| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Whereas the American colonies in 1774 cried, "No taxation without representation," it seems that certain rich Tory overseas voters are now demanding representation without taxation.
I hate to say it, but new clause 9, proposed by the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who is held in some respect in the House, has all the hallmarks of a cynical amendment motivated by the self-interest of the Tory party. It seeks to reduce the evidential weight attached to registering to vote in determining whether a person is domiciled in this country.
Does citizenship not carry with it any responsibilities for Tories any more? Does patriotism and duty to others mean nothing? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that seeking to vote--to influence the future of the country--and being represented in Parliament does not carry with it any duty to that country and its other citizens? No one says that people must pay taxes to vote, nor do we want unnecessary barriers to voting, but the rich should not get special tax privileges to encourage them to vote.
With opportunities to vote come responsibilities of caring about one's country and fellow citizens. Accepting that registration to vote shows a commitment to one's country. It can be evidence of domicile. In each case, that evidence will have a different weight, depending on the other circumstances of the individual, but it is right that registration should have some weight and show some degree of commitment to one's country.
Seeking representation in Parliament, although seeking to avoid making a proper contribution to taxation, is not the way in which to show patriotism. Let people who vote accept our laws. Let them not seek the special privileges that the new clause would confer. With the benefit of the vote comes the burden of citizenship. With the right to a voice in Parliament comes a responsibility of commitment to one's fellow citizens.
Cynical as, in many ways, the new clause is, I doubt whether the Tory party will benefit all that it imagines from it. Many voters of all sorts, including those overseas, are now turning to new Labour, so I suspect that, in terms of votes, the right hon. Gentleman may be hoist with his own petard.
Let no one say that we tried to stop people from voting. We will not force a Division, although others may decide to, but nor can we, in all conscience,
support this change in the law. There is a certain tackiness in the new clause that ill befits the right hon. Member for Wirral, West, who, as I said, has had a high reputation in the House. I regret that he has proposed it. I suspect that he did so out of party loyalty, which has its place. I therefore cast no slight on the respected right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will withdraw the new clause. If the Minister decides to support it, the people will judge the Government's criteria for law-making. They will know the Government's standards. That is why they will vote against them at the next general election.
Mr. Jack:
I am tempted to ask, "Has the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) finished?" because that was the most amazing outburst on a modest proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), whose face shows the reaction that must be abroad in the House.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire told us, first, that the Opposition will not vote against the new clause, so I suppose that that will be an abstention against democracy, as they have put it. He then asked my right hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause. It sounds like the Opposition want a good each-way bet.
I suspect that my right hon. Friend starts from the same position as me in this. When I came into my job as Financial Secretary, I received letters from people asking what their position was. We in the Treasury have done our best to write to people who want to exercise their democratic rights, conferred on them by the House, but, clearly, letters of advice showing that, effectively, registering to vote would not corrupt their tax position in relation to domicile was not enough for them.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend is right to introduce the new clause. He has put the matter beyond doubt, because domicile is not a tax concept, but one of general law that is used for many other purposes--for example, the validity of a marriage and the effect of a marriage on property rights and legitimacy.
Broadly, a person is domiciled in the country where they have their permanent home. Those are the types of test that, effectively, influence matters when tax considerations must be considered. The new clause says simply that registering to vote does not change anything in relation to domicile. I hope that, by reading out that brief paragraph, I have put on record some of the factors that must be taken into account in adjudging, as I said, the context of general law.
I was delighted that my right hon. Friend referred to an extract, which I presume was from a newspaper, showing that hon. Members on both sides of the House are attempting to woo our respective supporters if they are outside the United Kingdom. There may be doubts in the minds of some of the supporters of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on this matter. Given his testimony to democracy, it would have been a sensible and simple move to put this matter beyond doubt in the clear and unequivocal terms that my right hon. Friend proposed.
Which way people vote, wherever in the world they exercise that vote, is a matter for influence in the normal course of electioneering. The new clause has been tabled on a non-partisan basis to enable all people who wish to
exercise the democratic rights conferred on them by the House to do so without doubt in relation domicile and tax. I commend my right hon. Friend's new clause to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, West):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The aim of new clause 14 is to give help to high streets, which have suffered as a result of out-of-town retail development. In the past 15 years, there has been a major growth in out-of-town shopping centres. The Metro centre in Gateshead, Meadowhall near Sheffield and the Merry Hill centre in my constituency are just three well-known examples. Although those developments have undoubtedly proved popular, they have created major problems for town and local centres, in some cases threatening their future survival as shoppers go elsewhere, retailers move out, premises are boarded up and prone to violent vandalism and high streets go into a spiral of decline.
Belatedly, the Government have recognised the damage that their lax attitude to planning matters has done to our high streets. In July 1993, they produced planning policy
guidance 6 and, in July 1995, even tougher guidance in draft form, which is yet to be implemented, but which clearly states that future proposals must take into consideration the vitality and viability of town and local centres. Turning off the tap now, however, will not stop the flow of the many developments in the pipeline or do anything to right the wrongs and to repair the damage that the Government's policies have heaped on many high streets already.
It is perhaps stating the obvious to say that building the second biggest retail complex in Europe less than three miles from Dudley and Stourbridge town centres and right next to Brierley Hill was bound to affect local trade. The Merry Hill impact study conducted for the Department of the Environment provides hard evidence of that. It shows graphically the 70 per cent. decline in comparison goods shopping in Dudley town centre and a 43 per cent. decline in Stourbridge.
We cannot turn back the clock. Nor would I want to with 1.8 million sq ft of retail space and two and a half miles of malls attracting 23 million visitors a year. Merry Hill is a major success story. It has created significant transport problems, clogging up roads for major parts of the day, creating pollution, annoying local residents and having dramatic consequences for long-established town centres.
I do not want to talk down Dudley or Stourbridge town centres. In the past five years, retailers and business people who are trying to make a living there have suffered enough, but I acknowledge that, recently, there have been some improvements as the market has adjusted to new patterns of shopping. Warm words from the Government and a stricter use of planning controls are simply not good enough.
The Daily Telegraph, commenting on the new draft guidance, said that it
We should not be trying to do that. We have to live in the now. What we can do is support town centres and the people in them who are trying to develop new visions and strategies for their future. There have been some exciting recent developments in the science of town centre management and in action in partnership to revitalise and regenerate towns and local centres. The new clause would boost that process of developing new strategies and plans so that towns and local centres could offer a vibrant future.
The new clause would give writing-down allowances on costs of construction, alteration or refurbishment of premises in a retail enterprise zone. It is not designed to be massively expensive. It gives the Secretary of State the power to control the number and size of retail enterprise zones. There are limits of £50,000 in any one chargeable accounting period for which business men can claim writing-down allowances.
'The following section shall be inserted after section 70 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990--
"70A (1) If person carrying on a trade incurs expenditure on the construction of or alterations or refurbishment to a qualifying building occupied by him for the purposes of that trade then, if an allowance or deduction in respect of the expenditure could not, apart from this section, be made in taxing the trade or computing the profits or gains from it, this part shall apply as if the expenditure were capital expenditure incurred on the provision of machinery or plant for the purposes of the trade, and as if the machinery or plant had, in consequence of his incurring the expenditure, belonged to him, and as if the disposal value of the machinery or plant were nil.
(2) If a person has incurred expenditure on the construction of or alterations or refurbishment to a qualifying building let by him otherwise than in the course of a trade then, if an allowance or deduction in respect of the expenditure could not, apart from this section, be made in taxing the letting or computing the profits or gains from it, this part shall apply as if the expenditure were capital expenditure incurred in providing machinery or plant first let by that person, otherwise than in the course of a trade, at the time when the expenditure was incurred and as if the property comprised in the lease of the qualifying building had as from that time included the machinery or plant, and as if the disposal value of the machinery or plant were nil.
(3) In this section 'qualifying building' means any building or structure in a retail enterprise zone.
(4) In this section, 'retail enterprise zone' means an area designed as such by an order made by the Secretary of State under power in that behalf conferred by Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 or, in Northern Ireland, by an order made by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland under Article 7 of Enterprise Zones (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
(5) The writing down allowances within section 24 which are made to a person by reason of this section are not to exceed £50,000 in aggregate for a chargeable period.
(6) This section applies to expenditure incurred on or after 28th November 1995.".'.--[Mr. Pearson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
"leaves the Environment Secretary in the uncomfortable and somewhat ridiculous position of ordering back the tide of Britain's modern car-borne shoppers."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |