Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Hesford (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 24 April 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No 2) Bill.


Finance (No. 2) Bill

If we are trading cheap remarks, I suppose that I could say to the hon. Gentleman that he has only just come into the Chamber and has not had the courtesy to take part in the debate. [Interruption.] Well, I must be blind then, because I have been sitting here. Another measure dealing with smoking is the Health Bill, which has been through this House. The banning of smoking in public places, with its aim of employee protection, received overwhelming support in the House. It is another weapon in the armoury in the fight against smoking. I, and no doubt many right hon. and hon. Members, would like to see an anti-smoking ethos rather than a smoking ethos embedded in our society. Clause 2 deals with a related but different issue—evasion of the duty on tobacco products. It has two consequences, and perhaps the House agrees with that. It is an anti-avoidance measure. It raises revenue on a product that revenue should be paid upon. It also seeks to cut off an area of criminality. According to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures, it is estimated that currently one in six cigarettes and half of all rolled tobacco consumed in this country is illegal. That cannot be right. The practice is dangerous and wrong, and duty should be paid, as it is by law-abiding citizens. As I understand it, the purpose of clause 2 is to oblige tobacco manufacturers to cease to produce tobacco in a way that facilitates smuggling. It is rather surprising to come to terms with the fact that major international companies—major plcs—would do something that they know, or suspect, has the effect of facilitating smuggling. In a previous Parliament I was a member of the Health Committee, which, for obvious reasons, undertook a major inquiry into tobacco products. One of the outstanding things to emerge from that inquiry was that we discovered—certainly we explored the link and made it explicit—the connection between tobacco production, marketing and the moving around of tobacco products. That facilitated smuggling. I would like to think that the Bill is dealing with that issue. On the back of the Health Committee report in 1999, the DTI started an investigation into several major UK and other national tobacco manufacturers, known as ““big tobacco””. I welcome clause 2. It is estimated that if the anti-avoidance scheme comes into operation it will prevent big tobacco from making between £33 million and £55 million a year by unjust enrichment, and by not complying with duties. I shall briefly mention clause 13. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer making vehicle excise duty a green issue, so the gas guzzlers pay, to encourage the use of smaller cars.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
445 c427-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Alcoholic drinks Charities Capital gains tax Aviation Corporation tax Computers Cars Climate change levy Fraud Families ICT Environment protection Gambling Income tax Film Exemptions Excise duties Exhaust emissions Landfill tax Inheritance tax Fiscal policy Investment trusts Economic situation Motor vehicles Oil Pensions Personal pensions Olympic Games Life insurance Passengers Pension funds PAYE Paralympic Games Small businesses Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Research Trusts Tobacco Dividend tax credits Stamp duties Tax rates and bands Skilled workers Wills Tax evasion Tax yields Productivity Stamp duty land tax Tax thresholds Real estate investment trusts
Legislation
Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk