Air Passenger Duty

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and her colleague the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I welcome the new Economic Secretary to the Front Bench; I have no doubt that she will be a huge asset to the Government and the House.

I declare a slight interest, as I have cousins in Northern Ireland and, in my prior career, I spent far too many hours on internal flights, particularly to Scotland. Like many, I have enjoyed city breaks with my family; I shall spare the House the details of our recent trip to Amsterdam.

The democratisation of air travel in recent years has been a force for good, opening up to millions of families opportunities previously denied them. Millions more people are enjoying the thrill and experience of easy air travel and all that it opens up. Air travel does, of course, have a high carbon footprint, but just as the air industry has achieved stunning breakthroughs in safety through the extraordinary application of private sector expertise, investment, innovation and science, I have no doubt that it will be a force in demonstrating potential for energy-efficient air travel as well.

My principal reason for speaking this afternoon is to discuss the business of air travel and the role of air travel in business and in the economic predicament faced by this country. We are rightly—I commend the Government for it—putting an emphasis on the rebalanced economy and unlocking the power of our regions and cities to drive a new model of innovation-led growth, and air travel is an important part of that.

However, let us turn to the charge sheet that the House is presented with this afternoon and the motion, which calls for air passenger duty to be scrapped. The first charge is that it is a green tax, but, as the hon. Member for East Antrim said, it was not introduced and justified on that basis. However, he explained that even if it were, that would be no reason for not getting rid of it. This country, the western world and the whole world face a challenge in increasing energy efficiency and reducing the carbon footprint. Although that would not be a reason for introducing APD, it is worth bearing it in mind that we need to send a signal that rail travel, car-sharing and other forms of energy-efficient transport are to be encouraged.

The second charge is that the tax is regressive. The data in the ONS publication “The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2011/12”, which I commend to colleagues, make it clear that it is not regressive; in fact, it is no more so than VAT. I think we would all love to get rid of that too—certainly colleagues in the House today would love it; we would like to get rid of most taxes—but we are not in a position where we can afford that luxury.

The third charge, interestingly, is that the tax is disproportionate. In fact, the Government have limited the rise in APD to inflation in the period 2010-11 to 2013-14, and in this year’s Budget they ensured that the rate will remain constant in real terms. This afternoon I looked online and found an air ticket to Berlin for £80, £13 of which is APD. That does not seem to be a prohibitive level of tax that will put people off.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my sentiment that it is good to be on the Benches of a Government who realise the need for tax competition? We realise the need for competitive corporation tax rates and income tax rates; surely APD is a tax and we need to be competitive on that too. We have the highest APD in Europe. Of the 27 countries in the European Union, only six charge APD, and the Republic of Ireland is going to reduce it to zero in April next year. Should my hon. Friend not bear it in mind that we need to compete?

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He must have spotted my notes, because my very next point is that we need to view this in the wider context of business and tax competitiveness. I hugely welcome the fact that the Government have committed to reduce corporation tax from 28% to 23% and, in due course, to 20%, meaning we are constantly cited as one of the top three in the G8 on tax competitiveness, as stated in the 2012 KPMG global survey. That is a strong signal to global businesses that we are open for business, and it supports my hon. Friend’s point that we need to view this in the context of wider support for businesses and tax competitiveness.

The fourth charge is that the tax is bad for Northern Ireland. In this respect, I have some sympathy with the case made by colleagues from the Province. The fact that the Republic has cut APD creates a particularly difficult situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister said, encouragingly, that the Northern Ireland economy is not showing signs of suffering as a result, with very high growth and new jobs being created. That is a testament to the creativity and entrepreneurialism of the people of Northern Ireland. The changes made to the tax in November 2011, which reduced long-haul rates to the same as those for short-haul, and the devolution of the matter to the Assembly are important and welcome measures. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that locally, given the situation in the Republic, there is a particular problem that the Government will need to look at.

The truth—an inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase—consists of three points. As a generation, a Parliament and a Government, we face, and have to deal with, the most massive crisis in our public finances. We inherited from the previous Government £1.2 trillion of debt—£5,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Debt interest alone is now the fourth biggest item of Government expenditure, and it is set to rise, if the coalition has not acted, to £76 billion a year in interest payments. We have a structural crisis in the public finances—in pensions, in welfare, in health and in debt interest.

Despite the very best efforts of the Government to contain the crisis and make sure that they do not trigger a downward spiral in public confidence in the economy, we still face a huge challenge to restore our public finances. We do not have money to spare. There is no such thing as a free tax cut; the closest thing is a tax cut on wealth creation. That is why I support the steps that the Treasury has taken on corporation tax to put in place a competitive tax environment for our businesses and why, in particular, I support a new deal for start-up businesses—the people who are at the coal face of creating new jobs. The truth is that APD is not a tax on business creation; it is a tax on air travel, which is not the same thing.

Finally, this tax raises £2.8 billion a year, and that figure is set to rise to £3.8 billion in 2016. That is a significant amount of money. Interestingly, it is nearly the same amount as that which the Government have given away in a fuel duty cut, which has caused huge reductions in income at the Exchequer and has a relatively low impact on people’s pockets. Abolishing APD would have a small impact on GDP and hard-working families, but it would lead to a major £4 billion cut in our deficit credibility. I hope Ministers resist it.

Living Standards

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I want to make some progress.

The Labour party’s policy, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, is to increase Britain’s debt by £200 billion. That would be ruinous, because—this is linked to living standards—that borrowing would fall to the ordinary working people of this country. They would suffer a double hammer blow: more money would be taken out of their incomes to repay debt and there would be higher interest payments on mortgages and business loans. A 1% increase in interest rates would cost householders with a £100,000 mortgage £1,000 a year.

Today and throughout the past three years, the Labour party has persisted in talking down the economy, but its policies would take down the country. In fact, one of the biggest sources of concern in the British economy today is the total absence of a credible economic policy from the people who in 20 months’ time aspire to be the Government of this country. That is of concern even to people in the Labour party. Even the noble Lord Mandelson said recently that the risk of pursuing Labour’s economic policy was too great:

“I don’t think you can really take a chance, I think the markets, whose confidence in us to pay back what we borrow—that confidence is the determining factor.”

He went on to say that

“a lurch in policy…would be quite a risk which I would not blame the chancellor for refusing to take.”

By the way, Lord Mandelson is a friend of the shadow Chancellor. He said:

“I also happen to like him…well, more than I used to.”

We are here to discuss the cost of living and the cost of living is Labour’s legacy. Of course families are finding it tough. The Labour party talks about the cost of living without any mention of its record in government on living standards. It was the Labour Government who doubled council tax. Even in the depths of the recession, when my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) presciently asked them to consider freezing council tax, as this Government have gone on to do, they flatly refused.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

On that point, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Conservative-run North West Leicestershire district council, which has frozen council tax for four years running, and in condemning the leader of the Labour group, who suggested that we should raise council tax by 2% this year?

[Greg Clark]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s council. We know that council tax is an important bill that people face. That is why when we came to office, knowing the pressures faced by ordinary working people and families, we froze it.

The same is true of the Labour party’s record on fuel duty. Its fuel duty escalator meant that what working people paid to fill up their car rose by more than inflation every year. Petrol would be 13p a litre more if Labour had stayed in office.

Energy prices for the home escalated under Labour. Between 1997 and 2010, the average domestic gas bill doubled. These matters were raised in our earlier exchanges, but the hon. Member for Leeds West omitted to say who the Energy Secretary was in the last Government. It was the current Leader of the Opposition. When I shadowed him across the Dispatch Box, these issues were not addressed, despite our urging him to do so.

In its 13 years in office, the Labour party failed to safeguard pensions. In one notorious year, it increased the state pension by 70p. This Government have restored the link to earnings. Labour presided over the biggest fall in the number of homes being built since the 1920s, with the consequence that rents have risen and, for the first time in 100 years, the proportion of people who own their own home has fallen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I find the hon. Gentleman’s comment alarming. Perhaps it is time for Government Members to attend an economics course or, more pertinently, a history lesson. If we fail to learn what happens when considerable deregulation causes a global financial crisis—supported and egged on by Conservative Members—we will be condemned to repeat it.

I was telling the House about the indignity, anguish and anxiety that afflict many of my constituents, and that daily grind people down. There are a number of things the Government could do, and I want to address them in the short time that I have. First, the Government should and could take immediate action to create jobs by investing in infrastructure. We badly need new schools, we badly need new homes and, in some areas, we badly need new hospitals. Constituencies like Wigan, where the construction industry has always been important to the local economy, need that investment, not just because we will get the buildings we need but because it will provide jobs and apprenticeships for young people.

Construction used to be one of the key routes for young people leaving school to get into the labour market and learn skills that could take them beyond the sort of low-paid work that hon. Members have described. If the Government were to take action immediately, it would be a huge relief not just to me but to the 1 million young people who are out of work and who ought to be a national priority. We know that this should be a national priority, because we know what happens when young people are left out of work: they suffer prolonged periods of unemployment, insecure employment and wage-scarring effects well into their 40s. What we are seeing at the moment is limited action to create apprenticeships. I am seeing young people in a revolving door of apprenticeships, taking on work experience, internships and apprenticeships over and over again. These do not lead to a real, paid, lasting job. Government Members heavily criticised the future jobs fund for being expensive, but I say to Ministers: please recognise that investing money in young people up front is repaid in droves. It is the right thing to do morally; it is the right thing to do economically.

Many young people are on zero-hours contracts and I want to say something about the increasing casualisation of the work force, something that the workers in the Hovis factory in my constituency are rightly standing up against at the moment. People on zero-hours contracts tend to earn lower wages as a whole, and we have seen compelling evidence of widespread exploitation. I would be grateful if the Minister paid some attention to what I am saying, because this is something that affects people across the country, including, perhaps, in his constituency.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Lady speaks passionately about youth unemployment. If the Opposition have all the answers on youth unemployment, why did it rise by 40% under the previous Labour Government?

[Lisa Nandy]

Again, I would really like to send the hon. Gentleman on a history course. If he looks more closely at what happened under the previous Government, he will see not only that youth unemployment fell, but that at the one point in the mid-2000s when it rose it was because there were more young people compared with the number of jobs. It was due to an increase in the number of young people, not a shortage of jobs. The previous Government immediately took action to reduce youth unemployment, something I hope Ministers revisit and learn from in view of the problems we have now.

I was talking about the widespread exploitation of people on zero-hours contracts. Whole sectors are now dominated by this. I represent women in my constituency who work in the home care sector, and I have heard appalling stories about the way they are treated. One woman was forced to take eight hours of shifts on no notice whatever. She has two young children and had to take them with her and lock them in her car while she tended to older people. I would be really grateful if the Minister stopped laughing for a moment, because this is very serious. When the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), responded recently to a debate in Westminster Hall packed with Labour MPs raising similar concerns, she did not say very much. However, it cannot be beyond our wit to bring in some kind of statutory code or regulation and ensure that it is enforced. I take the Minister’s point that some people like zero-hours contracts, but, given the widespread exploitation of people in that situation, surely it is time to take action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I can confirm that the Clydesdale bank has now become part of the review, as have all the other principal banks. The hon. Gentleman has raised the case of his constituent with me before; even though the product was not within the review’s terms of reference, Clydesdale has agreed to consider it as part of the review.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I have constituents who are concerned that the FSA may come under pressure from the banks to water down its findings and reduce the scope of the redress scheme, to their disadvantage. What can my right hon. Friend say to reassure my constituents about that important issue?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The review is under the auspices of the Financial Services Authority, and each bank has had to appoint independent reviewers who are themselves accountable to the FCA. It is absolutely crucial that the objectivity they bring to bear cannot be compromised, and I have given the FSA clear feedback that it should have that in mind during the review.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I do not want any of our banks to be in a position of over-extending themselves, putting at risk either their customers or the taxpayer. It is very simple. We need to listen to the carefully thought through advice of the banking standards commission, the Vickers report and others, including the incoming Governor of the Bank of England, on these particular issues. The Government may call it the British dilemma, but it is astonishing that they always seem to be asking the European Union to come to their rescue at some point with some reform to deal with bail-in or whatever other problems happen to be around later on down the track. That is not adequate.

Let me deal with the issue of derivatives inside the ring fence, as I know that the parliamentary commission has been concerned about it. The Vickers report said that derivatives trading should not be allowed—full stop. The parliamentary commission recognised, however, that there were services on the margins where some simple derivative products might be permitted, but it added that

“allowing ring-fenced banks to sell derivatives other than as an agent creates additional prudential and conduct risks.”

I agree with the commission on that issue. We need clearer protections to prevent abuses within the ring-fenced retail banks where derivatives are sold. That was illustrated, of course, by the mis-selling of some interest rate hedging products to small and medium-sized enterprises. The danger is one of information asymmetry between customer and vendor and the fact that the trade became exceptionally lucrative for the banks. We have to move away from this era of the exploitation of the customer’s lack of knowledge, and the commission was clear about that in the three tests it set.

We have seen one of the drafts of the secondary orders, subsequent to the commission’s recommendations. It is therefore worth comparing that order with the tests that the commission has set. The commission said that there should be adequate safeguards against mis-selling, but as far as I can see, the draft order does not go into any detail about how the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority will enforce anything new. The commission said that there should be a clear definition of simple derivatives, which will be allowed, versus complex derivatives, which will be disallowed, but the draft order seems to define simple derivatives quite widely—in other words, as instruments designed to tackle interest rate risk, exchange rate risk, default risk, liquidity risk or for dealing in assets included in the liquid assets buffer. It would be easier if the Minister set out what would not be allowed rather than what would be allowed in the ring fence.

The third test relates to limits on the proportion of a bank’s balance sheet. The commission thought that was necessary, but the draft order so far leaves out what that percentage should be. There is a space left for a figure before the percentage sign, so perhaps the Minister can give us a sense of what that proportion of the bank’s balance sheet should be. That was one of the commission’s tests, as I said, so we need to secure assurances from the Minister about the Government’s intentions. As Martin Taylor said in his evidence to the commission:

“I can’t see the point of having a fence round the chicken coop, electrifying it to keep the foxes out, and then inviting a family of tame foxes to live inside it.”

That sums up the problem quite neatly. I have already alluded to the bail-in powers. Again, it is disappointing that the Government are relying on future European directives as the means to achieve bail-in rather than building it into the Bill before us. I do not think that the frequent excuse of “We’re waiting for the European Union” will do any longer.

We need also to focus on some of the other issues that should be in the Bill today, particularly rebuilding consumer choice, financial inclusion and a diverse market. The Bill is silent on all those areas. There is nothing about challenger or new entrant banks; nothing to ensure a universal obligation on banks for basic bank account services. There is also pussyfooting around on switching of bank accounts, about which I know some Government Members are concerned. There is nothing on mutuality, despite the pledge in the coalition agreement to

“foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry”;

and nothing about a fiduciary duty of care for clients and customers. We will table amendments to ensure that high street lenders offer a basic bank account, which is particularly necessary because of the onset of universal credit. We want a report within six months addressing obstacles to new-entrant challenger banks and current account provision. We also want Parliament to have an opportunity, soon after Royal Assent, to examine the adequacy of customer switching arrangements, and we want the publication of bank data on “lending deserts”, the postcode areas where—as we are finding in our constituencies—some small and medium-sized enterprises and customers find it difficult to gain access to credit. Other tests need to be included in the Bill to fulfil the coalition’s mutuality pledge. We also want a duty to be imposed on directors of ring-fenced banks to operate prudently and to safeguard deposits, and we want them to have a fiduciary duty of care to customers throughout the financial services.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has rightly described consumer choice as the main driver of any market. Does he believe that encouraging Lloyds Banking Group to buy HBOS, or intimidating it into doing so, increased or decreased consumer choice in this country?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed it, but there was a bit of a financial storm going on in the financial services sector at the time. He may think that his constituents who had deposits in Lloyds would have been better off had the bank not been saved in the way that it was, but I do not think that they would have enjoyed the experience of turning up at the cash machines and not being able to get their money out. I think that rescuing the banks was a necessary step at the time, but now we must learn from that crisis, which occurred not just in the United Kingdom but in the United States and throughout the developed world. If Government Members think that they can get away with rewriting history, and that the former Prime Minister uniquely got on a plane, caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and then went off to Greece and Spain, they must be living on a different planet.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that Lloyds Banking Group needed to be bailed out only because it was intimidated into taking over HBOS by the last Government?

[Chris Leslie]

I disagree. I think that there was a high-risk, high-return culture in the banking sector—we saw it in the United States, and we saw it here—which Government Members fuelled through their deregulatory philosophical approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I asked Harold Macmillan what the secret was of making a good speech in the House of Commons and he said, “I once asked David Lloyd George that very question and the answer I got was, ‘Don’t say anything interesting or important in the first five minutes of your speech—just wait for the Chamber to fill.” I am not sure that that will happen this afternoon, which is a pity because I believe that if this Bill finishes up as the Act I hope it will be, it will be the most important Bill of the whole of this Parliament. It may stop the second shoe falling, as it did in 1931, to use the phrase of the time. After the stock market crash of 1929 came the slump and the 1931 crisis.

In 2007-08—but in 2008 in particular—we saw the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s, which resulted in almost a decade of slump that was only solved by Adolf Hitler. If we can get this Bill right and make sure that 2008 is not repeated, it will be an enormous achievement.

Hank Paulson is the former head of Goldman Sachs and was US Treasury Secretary at the time of the 2008 crisis. If hon. Members read his book, they will see that the critical day was 15 September 2008. He says that everybody who mattered in finance was in his room and that, although he is a big man who was a famous university footballer in his youth, the stress and strain was so great that during the course of the conference he had to leave the room twice to vomit. He writes that on that day capitalism was on the verge of total collapse. I think that people have forgotten the seriousness of that crisis.

I believe that crisis was more important than 9/11. As it happens, I woke up in my club in New York on the morning of 9/11, so taking part in this Second Reading debate means that, during the course of my life, I have been present at two very important events. The fact is that the 2008 crisis ruined the lives of millions of people all over the country. Many of my constituents are suffering real hardship as a result of the measures that had to be taken to deal with the effects of the crisis, and the same is true right across the world. We really must prevent it from ever happening again, but I fear that there is a real danger that it could happen again.

The high spirits—to put it at its most polite—of investment bankers do not seem to be unabated. Many banks are in a weak state, including, as we heard only three or four days ago, Goldman Sachs itself. Some major European banks are close to bankruptcy. This Bill is a belated but welcome attempt to prevent the banking crisis of 2008 from happening again.

The Opposition spokesman is the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and in far-off days I was the hon. Member for Nottingham West, so we have a certain amount in common. Our views on regulation also have a great deal more in common than he has indicated. There is no reason why he should know what my views are on anything—nobody really does and I only do on a day-to-day basis. He should look up a speech that I made on 16 July 1984. I spoke for 40 minutes—in those days, Back Benchers were allowed to make proper speeches—and strongly opposed the deregulation of that time, which, in those days, was called big bang. Deregulation had suddenly became tremendously fashionable. Lady Thatcher, Keith Joseph and all the monetarists were terribly keen on it, but one of the reasons why I resigned from the Opposition Front Bench on which the hon. Gentleman now sits and why I refused to serve in Margaret Thatcher’s Government is that I disagreed with it.

I reread my speech last night and if the hon. Gentleman reads it, he will see that I predicted, very clearly and unbelievably presciently—I was much younger and more alert then, and knew how to put points so much better than I do now—exactly what would happen and the reasons why. I also predicted the tremendous decline in the moral standards of the financial world that would result from the internationalisation and Americanisation of the City of London. That, of course, is what, unfortunately, happened.

In that speech against big bang, I opposed the absorption of high street banks, merchant banks and stockbroker firms—I was a partner in one—into universal banks, free to speculate, on their own account, with the money of depositors and large sums of borrowed money in what is now called leverage, which we and America pronounce differently. I will not go into the arguments about ratios, except to point out that, even as respectable a hedge fund as Carlyle was dealing on a ratio of 30:1. The leverage situation was one of the causes of this disaster.

At the beginning of this Parliament I described the banks as today’s over-mighty subjects and that is what they are. They have been strongly lobbying the Vickers commission and the Treasury not to deal effectively with the bank that is too big to fail. I take the view that if a bank is too big to fail because of the systemic effect that would have, it is too big to exist at all and should be broken up now. As a start, I strongly support the recent recommendation of the Governor of the Bank of England to break up the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Glass-Steagall imposed an absolute separation between commercial banking and investment banking. It also banned proprietary trading in commercial banking. The essence of Glass-Steagall in 1933, by which Roosevelt managed to save the American banking system, was to root out conflicts of interest, which are the evil at the heart of universal banking. Banks were told that they had to choose between servicing a client and promoting their own short-term interests. Combining the two inevitably creates conflicts of interest that lead to many other problems. That is what Mr Paul Volcker, unquestionably the most distinguished and experienced banker in the world, urged on America in what became known as the Volcker rule and on our Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which has been chaired so ably and brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).

I read the accounts of what is being said and the questions that are being put at the parliamentary commission with great jealousy, although I do not want to be co-opted on to it. Its second report reached me just before lunch, and I chose lunch. However, I will read the report and all the subsequent reports with the greatest possible interest. I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has read the complete account of Mr Volcker’s evidence to my hon. Friend’s commission, as I did at the time that it was published, could fail to be persuaded that we need, in effect, a complete return to Glass-Steagall.

What I mean by a complete return to Glass-Steagall is that we should have none of this nonsense of ring-fencing, which used to be called Chinese walls. It never works. Chinese walls turned out to be papier-mâché. I worked in the City for 40 years and I promise Members that it is impossible to make that work.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the Father of the House remember that it was President Bill Clinton who relaxed the Glass-Steagall rules in return for the American banks lending to sub-prime borrowers? Were not the seeds of the financial crisis sown at that point?

[Sir Peter Tapsell]

Yes, they were. The American banks turned mortgages for people who could not afford to pay the interest into derivatives disguised as bonds and then sold packets of them—500 or so—all over the world. They could not have done that under Glass-Steagall. That really makes the point, so perhaps I ought to sit down now.

Infrastructure

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

This Government’s choices on spending and tax have resulted in millionaires being given a tax cut while the poorest bear the brunt. We are seeing the results of that, not just in the suffering that we see at our constituency surgeries, but in the lack of economic growth. That is why it is so disappointing—indeed, unforgiveable—that the coalition Government have been asleep at the wheel on the issue of infrastructure investment.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will give way one last time and then I must make some progress.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not recall that a pledge was slipped into and hidden away in the Labour manifesto to cut capital spending—that is, infrastructure spending—by 50% had her party formed the next Government?

[Catherine McKinnell]

That shows, once again, the Government’s utter complacency and head-in-the-sand approach to this whole issue. The hon. Gentleman knows that his Government have spent £12.8 billion less on capital investment than Labour planned, so I will not take lectures on that from any Government Member.

Time and again over the past two years we have heard the Prime Minister and Chancellor expound the value of infrastructure investment in delivering growth in the economy and, crucially, creating new jobs. All the evidence shows, however, that their record is one of inaction, complacency, delay and failure to deliver, which, combined with private sector uncertainty, is having a highly damaging effect on Britain’s construction industry for one.

The much-vaunted national infrastructure plan, published back in 2011, identified 40 priority projects that the Government stated were

“of national significance and critical for growth”.

However, despite the Government’s proclaimed focus on those so-called priority areas—and, indeed, a Cabinet Committee that is supposed to be overseeing progress—we are yet to see spades in the ground for too many of those projects.

Last year’s autumn statement announced a £5.5 billion infrastructure package, but this is to be paid for by cuts to departmental spending and underspend, including capital underspends, and one third of the projects included in the package had been previously announced by the Government. Indeed, describing the 2011 infrastructure plan as

“hot air, a complete fiction”,

the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce urged the Government to develop

“bold leadership and some creative ideas”

and to “get a grip” on this issue in order to stimulate economic growth.

The CBI’s assessment of the Government’s performance does not get any better, with its annual infrastructure survey last year finding that 73% of its members do not think that transport infrastructure will improve over the next five years and that two thirds believe that the UK’s energy and water infrastructure is unlikely to get any better. This has been damningly described by the CBI director general John Cridland as

“a wake-up call that businesses in Britain are looking for action and we haven’t seen any yet.”

Even the Deputy Prime Minister finally appeared to wake up to the importance of this issue—although a little late in the day—when he acknowledged last month that the coalition cut capital spending too deeply when it came into government. We were all desperately disappointed that the latest apology did not come via YouTube—the “I’m Sorry” infrastructure remix. We were offered this particular mea culpa via The House magazine, which he told:

“I think we’ve all realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”

Yes, that is what the Opposition have been saying all along.

In their first three years, this Tory-led Government have spent £12.8 billion less in capital investment than would have been spent under the plans inherited from Labour. That is a fall of 8%. According to the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility, the coalition will spend £7.3 billion less on capital investment over the course of this Parliament than was planned by Labour.

This debate is not just about investment. Ensuring that infrastructure projects get off the ground and deliver jobs and growth requires the political will and determination to drive things through—something that is sadly and damagingly lacking under this Government. The economic situation in which we find ourselves requires urgent action from Government, such as that proposed in Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, which would bring forward long-term infrastructure projects, as we did in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. That plan includes the construction of thousands of affordable homes.

We need a comprehensive long-term plan to rebuild Britain’s infrastructure for the 21st century—a long-term framework that gives investors the confidence that they need to invest consistently and that will deliver real results for the UK economy. That is why my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have asked Sir John Armitt, the chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to conduct a review into how long-term infrastructure decision making, planning, delivery and finance can all be improved.

As this issue is of such national significance, a cross-party consensus is required to deliver what we need. We have seen what can be achieved when we reach a consensus and plan for the long term across Parliaments and across political divides. The Olympics showcased Britain as the great country and the one nation that it is, but that was Labour’s legacy. What will be this Government’s legacy? If they are not careful, it will be dither, delay, stifled economic growth and stagnation. It is time to get a grip. The Opposition motion calls on the Government to do just that, and I commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

What I can confirm is that the Government are taking a very focused approach to welfare. Under the previous Government, nine out of 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. No wonder our welfare budget was out of control. Through the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill and other reforms the Government have introduced, we are making our welfare system affordable and more focused.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that working families will be, on average, £125 a year better off after the announcements in the autumn statement?

[Sajid Javid]

I can confirm the figure used by my hon. Friend. Indeed, if we take account of all the tax changes we have made in the personal allowance, I can also say that an individual on the minimum wage and in full-time employment will see their tax bill halved under this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

No, I do not believe it is. The hon. Lady refers to costs, and she will know that the flexible new deal, which the Work programme replaced, cost £7,495 per job outcome; that compares with costs of about £2,000 under the Work programme. It is a great deal more cost-effective. The hon. Lady will also be aware that 56% of those first Work programme starters have come off benefits and that up to September this year, there have been 200,000 job entries, as reported by providers, so there is a sense of progress in the Work programme, too.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the CBI, which has said that the Work programme has already helped to turn around the lives of thousands of people and is delivering real value for money for the taxpayer?

Autumn Statement

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s plans for £200 billion of extra spending, extra borrowing and extra debt would damage this country’s economic credibility, and ultimately lead to interest rates rising for families and businesses in my constituency and across the whole country?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what the Labour party offers: more borrowing, more debt, and a return to the mess it left this country in. People are not going to trust Labour with the public finances again, and they are particularly not going to trust the shadow Chancellor again.

Income Tax

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We have already debated this; when we debated the Finance Bill, Labour MPs voted against the cut in the top rate from 50p to 45p, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.

Let us look at the facts. There are 30 million taxpayers in the UK—30 million people who go out to work each day and pay their tax—yet the Chancellor’s tax cut helps only the richest 300,000, of whom 8,000 take home more than £1 million a year. According to table 2.5 on page 30 of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ income tax liabilities statistics of April this year, their total income in 2012-13 is expected to be £18.4 billion, and they will pay £8.6 billion of tax on that income at the 50p rate. From next April, when the additional rate is lowered to 45p, they will pay £7.7 billion of tax on that income. This represents £860 million of lost revenue because of a tax cut for people earning over £1 million, and an average tax giveaway of £107,000 to each and every one of them—not just in one year but in each year to come.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I give way, and I look forward to hearing a justification for that.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will not the hon. Lady be honest with this House and this country? This was a Trojan horse of a tax brought in at the very fag end of the Labour Government as part of a scorched-earth policy that has been shown to have cost the Exchequer almost £7 billion already—something else that the previous Government messed up and that this Government have to put right.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In using the word “honest”, it should be taken as read that Members are always honest in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I suspect, Mr Speaker, that you would not want us to be drawn into a lengthy debate about party funding. All I can say is that the Conservative party and this coalition Government will make decisions on tax policy on the basis of ensuring that we have a fair and competitive tax system, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the Minister agree that when data show that the top 1% of earners already pay 28% of all income tax, we want to encourage them to stay, and, indeed, attract other high earners to our economy?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our income tax receipts are dependent on high earners, and that will continue to be the case. We will continue to raise substantial sums from those high earners, but we must ensure that the UK is an attractive place for them to be located. At a time when labour mobility is perhaps greater than it has ever been before, particularly for such individuals, we have to recognise that the UK is competing for talented individuals and business investment, and that a 50p rate of income tax does not help us do that. That is the essence of the reason why we reduced the rate to 45p.

It may be helpful to provide some background to the policy we are debating. As the House will be aware, the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), announced in his 2009 Budget that the additional rate of income tax would come into effect in April 2010. It was accepted that there would be behavioural change as a consequence of that. The shadow Chief Secretary referred to the figure of £3 billion, which she alleged was the cost of cutting the 50p rate to 45p. She got that figure by looking at the static cost—not including any behavioural change whatsoever. It is worth pointing out that when the previous Government announced the increase from 40p to 50p, they assumed a behavioural change that would mean that rather than raising £6 billion, approximately only £2.5 billion would be raised. That was the assumption made by the previous Government. Such a substantial behavioural impact is inevitably bad for the economy. Not only were we left with an economy in a disastrous state and a huge budget deficit resulting in public sector debt growing very rapidly, we were left with a tax system that was highly uncompetitive and drove away big contributors to tax revenue.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Minister for giving way again—he is very generous. Does my hon. Friend agree that having a high income does not guarantee friends, happiness or health but does guarantee choice, and that one of the major choices is where one is domiciled for tax?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right, and harks back to what I was saying a moment ago. We have to bear in mind that the ability of high-earning individuals to be mobile has increased over time. It is striking, for example, that the number of UK citizens moving to Switzerland in 2010 increased by 29%. That demonstrates the fact that individuals will respond to fiscal incentives. They will respond to one of the highest rates of personal tax in the developed world, which was the position that the UK was in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The HMRC assessment set out the impacts that had already emerged. I highlighted the number of people moving to Switzerland and so on. The assessment of the behavioural impact was that about one third to half was a consequence of reduced economic activity—either people retiring or moving outside the UK. That is a considerable impact. It is not good for the UK economy, and the sooner we take steps to address it and set out plans to get rid of the 50p rate, the better.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Following on from the Exchequer Secretary’s last point, has the Treasury assessed the impact that the top rate of tax was having on dissuading foreign people from coming here?

[Mr Gauke]

That is also included in the HMRC assessment of the consequences for economic activity. My hon. Friend raises an important point, however: it is not just about people leaving the UK, but the fact that people would not be moving to the UK, thus damaging our reputation as a business centre. I am pleased to say that under this Government we now have a competitive top rate and corporate tax system. That is why, just this week, UBM and Seadrill announced they were moving to the UK—because it is a good place to do business, and our tax system plays a part in that.

We have taken measures to ensure that high earners make a fair contribution without resorting to punitive and populist measures that damage the economy. We have raised revenues from the most well-off in society in every Budget since we came to power, creating a fairer tax system—one where those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. That has included increases in capital gains tax and stamp duty. We have also taken a tough stance on avoidance and evasion. For example, we introduced the disguised remuneration legislation in the 2011 Budget, raising £750 million a year, mainly from higher and additional rate tax payers. That is seven and a half times the amount that was being raised by 50p as compared with 45p—and by the way, the Opposition voted against it.

In the 2012 Budget we set out policies on tackling tax avoidance. All our Budgets have included firm measures to close loopholes and strengthen HMRC’s ability to deal with tax avoidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister update the House on steps he is taking to ensure that the affordable housing programme remains on course to deliver the £19.5 billion of public and private investment in affordable housing over the course of this Parliament?

[Danny Alexander]

Yes, I will. The affordable rent programme was over-subscribed and will deliver more homes than originally expected. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government will ensure that they are delivered as quickly as possible. By putting in place the new guarantee programme for housing associations, we can further accelerate that programme, ensuring that we meet the targets my hon. Friend describes.