Labour party who have gone out to win over support abroad. I understand that the Opposition's launch mentioned that Los Angeles is one of their most active centres. Well, good luck to them. Perhaps it is appropriate that the film star world should be in the lead in what we believe to be a rather cosmetic new Labour party.
'.--(1) In determining--
(a) for the purposes of inheritance tax, income tax or capital gains tax where a person is domiciled at any time on or after 6th April 1996, or
(b) for the purposes of section 267(1)(a) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (deemed UK domicile for three years after ceasing to be so domiciled) where a person was domiciled at any time on or after 6th April 1993,
there shall be disregarded any relevant action taken by that person (whether before, on or after that date) in connection with electoral rights.
(2) Relevant action is taken by a person in connection with electoral rights where--
(a) he does anything with a view to, or in connection with, being registered as an overseas elector; or
(b) when registered as an overseas elector, he votes in any election at which he is entitled to vote by virtue of being so registered.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person is registered as an overseas elector if he is--
(a) registered in any register mentioned in section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (right to be registered of persons entitled to vote at parliamentary elections) on account of any entitlement to vote
(b) registered under section 3 of that Act of 1985 (certain non-resident peers entitled to vote at European Parliamentary elections).
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) above prevents regard being had, in determining the domicile of a person at any time, to any relevant action taken by him in connection with electoral rights if--
(a) his domicile at that time falls to be determined for the purpose of ascertaining his or any other person's liability to any of the taxes mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above; and
(b) the person whose liability is being ascertained wishes regard to be had to that action;
and a person's domicile determined in accordance with any such wishes shall be taken to have been so determined for the purpose only of ascertaining the liability in question.'.--[Mr. David Hunt.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |