This is the first infrastructure debate in which I have spoken from the Back Benches and I will start by congratulating my successor, my noble friend the Minister, on the expertise, the energy and the success with which he has driven forward the UK infrastructure agenda in the past two years.
No Government in recent UK history have better understood the case for improving investment in and planning for the United Kingdom’s national infrastructure. This Government have spent more and they have spent better than the last Government ever did.
Let us remember that note which was left by the last Government in the Treasury drawer in May 2012, saying:
“I’m afraid there is no money”.
That was the appalling background against which the easy thing to do would have been to cut infrastructure expenditure—but this Government did the difficult but correct thing of increasing capital spending, initially by up to £2.3 billion a year and then by switching a further £5 billion a year from revenue to capital spend.
Not only was it more expenditure, it was against a plan which the last Government never had: the first ever national infrastructure plan, to set out the challenge and to give transparency to infrastructure investors and contractors. That plan was and is at the heart of this Government’s pro-growth policies, and it is a plan against which the Government have regularly reported progress.
We also inherited a PFI programme which had been poorly executed by the last Government, with endless cases of inflated costs borne by taxpayers and excessive profits made by investors. This Government have attacked those excessive costs and, by the end of 2012, had exceeded their initial target of saving £1.5 billion.
This Government have not dodged the most difficult infrastructure challenges. As far back as 2003, the last Government published a White Paper on UK runway capacity, but for seven years they did not act on it. But this Government have set up the Davies commission to make a detailed study and recommendations on runways in the south-east. The last Government were frit. This Government have risen to the difficult challenges.
On the international front, the Government have put infrastructure at the heart of our commercial relationship with China—a relationship which had no such dimension under the previous Government. It has led to Chinese investment in our water and in our airport infrastructure, and that is to be welcomed. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend about the even more important prospects for Chinese investment in nuclear power and in high-speed rail.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred at some length to the proposal for a new infrastructure commission. The last thing we need is another quango, more paperwork and more layers of bureaucracy. I hope that my noble friend will assure the House that this is neither necessary nor something that the Government will entertain.
I have noted the recent work of the new UK Regulators Network. It seems an excellent example of how well this Government are taking forward the huge and difficult infrastructure challenge, and I commend my noble friend for that initiative.
]]>In the face of some major economic challenges, Hong Kong has prospered since 1997. The Hong Kong SAR Government, with the support of the PRC Government, have steered the economy with significant success. Who predicted in 1997 that the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong in 2014 would continue to be so soundly based on low and simple taxation, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, freedom of speech and a clean and competent civil service? We should remember that Hong Kong now ranks second in the World Bank’s rankings on ease of doing business, whereas the UK is in 10th position. As China’s financial centre, Hong Kong dominates the equity flows into and out of China and is a regional base for very many companies, including around 130 from the UK—a base for business not just in greater China but across the whole of south-east Asia. All this has been achieved, as we have heard, within the formula of “one country, two systems”, set out in the joint declaration and translated into law through the Basic Law in 1990. It has been a remarkable achievement exceeding, I suggest, all expectations.
The present protests in Hong Kong are of course worrying to all of us who wish to see a continuation of Hong Kong’s prosperity but they demonstrate two things. First, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has just said, they demonstrate that the right to protest is very much alive and respected by the SAR Government. Secondly, they demonstrate that there is a process under way to develop the system of elections in Hong Kong within the framework of the Basic Law.
Finally, in looking forward to what my noble friend the Minister has to say in responding to this debate, and thinking of the UK’s position, can he confirm what I understand to be the case: that the details of the constitutional reforms in Hong Kong are not matters defined in the joint declaration; and that there are no specific obligations on the Government on these matters, and so no locus for direct intervention by the UK Government?
]]>The proportion is lower for departments with budgets that continue to be protected, in line with the policy set at the spending review 2010: health (0% in both years); education (0.3/0.6%) and energy and climate change (0.2/0.6%).
The percentage reduction is also smaller for the devolved Administrations as their budgets were adjusted in line with the Barnett formula and statement of funding policy.
Local government is exempt from the reduction in 2013-14, as local authority budgets have already been reduced by a comparable amount through the decision to hold council tax down in that year. HM Revenue and Customs is also exempt from both years of the reductions, to enable it to continue to focus on tackling tax avoidance and evasion. The reductions to the international development resource budget resulted from adjusting official development assistance for the updated gross national income forecast and equate to 2.8% and 4.8%, respectively, in 2013-14 and 2014-15.
]]>HMRC also distribute child benefit claim forms through Bounty packs, a free information and samples pack given mainly through hospitals to new mothers following the birth of their child. In 2011-12, HMRC paid Bounty £90,805 to distribute a total of 901,298 English and Welsh language claim forms this way.
The number of child benefit claim forms distributed by Bounty for the previous four years is set out in the table below.
Year | Child benefit claim forms distributed by Bounty |
2007-08 | 706,843 |
2008-09 | 774,604 |
2009-10 | 852,592 |
2010-11 | 888,180 |
These estimates are based on the 2009-10 Survey of Personal Incomes data, projected to 2012-13 and 2013-14, using economic assumptions consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility's December 2012 economic and fiscal outlook.
]]>The Government will take steps to prevent manipulation of CGT exemption available on shares received under the status. The draft capital gains tax legislation, published on
The Government agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) that predicting take-up of new policies, such as the new employment status, is difficult. However, some further clarification is needed. The OBR refers to tax planning-not avoidance. Encouraging take-up of this targeted employment policy should not be misconstrued as encouraging avoidance. In addition, the potential costs of the policy referred to by the OBR are estimated to take place well beyond the end of the forecast period.
If further provisions are needed to address particular avoidance risks, the Government will have the opportunity to include these at a later date, with a view to ensuring that this policy does not become disproportionately costly to the taxpayer. The Government keep all areas of tax policy under review at all times.
]]>It is important that the Government of Sudan demonstrate their full commitment to the reduction of poverty across the whole country. Ongoing conflicts are a significant cause of poverty and an obstacle to the implementation of development plans.
]]>Annual cost | Number of Members | Expenditure per member | |
£ million | £ million | ||
House of Commons | 385 | 650 | 0.59 |
House of Lords | 109 | 821-831 | 0.13 |
European Parliament1 | 1,332 | 736 | 1.79 |
The figures for the House of Commons are taken from the House of Commons annual accounts 2011-122 (for both administrative and Members' budgets) and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority annual accounts 2011-123.
The House of Lords figures are for taken from the House of Lords annual accounts 2011-124.
For the European Parliament, figures are taken from the European Union Budget of 2011 financial report5. The European Parliament increased from 736 Members to 754 from
1 Reported annual cost of €1,555 million, converted at the December 2011 exchange rate of €1.18 = £1
2 http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/resource-accounts
3 http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/About%20Us/ Corporate%20Publications/Annual%20Report%20and% 20Accounts%202011-%202012.pdf
4 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/Id/Idresource/35/35.pdf
5 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/ 00059f3ea3/The-budget-of-the-European-Parliament.html
]]>Year | Amount paid to Bounty £ | Number of Child Benefit claim forms distributed |
2007-08 | 112,487.00 | 706,843 |
2008-09 | 125,671.75 | 774,604 |
2009-10 | 143,167.00 | 852,592 |
2010-11 | 126,906.79 | 888,180 |
2011-12 | 90,805.00 | 901,298 |
Information on payments that may have been made by other government departments is not held centrally.
]]>The CF Arch Cru matter is complex, involving a number of entities, some regulated by the FSA and some regulated by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (GFSC). UK investors have suffered considerable losses through their holdings of two UK open-ended investment companies, the CF Arch Cru funds. These funds were invested in certain Guernsey-domiciled companies (the Guernsey cells), listed on the Channel Islands Stock Exchange. These were closed-ended schemes authorised by the GFSC and were not authorised or recognised collective investment schemes in the UK.
The UK Government have no power to pursue Guernsey for redress. However, the FSA is working with the Guernsey authorities regarding these matters. In addition to assisting the FSA, the GFSC is conducting its own investigations relating to those entities within its regulatory scope.
Under Section 270(5) of FSMA 2000 and Statutory Instrument 2003/1181, the FSA provided HM Treasury with an assessment of the authorisation and supervision of collective investment schemes in Guernsey. A comparison of protections will depend on specific protections available to investors and will vary according to the nature of the investment.
Collective investment schemes which fall outside the designated criteria are restricted in their promotion to UK investors, including under Section 238 of FSMA 2000. The Guernsey cells were subject to such restrictions as they were not authorised or recognised by the FSA.
]]>There are currently no plans to introduce a reduced rate of VAT for voltage optimisation.
]]>It is still too early to judge the impact of the scheme on lending rates. However, mortgage rates quoted by banks have reduced by up to 0.4 percentage points since June 2012.
]]>During 2011-12, the administrator for Icesave paid out dividends to HM Treasury and the FSCS of £1.3 billion. Of this, £0.4 billion was used by the Financial Service Compensation Scheme to repay part of the loan with HM Treasury, £0.7 billion was allocated to the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund share of the loan and the remaining £0.2 billion was used to reimburse HM Treasury for its statutory debt payments for deposit balances in excess of £50,000.
Negotiations with Iceland over the terms of a loan agreement in respect of the compensation paid to UK depositors of Icesave, the UK branch of Landsbanki hf, are ongoing. Progress is currently suspended pending the outcome of proceedings by the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority against Iceland in the EFTA Court in respect of Iceland's alleged failure to meet its legal obligations to UK and Dutch depositors under the EU deposit guarantee directive.
]]>the current allocation of competencies between home and host supervisor and the member state of the banking group would not change;in terms of its regulatory impact, the new supervisory structure may result in additional costs for entities which have operations in participating member states-such as complying with additional requests for information from the European Central Bank (ECB), as well as relevant national competent authorities. However, these costs are anticipated to be small, relative to the benefits to be derived from the establishment of the SSM, in terms of strengthened supervision within the eurozone; andin terms of its financial impact, credit institution subsidiaries of UK firms established in participating member states would fund the new supervisory function of the ECB through payment of a levy. At least some of the cost could be offset by a reduction in the levy charged to finance national regulators.
]]>The level of protection is set out in the EU Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, which sets a maximum harmonised limit of €100,000. In line with this, the UK limit is £85,000.
]]>