| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East) (Lab): Given that most of the urgently required broadband involves connection from the kerb to the house, can the hon. Gentleman explain what the hell he is talking about?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here a few moments ago, when I appealed for the use of traditional, customary and moderate language.
Brian White: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The House has heard the hon. Gentleman's apology, which will be accepted.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1583
Mr. Green: Most broadband does involve such connection, but to connect from the road to the kerb requires digging up the road first. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is more than welcome to visit my constituency, large parts of which are rural. There, the idea that the basic infrastructure already exists is a fantasy. That may not be true of his constituency, but it certainly is of many parts of the country, so this is an urgent issue.
We shall in due course discuss the power and responsibilities of local authorities, but it is worth pointing out now that the motion makes it clear that local authorities will be tempted to make money out of this scheme. The Minister tried to reassure us that that will not be possible, but he was unable to convince us. Frankly, he is skating on thin ice. Given that the very existence of this motion contradicts what he told us in Committee, a little humility would be in order. He should admit that he got it wrong in Committee, and that he is trying to correct matters now. He will understand why the House is mildly and moderately suspicious of his motives.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): I have just one question for the Minister. Does this extension come under the auspices of the permit schemes, and do the Government's amendments requiring charges to be cost-reflective and efficiently incurred therefore apply equally to this extension?
2.33 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I was shocked when I heard the Minister say in a casual way that if the House of Lords approves a thing, we should in effect nod it through; at least, that seemed to be the gist of what he said. I must admit that I am rather keen on that doctrine. If we applied it, for example, to hunting, postal votes or the Lord Chancellor, we would be in an interestingly new political world. So I thank the Minister for his inspirational lead, and in respect of those purposes I welcome his suggestion that any matter to which their Lordships agree need not be further considered in this House. I hope that he, as a representative of the Government, will convey that suggestion to the Prime Minister—unless, of course, the Prime Minister conveyed it to him.
That comment usefully set the tone for this little debate on the Ways and Means motion. I was then inspired by the interpretation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). Following my last attempt at debating a Ways and Means resolution, during which I fell foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—not an unusual event, I admit—I again consulted "Erskine May" on this matter. It is clear that my hon. Friend had already consulted "Erskine May", because he obviously took on board exactly what it says on page 897 of the completely up-to-date 23rd edition:
"A Ways and Means resolution is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already tax-payers. It is immaterial whether the tax is solely intended to provide revenue for the public service, or whether its primary purpose is to regulate imports or to promote other public policy objectives."
As ever, "Erskine May" says it all. There we have revealed before us the very reason why we need a Ways and Means motion before us today: to raise a tax. A tax
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1584
by any other name is just as painful, and a tax is what we are dealing with. It may well be dressed up as fees, but in the end people will have to pay it.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes necessary to levy a tax or fee, and that it is very much better to be honest with the public and tell them that one is doing so? People become suspicious when Governments try to hide such things. Is not the real problem that the Government are trying to hide something, which must mean that the provision is actually much worse than it appears?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Sad to say, in this post-Butler era we are entitled to have exactly such a suspicion. All of us would like public life in this country to be renowned, as it used to be, for its integrity and transparency. However, we can no longer make such claims, and we will have to set our minds to that issue when we are in government.
Having sought guidance from "Erskine May", I then went straight to the Bill itself—as you would expect me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to see whether I could tease out what lies behind this apparently innocuous Ways and Means motion.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I take my right hon. Friend back to his earlier point about the insidious nature of such transport permit schemes? Is he aware, for example, that the economics of the London congestion charge—a permit scheme of a sort—depend not on the charge itself but on the enormous number of fines that are paid for not obtaining an adequate permit when travelling through London in a car?
Mr. Forth: I would like to pick up on my hon. Friend's point about fines, but not in the context of the London congestion charge; definitely not. There probably will be cause to reflect on what he said, but strictly in the context of the Bill giving rise to the Ways and Means motion. If I may, I shall build towards what he said, rather than responding immediately; nevertheless, I am grateful to him.
I want to dwell for a moment on the phrase:
"it is expedient to authorise".
I always worry when I see such a phrase used in a Ways and Means motion. It may well be expedient, but is it correct and proper? Do we approve of it? Expediency surely should not be the criterion for judging these matters. In this modern age of new Labour, expediency may well be a sufficient reason to justify levying upon the innocent taxpayer, but I certainly do not approve of that. Indeed, the use of that word is in itself almost reason enough for me to vote against this Ways and Means motion, not for it. I hope that the Minister will not suggest that the word "expedient" gives him any cover.
The resolution is bland and gives nothing of the background or detail. We are expected, as so often, effectively to sign a blank cheque on behalf of our taxpayers. We must look to the Bill for guidance. Clause 36 on permit regulations says that the
"appropriate national authority may by regulations . . . make provision with respect to the content, preparation, submission, approval, operation, variation or revocation of permit schemes."
Horror of horrors, the "appropriate national authority" is none other than the Sec of State. Right away, we have the scary phenomenon of the Secretary of State being given unlimited powers to make regulations. So far, so bad; it then gets worse.
Clause 36(5) says that the permit regulations—made by the Secretary of State, no less—
"may make provision for or in connection with requiring the payment of a fee in respect of an application for a permit or the issue of a permit".
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford helpfully said that we are talking about utilities applying for permits to dig up roads. We now have a lethal combination; the Secretary of State setting out the basis on which utilities will make applications, from which the fees will flow.
As my hon. Friend suggested, it is no good the Minister saying that it will not be the consumer or the taxpayer who will pay; it will be the wicked utilities. As my hon. Friend said, the utilities will not be paying the fees. They have only our money. My hon. Friend missed a trick here, because it is not just the consumer who might pick up a larger utility bill to pay the fee. It could be the shareholder, but since shareholders and consumers overlap to a large extent, that is no excuse either. Someone, somewhere will have to pay for all this. It is not one of those things that sounds good if one says it quickly, which I am not inclined to do. My hon. Friend put his finger on it when he used the term stealth tax, which sums it up.
"the amount or maximum amount of any fee"—
there is some small comfort in that—and to
"cases in which fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid."
That is encouraging, and the Minister might say whether he thinks that the number of cases where fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid will be minimal, substantial or significant. That would give us guidance as to how much of an imposition this will be on our hapless voters and taxpayers. The Bill also refers to
"cases in which fees may be discounted".
There are subtleties here that I would not have suspected had I not read the Bill in some detail.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |