Finance (No. 3) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The amendment before the House declines to give the Finance Bill a Second Reading for simple reasons: because it will increase unemployment, it fails to tackle higher petrol prices, and it lets off the banks with their bonus tax being lower than it need be. The Bill will fail the British people and we will oppose it this evening.

We have had a good debate, in which we have brought out the differences between the Government and the Opposition on these key issues. There has been some agreement, for example, as the hon. Members for Watford (Richard Harrington) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said, on the need to tackle the deficit. We do agree that we need to grow the economy and to reduce unemployment, and we should do those things in a fair and equitable manner.

However, the differences between the Government and the Opposition are wide and deep, and during the passage of this Bill they will be shown to be based on principle. The backdrop to the Bill is important and cannot be spoken about in isolation—indeed, hon. Members have not done that today. From January, VAT increases have cost families with children an average of £450 extra. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, we face cuts to the amount parents can claim on child care. We face child benefit being frozen for three years and the scrapping of the baby element of child tax credits, which is worth £545 a year to people. Benefits are being set on a permanently lower path of inflation, and basic and 30-hour elements of the working tax credits are being frozen. The second income threshold for family elements of tax credit is being cut and the withdrawal rates for tax credits are being increased to 41%.

This Government are clearly determined to hit families hard, and this Budget and Finance Bill do nothing to take those issues forward in a positive way. The Government’s argument is that we need to tackle the deficit. We agree with that and we had a plan to tackle the deficit by cutting it over four years—the Department in which I was a Minister in the previous Government planned to save £1.4 billion. This Government’s measures go too far and are too deep, and they will increase the debt in this country considerably through the levels by which unemployment and benefit expenditure will increase.

The Labour Government had a plan to lower the debt, and before the worldwide crash our national debt was lower than that of America, France, Germany and Japan. The actions of the banks caused the recession and the deficit, and without the support of active government, from which this Government seek to withdraw, we would have faced even more unemployment and even more house repossessions. We are clear that these cuts are too deep and that they are being made too fast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said.

If the Minister does not wish to agree with me, perhaps he will agree with the Member who said:

“If spending is cut too soon, it would undermine the much-needed recovery and cost jobs.”

He also said:

“Do I think that these big cuts are merited or justified at a time when the economy is struggling to get to its feet? Clearly not.”

Those things were said by the leader of the Liberal Democrats one year ago this very week. He called for no cuts in public spending. He wanted cuts to be not so deep and not so fast, but he has changed his tune now.

We accept that getting the deficit down is important, and what happens to jobs and growth in our economy is crucial. That is why when last year the economy started growing, unemployment was falling. But cuts in public spending are now hitting not only people in the public sector and families and people who need support; they are hitting the private sector and private sector businesses harder. I heard the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) say that she was concerned about the private sector. This morning, I visited businesses in Ipswich and I was told that because of the fear of public spending cuts and the actual public spending cuts people were not buying things in the shops any more. I was told that the cuts were too deep and too fast, and that they were damaging the growth in our economy as a whole.

Last year’s Budget should have contained a bank bonus tax creating more than 100,000 jobs, building 25,000 affordable homes, rescuing construction apprenticeships and boosting investment in businesses, but this Government have failed to take those actions. As well as cancelling the fuel duty rise—we did the same in government when oil prices were rising—the Government should have reversed the VAT rise on petrol, which adds £1.35 to the cost of filling a 50-litre tank. The 1p fuel duty cut in the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough towards offsetting the increase in VAT that the Chancellor imposed in January this year.

The Finance Bill contains no real plan for growth. In clause 10, the Government cut Labour’s proposed allowances for manufacturers by £75,000, using that money to give a corporation tax cut that disproportionately benefits the banks when we could have had more investment in research and development and tax relief for small businesses as a whole. On living standards, the rise in allowances given to people in the Bill is taken away by the VAT increase in January. The House of Commons Library has shown that families will be £1,700 a year worse off because of the Government’s tax and benefits changes.

We know that the Government have not done enough to help drivers. We have seen the planned fuel duty rise delayed, which Labour Governments did when world oil prices were rising, but the Chancellor has done nothing to help individuals by increasing VAT, which has added to the cost of filling up tanks with unleaded petrol over the past three months. The cut in fuel duty gives only 1p back, while the VAT rise has cost almost 3p per litre.

We know that this year there have been tax cuts for the banks. Labour said we wanted an additional bank levy from the Government this year and that we should have repeated the bank bonus tax and raised at least £2 billion so that the banks did not get a tax cut and so that funds were provided to invest in jobs, growth and housing. The Government have said no. In future years, the Government should increase the bank levy to ensure that the banks continue to pay their fair share of tax, so that taxpayers are not left to pick up the bill for the banking crisis.

Finally, clear concerns have been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and by the hon. Members for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the investment proposals for North sea oil and the risks that the Government are taking. At the very last minute, with no consultation, the Government have made proposals to tax North sea oil still further. Oil and Gas UK has criticised the Government’s decision and uncertainty has been expressed from organisations across the board about this hasty move. The Government took the decision at the very last minute with no consultation and next Tuesday we will seek to discuss the matter in more detail and to ensure that we get further consultation.

The Government are cutting too far and too fast and the Finance Bill does nothing to help gain confidence, increase employment or secure the future for our society as a whole. The Government have implemented front-loaded cuts, which are hitting vital services and families, while giving the banks a tax cut. The Government need to think again about the devastating impact of their policies on our economy. We shall scrutinise the Bill in Committee and we shall undoubtedly welcome certain aspects of it in due course. Tonight, however, I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment and against the Bill. The Bill will damage our economy, it does nothing for our society and I urge my hon. Friends to reject it.

Coinage (Measurement) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) on piloting the Bill to Third Reading and through Committee and Second Reading. He will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has supported the Bill to date. That support from the official Opposition will continue today.

The Bill makes an important contribution to ensuring that we can celebrate the Olympics next year and potentially, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, consider the provision, through Her Majesty the Queen and the Chancellor, of further commemorative coins at suitable occasions in the future. As he said, the Bill is required to ensure that we establish a legal background for the change in size of the coins. I am particularly pleased that we can put in place this coin for the Olympic games. As the then Northern Ireland sports Minister, I remember standing in Trafalgar square on 6 July 2005 when the Olympics were awarded to the United Kingdom. I think it is fair to say that it was one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government that the Olympics were awarded to the UK, with cross-party support from both sides of the House. It is certainly something that we look forward to next year.

The coin itself will provide an opportunity to add value to the Olympics, allow us to celebrate them and send the message to the rest of the world and collectors across the globe that London is a place to do business. I hope that the sale of the coins will bring some value to the Treasury. We have had many discussions with the Minister about the level of the deficit. I am sure that this will bring in at least some money to offset some of the draconian measures that the Government will introduce. However, far be it from me to inject a note of discord into what is a day when we accept that the Bill is needed, fulfils a purpose and will serve a useful function. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on piloting the Bill. He has our full support, and I look forward to many sales of the commemorative coin next year and to a successful Olympics. In future years, when commemorative coins are introduced on the many more occasions when we require them, he will be noted as the Member who introduced the Bill. I trust that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) does not take too unkindly to the fact that kilograms are in place today. I am sure that there are many areas on which we can agree, and although his scepticism about Europe reaches into a number of areas, I hope that he, too, will fully support the Bill and its objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

It may well end up with that nickname, which would be appropriate for a coin that, as we heard, will not just be minted to commemorate the Olympics but could be used to commemorate a whole range of special events in this country where we think that coin collectors might be interested in adding to their collections.

With their large size, the kilogram coins will be an exciting, artistic and eye-catching piece of numismatic art that will no doubt be treasured and passed on to future generations. At almost 1,100 years old, the Royal Mint is a tradition in itself. The production processes—from design and modelling, to the blast furnaces, and the striking of blanks and ultimately coins—are the epitome of a successful manufacturing company. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in last week’s Budget speech, manufacturing is crucial to the rebalancing of our economy. Under this Government manufacturing is now growing at a record rate, with 14,000 more jobs created in the sector in the last three months alone.

As the House will be aware, the Budget announced several measures to help promote and further develop British manufacturing, over and above the efforts that the sector is already making. I have no doubt that the Royal Mint will continue to pioneer new processes and develop as a pivotal part of British manufacturing. The Royal Mint has been based in south Wales since the 1960s and employs 850 people. I had the chance to meet them last year when I went down there to look at their production process and learn more about the practicalities of minting coins. I had a fascinating trip, but also learned an awful lot about the skill that the employees have to use to ensure that the coins that are minted—the coins that end up in our pockets and that we spend in shops every day—are ones that we can rely on.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the Minister recall that the establishment of the Royal Mint in south Wales was the result of a decision by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, James Callaghan, to decentralise government activity from London to the regions? I would like to impress on the Minister the advantages of considering such moves again in the future.

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It struck me how important the Mint was to the local economy when I visited it. The broader point that he rightly makes is that, as the economy grows in the coming years, we need to ensure that more growth is in manufacturing, and that more of that manufacturing growth takes place outside London and the south-east, so that we end up with a more balanced economy.

It is also worth pointing out that the Royal Mint produces not only coins but all our British military medals except the Victoria cross, and, as we have heard, it has won competitive tender procedures to produce medals for sporting events such as the 2005 Ashes series and the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic games.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North also mentioned the 50p sports series, and the House should note that the 29 designs are not only available as collectors’ items but featured on circulating coins currently being issued to the general public. Fourteen of the 29 designs have already been issued in line with natural demand for coin, with the remainder entering our pockets in the lead-up to next summer’s games. The 50p sports series also helped the Royal Mint to enter the record books when, last October, 1,697 newly minted Olympic 50p coins were flipped simultaneously, setting a new world record. I doubt that that record will be surpassed using kilogram coins, but that shows that the Royal Mint is part of the fabric of our British culture in a broader way than many of us realise.

The London 2012 Olympic games will be an event of huge importance for the whole country, and this legislation is important in ensuring that it can be appropriately celebrated. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right in saying:

“I know that everyone in the UK is eager to make London 2012 the best Olympic and Paralympic Games ever seen, and I believe that the London 2012 Coin Programme will be one of the greatest and most successful in the history of the Games”.

I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North for introducing the Bill, which will help the Royal Mint to achieve such an ambition. We all wish it a safe and swift passage through the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Amendment of the Law

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I will be a Jones who shows some brevity out of courtesy for his colleagues on both sides of the House.

I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget and congratulate him on it, because this is a difficult time to be a Chancellor and to deliver a Budget, as it will be for the rest of this Parliament. As much as Opposition Members like to deny it, the Chancellor is constrained by the straitjacket of the deficit and the debt left behind by Labour. We must view the Budget in context. We are paying £120 million a day in interest alone on our debt—£43 billion this year, which is more than we spend on the armed forces, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development combined—which is a scandal.

I therefore commend the Chancellor for what is, in the circumstances, a first-rate Budget. It goes some way to recognising the financial pain that is being felt in the country, and serves to set a clear tone for the business community. This Government take businesses far more seriously. They recognise that people and businesses and not the state create jobs—sustainable jobs—and that if we are not serious about business, the country cannot sustain in a settled fashion the important public services on which we all rely.

There are positives in the Budget for individuals and businesses, but I shall also respectfully mention one or two concerns about it. I welcome the announcement on fuel, which is currently the biggest issue for my constituents. People will tonight breathe a sigh of relief that the 5p a litre increase programmed into the Budget by the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), has been deferred. I am delighted that that has happened. People will also breathe a sigh of relief that the Government recognised the importance of that, and decided to get off the escalator at the right time, unlike the previous Government, who did not know when to get off, as we saw in 2000 when our fuel depots were blockaded by truckers and angry motorists, which I hope will not happen now.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for those words of support. I know that he has personal experience, through the work his family have done with children in care, of the contribution that society can make to helping these children. Frankly, all Governments have struggled to provide a decent level of care for the children to whom we owe the greatest obligation. As I said, I will engage with interested Members of Parliament, particularly my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, and the two charities that produced the report to make this a reality and get it up and running as soon as possible.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

May I remind the Chancellor that he broke his original election promise—a promise he made in the general election and ripped up on 3 January—to provide a trust fund for the poorest third of families? I welcome his announcement today, but we will look at the detail. We pushed on this issue in Committee on the abolition of the child trust fund Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) has pushed outside that Committee. We welcome this announcement, but can the Chancellor say what that contribution will be and, given that this is a Department for Education issue, as he has said, whether the provision will extend to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as the trust fund originally did?

[Mr Osborne]

First, of course we will ensure that the scheme is available across the UK, although the exact design has to be determined with the charities. I have listened to the case made not so much by those on the Opposition Front Bench—if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so—but by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and the two charities concerned. The sum of money involved will be around £5 million.

HM Revenue and Customs

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate, particularly the Chairman of the Treasury Committee—the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), who chairs the Sub-Committee. I begin by placing on the record the value of the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Clearly, it has faced significant challenges, which have been mentioned by hon. Members across the House, not least of which was the merger and the implications of bringing two big organisations together to deliver a large public service. However, as someone once said, we are where we are, and I want to look to the future and some of the challenges, rather than revisit old territory.

Between HMRC’s formation in April 2005 and March 2010, it collected £2,188 billion in tax and paid out £157 billion in benefits. That is a big operation by any standards, and its functions relating to tax credits, taxation, child benefit, child trust fund endowments, the national minimum wage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has mentioned, and the supervision of a range of money laundering regulations are key issues that are impacting on the Government as a customer, in relation to raising taxation, and on members of the public as customers. I understand that, as the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has pointed out, there are many areas in which that interface causes severe frustration and difficulties in relation to customer service. The service to both the customer and the recipient, including the Government, needs to be improved in those areas.

A key thread of today’s debate has been the level of service, especially outward-facing service. We need to reconsider how to improve the response of the service to members of the public who engage with it. That includes not only phone responses, which the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned, letter responses and complaints procedures, but the whole issue of how the public interface with the service, how they use it to help them to pay their taxes in an effective way, and how difficulties are resolved. People should expect a level of public service and should know what that level of service is, and we in the House, both in opposition and in government, should look at how we can help to support that. There are real problems here, and if the Minister dealt with the strategy to help improve the service to the public, so that there was clarity and transparency about the issues that hon. Members have raised in connection with what the public should receive, I would welcome that.

HMRC’s main customer remains the Government. It is a tax-collecting agency and it needs to perform that function effectively and efficiently. It is important to maximise revenue flows and to improve compliance. One of the key issues in today’s debate has been how to raise those issues in a positive way to ensure that we take forward tax collection to maximise the available tax-take in a fair and effective way. To do that, we need a dedicated work force with good morale; hon. Members have touched on the changes and the fact that staff morale in the service has been low. To bring about those changes effective leadership is required from the Minister, which I am sure he will give, and from the staff who lead the organisation, focusing on HMRC’s core objectives of delivering services to the public and to the Government. A key issue in that regard, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East in particular, is that in a time of global recession and public spending challenges, we need to ensure there is fair and effective taxation and compliance in relation to the taxation issues in our community at large.

One of the key themes in today’s debate, which was reflected by my hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is how we manage effective tax compliance and revenue collection at a time when, by the Minister’s own admission, he is reducing HMRC’s settlement by 15% overall as part of the efficiency savings that he seeks to make. Despite the fact that he is investing £917 million in tax collection and compliance, the £2 billion cut in the service causes concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), on a topic that he has raised in the Chamber on many occasions, drew attention to the fact that the PCS and the Association of Revenue and Customs believe that the compliance figure for each officer amounts to a yield of about £650,000. There are many opportunities for the Minister to enhance compliance in the future. Like my hon. Friends, I am concerned that the 25% potential efficiency savings and the £2 billion cut in the budget will result in job losses, which will equate to revenue losses and lower morale among the staff whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East represents, and staff elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned.

I want to hear from the Minister, in the time he has at his disposal, how he expects those efficiency savings of £2 billion to be made, over and above the £917 million that he has put in place to support revenue collection. I want to hear an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East: how much of the money that will be raised by the extra £917 million is to be collected before the 2013-14 deadline, given that the Minister said that he expects to raise an extra £7 billion by that time? I want to hear from him about the service that HMRC will provide. With that £2 billion reduction, I worry that service issues identified by the hon. Members for Witham, for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) will be exacerbated as a result of insufficient legal resources for litigation, lower response times, increased compliance costs and more difficulties in delivering the efficient service that we all seek.

The Minister needs to give the House an account of his future strategy for the effective collection of revenue by HMRC. We saw last year, with the PAYE debacle in which 1.4 million people were asked to make up an underpayment worth about £2 billion, that the service impacts on everybody’s life, as has been pointed out by Members speaking about their own constituency experiences. Mistakes that are made, from child tax credits to tax demands, cause stress and worry. The efficiency of the organisation is desirable not just because it is a public service, but because of its effect on people’s day-to-day life.

I want to hear from the Minister how he expects to manage revenue collection and compliance over the next few years, and how he intends, with officials, to improve the service and sharpen its focus at a time of reduced resources. Those who work in the service care as much as we do about it, and about its future direction. The trade unions have emphasised to me the need to invest in training and support for tax professionals, the need to ensure that we have an effective deterrent against non-compliance, and the need for measures to reduce the tax gap and ensure that we provide a service to customers out there who are our constituents.

I think that we have a clear role to look at where we have come from and to focus HMRC on its core business, which is providing a service to the public and raising the revenue that we seek to spend. I simply put down as a marker for the Minister the fact that the Opposition will be watching carefully to see how his efficiency savings either hit or support that public service and revenue collection. HMRC’s role is key to helping us fund the public services that we all want, and it is his job to ensure that it does so in the most efficient way possible.

Economic Regeneration (Glasgow)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) on securing this debate, which is of crucial importance not only to Glasgow and to those who have a concern about and an interest in Scotland, but to the wider UK economy. I am pleased that she has been supported today by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who is speaking in a personal capacity today. I also very much welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).

What struck me about the debate is that my hon. Friends have made an important case that is applicable not only to Glasgow, but to many other parts of the UK. The key to economic growth and the success of local economies is partnership. It is about not only what government, the voluntary sector or individual entrepreneurial spirit can do, but the partnership that brings those things together. My hon. Friends have discussed national UK Government investment in Scotland, economic projects that link Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom, the clear benefit that public expenditure brings to Scotland and how such public expenditure relates to the private and voluntary sectors and to the social progress of people who live and work in the great city of Glasgow and the surrounding community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East began by pointing out that Scotland has a great manufacturing, cultural and social history, including shipbuilding, the automotive industry and football—one of Glasgow’s great exports is Kenny Dalglish, who has brought great success to my part of the world. The key point is that that manufacturing history and support is where we need to build that partnership for the future. What I have taken from the debate is the issue of partnership. Secondly—my hon. Friends have touched on this, and I shall return to it—a strategy for growth is needed that involves the public sector, looks at key infrastructure projects and helps to develop the voluntary and private sectors. There is also a need—this is key to where the Government are currently failing—for that strategy, that partnership, that development, and that active government to focus on social fairness. Even at a time when there are challenges with the deficit, which we have all recognised, the way in which the Government implement their deficit reduction strategy can, as my hon. Friends have touched on, damage social fairness and the social fabric of our communities.

That is particularly important because—I do not yet have the figures for Scotland—unemployment in the United Kingdom rose by 44,000 in the last month to 2.5 million people. Particularly worrying is the rise of 66,000 in youth unemployment, which has now risen to 965,000 people between the ages of 16 and 24, which makes a total unemployment rate of 7.9%. When the Labour Government left office in May last year, unemployment was starting to fall and there were signs of growth after a difficult period. Sadly, I have to report that unemployment will undoubtedly hit the city of Glasgow, as it will elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friends made the case that the Minister has to explain key policies that he has promulgated in the House and now has to follow. Those policies are having and will have a severe impact on Glasgow’s economy. We need to challenge them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East has by securing this debate, and look at alternatives. We must ensure that however we tackle the deficit, which we need to do in part—the Minister knows that when I was a Labour Minister in the Home Office, the Department had plans to make £1.5 billion of savings, so it was something that we were planning to do. However, the scale, pace, depth and front-loading of this Government’s cuts are severely damaging communities in Glasgow and other parts of the UK.

The budgets for the devolved Administrations—this is key to my area, Wales—show that the capital budget, which impacts on housing, education and infrastructure in Glasgow and elsewhere, is being cut by the Government, and in Scotland that process is being supported by the unfair application of the cuts by the Scottish National party-led Government. The £3.4 billion of capital spending in 2010-11 that was planned by the Labour Government will be cut by this Government to £2.3 billion of capital spending in 2014-15. The cut is from £3.4 billion this year to £2.5 billion in 2011-12, which makes a £900 million cut in the capital programme.

My hon. Friend mentioned that her constituency has had no investment in schools thanks to the SNP Government in Scotland and that it faces difficult challenges in respect of housing and infrastructure. Those issues will be magnified tremendously by this Government’s £900 million cut to the Scottish Executive’s budget. Again, there are ways in which we can tackle deficit reduction, but that level of drop front-loaded in the first year will hit Glasgow and other parts of the UK extremely hard. The £900 million cut for Scotland will mean that the private sector, which is so dependent on recovery in Scotland, will suffer. It will be hit by not being able to create the jobs that would have met some of that capital expenditure demand. My hon. Friend pointed to real challenges in her contribution and was supported by other hon. Friends. The Minister needs to recognise that the front-loading will cause real difficulty. The cuts, which are too quick, will exacerbate unemployment, as we have seen with the rise today.

I am sorry that there is no one here from the SNP, but I do not wish to intrude on private grief. I represent a constituency in Wales. The nationalists in Wales, to give them their due, would have been here to argue their case if the debate had been on the economy of Cardiff or Swansea. I am sorry that we have not had a contribution from SNP MPs. They might have explained how they would implement the draconian cuts at a local level. Perhaps that is something that we will return to at a later date, perhaps even outside this Chamber. My hon. Friend may wish to raise this issue elsewhere and discuss the SNP’s lack of interest in this debate and in Glasgow.

The capital cuts and, indeed, the revenue cut, which, cumulatively, is a 7% reduction in real terms in the resource budgets of the Scottish Parliament, will impact heavily on the ability of Glasgow to weather what is still a difficult period coming out of a recession which, as my hon. Friend said, was not the fault of the people of Glasgow East, yet they are the very people who will have to bear the real hardships caused by public sector reductions and the Government’s social policies. The rise in VAT and cuts to housing benefit will be extremely difficult. The unfairness of those changes hit hardest the poorest people in Glasgow, whom my hon. Friend has represented for 12 years here and in the Scottish Parliament.

There are some good news stories which should not be forgotten in this debate. Hon. Friends from both sides of the Clyde have mentioned the Clyde Gateway project and the importance of progressing it. I want to support them from the Opposition Front Bench in their endeavours to influence not only the Scottish Executive but the Westminster Government to ensure that it is a success. The project embodies the partnership that my hon. Friends have discussed today. It has the potential to develop large areas of the east end of Glasgow plus Rutherglen and Shawfield in South Lanarkshire. It involves investment of more than £62 million between 2008 and 2011, with Scottish Enterprise hopefully bringing forward £42 million to 2016. It will lever in private sector investment of up to £1.5 billion for private development, which will create jobs and homes.

The project is symptomatic of why the Government’s approach to public spending is so wrong. The Clyde Gateway scheme shows that public-private partnership can create jobs, homes and social progress. It is not a one-size-fits-all scheme, in which the public sector appears to be the devil to all other aspects of society. The Government are committed to reducing the public sector, not only to reduce the deficit but because they do not like public spending and public investment as a whole.

I hope that the Minister will endorse and support the Clyde Gateway scheme, that the UK Government will give it succour, and that that will also apply to the 2014 Commonwealth games. As my hon. Friends have said, the games will be a key economic generator and will put the spotlight on Glasgow’s tourism potential. They will be a showcase for the great skills of the people of Glasgow and for the city’s great attributes. They will involve £1 billion of investment in infrastructure, 1,000 additional jobs and 15,000 volunteers—the big society will be alive in Glasgow, irrespective of any Conservative party initiatives, which mean, in effect, a small state. I hope that the Minister will touch on that proposal today, recognise that it will result in economic growth and development in Glasgow, and support it.

Despite those positives, the Government’s policies on public spending and also on social issues will damage the economy of Glasgow. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East picked up on various points. Linking local housing allowance to the consumer prices index will result in lower income for people locally. The cut to housing benefit ignores the fact that, in an area with rising unemployment, long-term unemployed people who are trying their best to find work, who are going to interviews and sending out applications and who are turning up at the Jobcentre but are still unable to secure employment will face a reduction in their income.

My hon. Friend knows that if the people of Glasgow East find that they are unemployed and that their housing benefit has been cut, the money that they lose will not be spent in Glasgow. They will not be spending in local shops, supporting the local economy and voluntary organisations, or creating local jobs with that resource in the east end of Glasgow. We add poverty to poverty by taking unfair cuts forward.

Glasgow has a younger population compared with the rest of Scotland, and, sadly, youth unemployment will disproportionately hit that area hardest. The future jobs fund has been mentioned. It had the potential to create 200,000 full-time, paid jobs for young people up and down the country, and Glasgow would have had its share. There will be real problems in the future because of that cut.

I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East mentioned the living wage campaign. That is a big society issue: companies, voluntary organisations and the council are agreeing to pay a living wage and working together because they recognise, without the Government telling them to be part of a big society, that they have a partnership interest in the future of Glasgow. Many of the challenges are self-evident, but the Government are adding to them by front-loading public expenditure cuts too fast and too deep. However, Glasgow has real positives for future growth, such as the Commonwealth games and the Clyde Gateway, which we should celebrate on a UK basis.

Another issue that has been mentioned today is tourism. I was struck by the strong representations to extend the high-speed rail link along the west coast main line from the current proposal, which would run from London to the west midlands and through to Manchester. I use that London to Glasgow main line, because I get off at Crewe and go west. There is an argument for looking at such investment over the long term, to ensure that we enhance the high-speed link.

My hon. Friends pleaded for serious consideration of developing new industries in Glasgow and made a strong case for the green investment bank to be placed in the city, growing the financial services sector not only in Edinburgh but in Glasgow. The growth and development of renewable energy projects, with the support that the UK Government can give, are real and positive things.

My hon. Friends and I came to the debate with severe criticisms of Government policy. While needing to tackle the deficit, the Government have gone too far, too fast. However, we can work with the UK Government on some real positives, as well as with the Scottish Executive which, hopefully, will be under the control of the Labour party after May this year. We could build on the strengths and the will of the people of Glasgow to develop their own future by attracting new businesses and visitors, and by ensuring that the success of the Commonwealth games showcases that great city to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am grateful for the opportunity provided by today’s debate, which is the first that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East has secured in Westminster Hall; I hope that it will be a success. I look forward to the Minister defending his draconian cuts but also, I hope, working with my colleagues to ensure that he can mitigate those cuts and develop a strategy for growth for Glasgow into the future.

Fuel Prices

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

I entirely take that point, and it is why one proposal that I will come on to is the rural rebate discount. I have no doubt in my mind that the fault for where we are lies very firmly at the door of the outgoing Government, and in particular of their Chancellor. In his 2009 Budget, he announced tax increases on roads, fuel, alcohol and tobacco, and set out fuel duty to increase by 2p per litre in September of that year, and then by 1p per litre above indexation each April for the next four years. The decision to increase duty rates in real terms was projected to raise £3.6 billion over the next three years from 2009-10 to 2011-12.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady tell us whether she voted for the recent VAT rise?

[Miss McIntosh]

I will come on to that in a moment, but it would be nice to hear from the shadow Minister whether he feels any pain or anguish, or any need to apologise for where we are, particularly as many hon. Members from all parts of the House have today said that we are where we are. We need an all-party approach to get out of this, and since we know for a fact, from reading Lord Mandelson’s book, that the Labour party, had it remained in government, would have been committed to increasing VAT, we will not take lectures from Labour Members today.

Motoring organisations and some road hauliers have set out their difficulties with a fuel duty stabiliser, and perhaps the Minister in her response will tell us what stage we are at concerning the assessment reached by the Office for Budget Responsibility about how the stabiliser will work in practice. Were a stabiliser to be introduced, is she convinced that the reduction would be passed on to the motorist? If the reduction remained with the oil companies, there would be no advantage in introducing a stabiliser.

Turning to the rebate for remote rural areas, I realise the difficulties in persuading the European Union of such a necessity, but having practised the art, both as a European Community lawyer—now a European Union lawyer—and during 10 years in the European Parliament, I am more well-versed than most in how to persuade the European Union and our fellow member states, many of whose citizens live in equally remote areas. People in rural areas should be entitled to a discount on the rate of duty.

With fuel duties, the principle would obviously have distribution effects, given the greater reliance in rural areas on both private and public transport. We can have a debate and an argument about how the reduction in duty can best be administered, and I realise that a differential duty would require special dispensation, but the UK, in looking to apply a derogation for a lower rate of duty for petrol sold in one area—Scotland, for example—fails to recognise areas such as Northern Ireland, where there is a land border with an area selling fuel at a lower rate of duty. Also, remote areas that are particularly rural and do not have large centres of population, where people do not have schools closer than 13 or 15 miles and have to travel some distance to do a weekly shop, will be particularly penalised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate, which has drawn a great deal of interest. The fact that some 20 Members from all parts of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England—contributed to it shows how important the issue is across the whole of the UK. I confess that for a moment I felt like the 24th Regiment of Foot at Rorke’s Drift—I felt that I was surrounded by thousands of Government Members—but I was pleased that at some point the focus of the debate shifted to the Minister rather than the Opposition.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman has been joined by a reinforcement on his side. Does he think there is any reason for this issue registering so little in the interests of members of his party that no one else has turned up to participate in the debate?

[Mr Hanson]

I have hon. Friends who represent rural areas. I myself represent a rural constituency. In 2000, the well-known fuel dispute commenced in my constituency because of concerns over fuel prices—we have an interest in the matter.

My first point in response to what the hon. Lady said is that the previous Labour Government did try to address the issue. She will know that striking the right balance between taxation, the environment and affordability of car transport is critical, and that is why Labour, when in government, postponed fuel duty rises when the cost of petrol was high. In October 2008, we postponed the 2p per litre rise to help alleviate the pressures that we recognised were there.

When the fuel dispute took place in my constituency, petrol was around £1.06 to £1.07 per litre. In my constituency, it is now around £1.28 per litre—slightly less than has been mentioned today but a big difference—and, as Members have said, that impacts on businesses, schools, commuters and a range of issues generally. My first thought was, if that is the case, what have the coalition Government, who have had the opportunity to tackle the issue, done since last May? In an intervention, I explained to the hon. Lady that she voted for VAT increases which, according to the House of Commons Library, have added around 2.6p per litre to the price of petrol. Those are important issues. I do not want to focus on the negative, but we cannot get away from the fact that the price of petrol is higher now than it was when Labour left office, and it is higher because of the VAT increases for which she voted.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that it was his Government’s policy, had they continued in government after the election, to introduce VAT increases which would have had a negative impact?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

There is a range of issues. We would have had to see what we would have done. We had a range of plans to tackle the deficit, but, in my view, VAT is a regressive tax.

[Miss McIntosh]

That is a yes.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Lady might want to, but she cannot hide from the fact that her vote—and the votes of all hon. Members who have spoken today from the Government Benches—has added to the increase in the price of fuel since May last year. That is an uncomfortable fact for them, but that is what they have done. Again, I do not want to focus on the negative, because we have had some positive discussions. However, when attacked, I tend to fight back. Unfortunately, that point was made, so I have to reply on the record.

We have had a number of suggestions, all worthy of consideration. I will look at each in turn. The hon. Lady discussed the issue of the fuel duty stabiliser. The issue was raised during the election, and the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) also touched upon it today. The fuel duty stabiliser involves some problems, so an explanation from the Minister as to where the Government are on their election pledge from last May would be worth while. The Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility said recently that the idea of a fuel duty stabiliser is unworkable. I share that view, on behalf of the official Opposition.

In principle, the concept is simple: as oil prices go up, fuel duty will go down; and as oil prices drop, fuel duty goes up. The motorist, therefore, pays more or less the same for fuel and the Exchequer gets more or less the same in revenue. However, in reality, the suggestion is far from simple. On 14 September, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an assessment of the effect of oil price fluctuations on public finances, with the aim of informing the debate. The report found that a temporary rise in oil prices would have a negligible effect on UK public finances, while a permanent rise would create a loss. The Government would find introducing a fair fuel duty stabiliser difficult because, as the head of the OBR, Robert Chote, suggested a couple of weeks ago,

“a fair fuel stabiliser would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable”.

A 1% reduction in petrol duty would cost the Exchequer around £130 million. The fuel duty stabiliser, depending how it was operated, could cost between £3 billion and £5 billion of public expenditure. The stabiliser was a manifesto commitment, which the Conservative Government wish to carry out, but they need to explain how they will do so and how they will compensate for the loss to the public purse of such a sum. My rural constituents, as well as my urban constituents, will have to find that money from somewhere else, whether in public service cuts or extra taxation. The then Liberal Democrat spokesman, now the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, said in opposition that he believed a fuel duty stabiliser would be “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”, which the OBR has confirmed. We need an explanation of where we are. Is the fuel duty stabiliser still a live option? Do the Government intend to keep their manifesto commitments? What would the cost to the public purse be of the potential loss of income from the stabiliser? Since the election, all we have seen is a rise in VAT to 20%, which has increased petrol prices, not decreased them.

The hon. Members for High Peak, for South East Cornwall, for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) suggested that we look at the idea of a rural derogation, which the Liberal Democrats proposed in their manifesto. The idea seems to have been adopted by the coalition. However, the pilot at the moment is simply for the Northern Isles and for the Isles of Scilly. We have also had representations today for the “island of Ulster”, as the hon. Member for North Antrim called it, as well as from Cornwall and mid-Wales—a very rural area, I know, as pointed out by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire—and from the hon. Members for High Peak, for Thirsk and Malton and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). Such areas should be included in such an issue.

How would the Government define a rural area, given the issues raised? Half of my constituency is extremely rural and half extremely urban. Throughout the Chamber, we have had discussion about where the border falls. The difficulties are real. First, why have the areas chosen for the pilot been selected? I could make a strong case for parts of Northern Ireland, where I served as a Minister, parts of mid-Wales, which I know very well, or parts of North Yorkshire.

[Andrew Bingham]

The right hon. Gentleman called for the rural derogation, which I am not against. However, that worries me, because I sort of agree with him. My constituency is rural, but includes two fairly sizeable towns, so where the lines are drawn would concern me. We could have that same problem of people shipping petrol across the lines.

[Mr Hanson]

The issues are real. Again, in response, can the Minister tell me why the pilot areas were chosen? What is the assessment of rolling out a rural derogation throughout the United Kingdom? What are the cost assessments for the pilot areas and, indeed, for the other areas bidding today? How do we change the current scheme of taxing oil when it leaves the refinery, rather than at point of sale?

[Roger Williams]

On people travelling to get cheaper fuel, the idea of a derogation is to equalise the price between areas, not that it is cheaper in rural areas than in urban areas.

[Mr Hanson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that still involves a cost. We have already seen great bids from a number of parts of the United Kingdom for the derogation to be applied.

Currently, tax on oil is levied on leaving the refinery, rather than at point of sale. The complex issues of a derogation involve not just fairness but also applicability and how to achieve the aims wanted on the ground. The Government must reconsider the real issues.

Finally, one of the big issues in the Chamber that has not been explored was touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire: the role of the oil companies in the price of petrol. Shell will have made £1.6 million in profit during the hour and 10 minutes of today’s debate. Even after the cost of the Mexican gulf oil spill—£7.7 billion—British Petroleum made £1.8 billion in profit in the third quarter of 2010.

The Government have their responsibility for the price of petrol, but I am also interested to know what steps they are taking internationally about oil company profits—made, quite rightly, in part, from the cost of petrol. Are steps being taken to look at such levels of profit and at whether we can take action among Governments to make a difference? The issue has no easy solutions. We took action as a Government to reduce the price of fuel when it was under pressure. In the Budget, the Government have the opportunity to do the same with the proposed rise. I am interested in what the Minister has to say. The solutions proposed today are not all simple, applicable or desirable. We need to have cross-party consensus, and I appreciate that the Minister has a difficult job. She must now know what we knew in government: none of the issues are easy, without real pain to communities at large. I welcome hearing what she has to say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Two things: first, I want to hear both questions and answers; secondly, can I—[Interruption.] Order. Can I just ask Members on both sides of the House to give some thought to how our proceedings are regarded by the people whose support we were busily seeking less than a year ago?

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary first confirm that public sector debt was 42.5% in 1997 and 36.5% in 2008, the second-lowest debt of any G7 country? Will he secondly accept that investment during the last two years of the Labour Government was designed to keep people in their jobs and homes, expenditure that he supported at the time? Given the disastrous economic figures and the CBI’s comments before Christmas, will he just admit that what he is missing is a growth strategy, not the cuts that he opposed during the election?

[Danny Alexander]

What was missing from that was any reference to the subject of the question, which was the deficit. Labour Members seem keen to talk about everything except the deficit, which they left for this Government to clean up. I do not apologise at all for the tough decisions we have had to take to sort out that deficit, to introduce tax rises and to deal with public spending to ensure that this country gets back on track. They maxed out the credit card; we have to pay it off.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 2, line 20, clause 4, leave out ‘2013’ and insert ‘2012’.

Amendment 6, line 20, at end insert

‘The Treasury will carry out a review of the Regional Secondary Contributions Holiday before 5 December 2011 and may extend the relevant period until 5 September 2013.’.

[Mr Hanson]

The clue to the proposed changes before us is in the words that the Clerk read out, “not amended in the Public Bill Committee”. The proposals were reflected on and discussed in Committee, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has had time, with a good break behind him over Christmas, to reflect on the common sense in them.

I would find it amazing if the Minister were not able to accept new clause 1, because it simply asks for information that, if he looks carefully, he knows I could table questions—with probably more work for him and his officials—to secure in due course. It is important that he assesses the scheme to ensure that we have a national insurance holiday, which, under the current Bill, includes the whole United Kingdom minus three regions—London, the east and the south-east.

The Opposition support, welcome and recognise the Government’s objectives in seeking to use the mechanism of forgoing national insurance income to encourage businesses, but it is important that the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, the House, who endorse that proposal, know its impact over the relevant period.

New clause 1 asks the House to ensure that, following Royal Assent, there is an annual report to Parliament on the outcomes of the scheme, meaning that between now and 2013 we would potentially have three annual reports with the information outlined in the new clause. Essentially, that would include the total sum of national insurance expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme by constituency, but, if the Minister wanted to reflect on the proposal and have it brought back in another place, I would be happy for the information to be listed by sub-region or by region. The information would also include the number of businesses availing themselves of the secondary contributions holidays, the number of employees in each business and the total expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme.

I tabled new clause 1 for several reasons. It is important that we know the facts. The Minister said in Committee that he expects about 400,000 businesses to take part in the scheme during its operation. That figure is a valuable indication and a good benchmark by which we can judge the success of the scheme. When the Committee sat before Christmas, we were already effectively five to six months into the operation of the scheme and about 1,100 businesses had applied for it. An annual review to Parliament would not only have provided an indication of whether Parliament should pass the Bill but would have ensured that we know exactly the take-up of the scheme. New clause 1 refers to the fact that we would also know the take-up by constituency and by businesses.

That is important for two reasons. We need to know the trajectory of the take-up. Is the figure of 1,100 to date what was expected? What will the trajectory be for those businesses in 2011 and 2012? If we have our first annual report in, let us say, December 2011—when the scheme will have been operating for 18 months—what will the take-up of the scheme be? Is the trajectory for the remaining two years likely to mean we get to the 400,000 figure that the Minister has mentioned? An annual report would provide transparency and openness, to which the Government are committed, on those issues and those take-ups. There would be nothing in the report that I could not ask the Minister in a parliamentary question in December this year, next year or the year after. It would simply be good business for the Government to supply that information as a whole.

It is important to consider the number of businesses in each constituency, and we will return to the exclusion of London, the south-east and the east region when we discuss other amendments. Given the deprivation in many of the London constituencies represented by my hon. Friends in the Chamber this afternoon, we feel particularly strongly about that matter. The Bill will have a significant impact on 400,000 businesses across the remainder of the United Kingdom, but will it and the proposed holiday impact on areas that have the highest public sector employment, which is the Minister’s primary objective, and areas of high deprivation and unemployment?

We discussed unemployment and deprivation in areas of the United Kingdom a number of times in Committee. For the purposes of explanation, I shall randomly look at constituencies that currently benefit from the national holiday under the scheme and will benefit if the scheme goes ahead. The annual report is important because unemployment in the Tatton constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about 2.1%, in the Richmond constituency of the Foreign Secretary it is about 1.8% and in the Rushcliffe constituency of the Justice Secretary it is about 2%.

It is important that we look at where the scheme ultimately is taken up and who will benefit. If businesses are opening in Tatton, Rushcliffe, Richmond and, indeed, other constituencies with low unemployment, that is all well and good, but it will not tackle deprivation in Manchester Central, Liverpool, Riverside or Newcastle upon Tyne East, which ultimately also might benefit from the scheme. For transparency, it is important that the Minister produces an annual report showing not only how many people and businesses have taken up the scheme, but in which constituencies it was taken up outside London, the south-east and the east region.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend is saying. One of the estimates we should perhaps make is whether the loss of jobs as a result of the VAT hike will wipe out any possible advantage of the Bill?

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that the Opposition are extremely concerned about the impact of the VAT rise on businesses, on consumer confidence and on consumer expenditure. Although the measure is not directly linked to the VAT increase, its aim is to help businesses in difficult times. From the Minister’s perspective, the measure is primarily designed to help businesses take up the slack caused by the massive 500,000 people who will lose their jobs as a result of public spending cuts. We will come back to the impact of that on London, the south-east and the east region, where many public sector related employment opportunities will be lost and there will be no benefit from the scheme.

It is important that the Minister not only takes on board where job losses will be but that he looks outside the three excluded regions at the benefits that the scheme will bring to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The production of an annual report will show with full transparency where the businesses are that benefit from and take up the scheme. If those businesses are in areas where there is already low unemployment and deprivation, or they are in areas in the rest of England or Wales where there is not high public sector employment, the objectives set by the Minister will not have been met. In the interests of transparency, it is important to have such a report.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

We support the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause because we fear that the measure will not go far enough and that an annual report would show the need for further countervailing measures. Does he agree?

[Mr Hanson]

The purpose of the Bill, which the Opposition support, is to consider how we give limited help to start-up businesses through a national insurance holiday, so that we can get employment going across the United Kingdom with the exclusion, which we are trying to tackle, of London, the south-east and the east region.

Micro and macro-economic policy will need to be looked at again in many areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned VAT. Hon. Members are concerned about the impact of public spending cuts on job losses. The issue of the economy generally is also extremely important, as are matters such as employment in west Wales. The annual report would clearly show where new businesses are commencing because of the scheme proposed by the Minister in the Bill and whether those new business commencements can be married to areas where there are high levels of public sector job losses, deprivation and unemployment and therefore where there is a necessity for new businesses to commence. If new businesses are starting up in areas where there is already prosperity, wealth and low unemployment, the loss of the £940 million of national insurance revenue that the Minister is proposing in the Bill could have been used elsewhere to meet the objectives of tackling deprivation and unemployment in a much more concerted manner.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the temporary Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills represents a London constituency. Does he agree that it is deplorable that someone who represents a London constituency has not fought in Government for the interests of people living in London, including people in my constituency, who will be adversely affected by the measures?

[Mr Hanson]

This is a Treasury-led issue, but it will self-evidently have an impact on businesses. I would have expected the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) to use his Business Secretary responsibilities to bat very hard to ensure that the measure has an impact on London, the south-east and the east. Amendments that we will talk to later focus on those areas and show key issues that will be highlighted by the annual report, even if the Bill does not include London, the south-east and east regions.

If I look randomly at the figures before me, I can see that the unemployment rate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is 6.8%, compared with the 1.6% unemployment rate in the North Somerset constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence. His constituency will get the benefit of the scheme; my hon. Friend’s will not. The annual report to Parliament will show whether businesses are being drawn to North Somerset at the expense of, for example, the micro-region of Somerset—Bristol and other areas—where there might be even higher levels of unemployment.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

In my constituency, sadly, unemployment is even higher, but I want to make a different point to my right hon. Friend. Is there not a need to provide this assistance where there is the greatest risk of companies failing in their first year? In some of the most deprived areas, people with the fewest resources face the greatest difficulties in setting up businesses, and their business failure rate in the first year is highest. If we are to be fair, we should not be giving so much money to areas where that does not apply, and that is another reason for looking again at the distribution of this measure.

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend touches on an important point to which I will return when we discuss the group of amendments on London’s exclusion. She will be interested to know that the number of business deaths in London was 13.7% higher than anywhere else in the country. While business births are higher in London, at 12.6%, the figure for business deaths shows that there is a higher turnover and a greater loss of businesses in London than anywhere else.

London, the south-east and east region is not included in the Bill. However, even with the Bill as currently constituted, an annual report by constituency would clearly show where the business successes are, where new start-ups take place, and how many employees are being employed as result of the scheme—in other words, it would clearly show its success in meeting the Minister’s stated objectives. Without the annual report, I will have to table questions to find out that information. The Minister will need to have the information to monitor the progress of the scheme and look at its take-up and distribution, but it will not be public unless we have an annual report.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

On business deaths and bankruptcies, does my right hon. Friend agree that we have yet to see the full impact of the cuts in the school building programme, which will affect many small sub-contractors who work in the construction sector—precisely the businesses that might have benefited from the Bill had they continued to exist?

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed; my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Minister’s objective in the Bill is to help new businesses to develop to compensate for the loss and shrinkage of public sector businesses in other parts of the country; that is his main focus. The annual report would clearly show not only where new businesses are commencing but, through other information that we will be able to glean, where businesses such as construction firms are shrinking because of cuts in public expenditure on schools, hospitals and other major capital projects. I can think of building firms in my own constituency in north Wales that depend on public sector contracts in housing, education and health for their work. As my hon. Friend says, if that sector shrinks, those employment opportunities will shrink too.

I would be interested to know how many new businesses commence, and how many people are employed in each of them, in my own area in north Wales as a result of this measure, but I will not have that information unless I table parliamentary questions.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I do not understand why one could not simply put a call through to Companies House. Why do we need a report from London about the minutiae of how British enterprise is developing as a result of this fantastic Bill?

[Mr Hanson]

We are forgoing £940 million of taxpayers’ money, in the shape of national insurance contributions, to pay for this scheme—£940 million that could be put into the Building Schools for the Future programme and hospital expenditure. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman was interested in where and how that money was being spent and whether it was being spent effectively. The annual report would show clearly how that £940 million of forgone expenditure was being spent, and which constituencies or regions were receiving the benefit and which were not. My main focus is to ensure, from my perspective and that of my right and hon. Friends, that areas of unemployment, deprivation and high public expenditure get that resource, not areas that already have low levels of unemployment and high levels of prosperity, and do not require this level of resource.

The House is bound to consider how we expend public resources, and it is incumbent on the Government to provide that information. The Minister will have it as he monitors and receives reports on progress on projects, as I did when I was a Minister, and I do not see why he cannot publish it. Ultimately we can drag it out of him through parliamentary questions, but it would be far better for him to be transparent and open, in accordance with this proposal.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

On the point made by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), is it not important to disaggregate the statistics to show the specific impact of this Bill rather than taking them out of the general trends in small business creation and so on?

[Mr Hanson]

That is absolutely right. One of the key tenets of any objective in society has to be that if we set out on a course of action for which we have clear objectives, as the Minister has, then we need, at some point in time, to evaluate whether it has achieved what was claimed for it. The Minister’s objective is to ensure that this scheme benefits areas with high levels of public sector employment that are losing jobs because of public spending cuts. The annual report would show progress towards that objective. This is not meant to be threatening to the Minister—it is simply meant to say to him that the information that he will have, we should have, as a matter of course, so that we know exactly what the scheme has achieved. There is nothing wrong with that. We support the scheme. We are not complaining about the scheme—we are simply saying, “Let’s look at how it has operated in practice.”

Amendments 5 and 6 deal with the same issue in a different way. I suggest in amendment 5 that we should consider reducing the end of the scheme’s operational period from 2013 to 2012. That is not to say that we should stop the scheme in 2012, but that we should, as suggested in amendment 6, review it at the end of December 2011 and

“may extend the relevant period until 5 September 2013.”

The Minister’s scheme may well take off—the 400,000 businesses that he anticipates taking it up do so, and his objectives are being clearly and specifically achieved. However, it is also possible that only 200,000 businesses will have taken up the scheme by the end of the first or second year, and it might then be appropriate for him to amend it accordingly and consider widening its scope. Amendments 5 and 6 offer the Minister the opportunity, without scrapping the scheme, to evaluate it at a break point in December 2011. It is worth our examining whether the take-up he has promised has been achieved and, if not, whether we need to expand or modify the scheme accordingly.

The Minister has indicated that public sector employment is key to his objectives. The constituencies of Edinburgh South; Liverpool, West Derby; Glasgow North; Wansbeck; Wirral West; Blackpool North and Cleveleys; Plymouth, Moor View; Birmingham, Selly Oak; and Glasgow North East are in the top 10 on the scale of public sector employment. If, at the end of two years, there has not been business take-up in those constituencies, but there has been take-up in constituencies much lower down the scale, that would be a reason to review the operation of the scheme.

It may be appropriate to consider including London, the south-east and east region in the scheme. If the Minister cannot do that today through later amendments, he could consider doing so at a later date, and the proposed review point in the scheme would give him that opportunity. The Thames Gateway London Partnership, which is made up not only of authorities under Labour control but those under Conservative and Liberal Democrat control, says in a briefing sent to Members of this House:

“We urge the government to commit to an annual review of the National Insurance Holiday scheme. At this time should the minister find that some areas currently benefitting from the scheme already have a high rate of business survival and a low level of public sector job dependence we would urge him to consider retargeting the measure to allow some of the more deprived authorities in the Thames Gateway to take advantage of the benefits conferred by the scheme.

That reflects amendments that I will come to later. The briefing gives an example that is of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham:

“At a Local Authority level, Newham, which has a public sector employment level of 33.6% would not be eligible for the proposed NI Holiday, however, Macclesfield, which has a public sector employment rate of only 11.8% will benefit from the National Insurance holiday”.

Those issues could be reflected on and taken into account during the break in the operation of the scheme proposed in amendments 5 and 6.

The Minister would have my full support—even if he cannot accept including London, the south-east and east today—if he came back to the House in a year’s time to say that the Government had reviewed the scheme, come up with an annual report, and as a result would like to extend it to Luton South, Walthamstow, Lewisham Deptford, Ilford South, Luton North and Leyton and Wanstead, to give but six constituencies of Members in the House today. I am sure that my hon. Friends would welcome that move from the Minister; they would even say well done to him, invite him to visit the new businesses in their constituencies and cheer him from the rafters. I know that he would appreciate that greatly. I see no reason why he cannot say that he will review the scheme, even if he cannot accept the inclusion of other regions under later amendments. If the review shows that the benefit from the national insurance holiday is going to constituencies with low levels of unemployment, deprivation and public sector employment, he should consider bringing in those other constituencies by extending the scheme to a wider area.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Those figures might also draw out the effects on constituencies that border areas that are covered, where there might be a differential effect on job growth and creation, which is an issue that came up in Committee.

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed. My hon. Friend knows that there are issues relating to the borders between London, the south-east and east and other regions, because there could be differentials relating to new businesses. He made that important point in Committee, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) has made it in parliamentary questions to the Minister. On Second Reading, Government Members asked questions similar to mine on why the scheme was not applicable to their regions.

I am not being aggressive, but am trying to give the Minister a chance to listen to the case. I hope that he accepts that there is a case for producing information, so that he can evaluate it and so that we as taxpayers know how the almost £1 billion of resource has been spent: where it is going, who is benefiting from it and how, and what levels of employment it is creating and where. Amendments 5 and 6 give the Minister an opportunity to have a break after about a year to review the scheme formally and to consider the issues that we will discuss later, which are important to my hon. Friends.

It does not matter where one is unemployed, because an unemployed person is 100% unemployed. For the Minister to say that we do not need to worry if public sector jobs are lost in London, the south-east and east, or in other regions of high employment, and that the scheme does not apply there, is not a positive way forward. I hope that he reflects on the proposals genuinely. I know that he is a reasonable chap and that he will consider them positively. He knows that the Bill will be considered in another place and that these matters can be discussed there, if not agreed today. I believe that a sensible case has been made for the proposals—although I would say that—and I commend them to the House and the Minister.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I did not have the benefit of sitting on the Committee, although I did attend Second Reading and I think that I made a short intervention on the Minister.

I will make a short contribution in response to the new clause. I listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman’s speech, and to his closing remark that this is a sensible case that the Minister should accept. I ask the Minister to think carefully about the case that has been put to him. First, the full impact of the policy will inevitably not be shown after the first or second year. With such policies, there can be a significant cumulative effect, which is what the Government are looking for.

Secondly, it has been estimated that the scheme will have considerable benefits. The Opposition spokesman did not query the basis of the estimates made by the Government and outside bodies on the impact of the holiday. We have a pretty good assessment of its impact, so the Government should consider whether the annual report would add to that.

Thirdly, I ask the Minister to consider that the policy is temporary. Although it is a recurring cost, it is only for three years. Were the policy extant for a longer period, the Opposition spokesman’s arguments might have more basis.

Fourthly, the Opposition spokesman made the point several times to the Minister that he could table questions. He did not say whether he thought an annual report would be cheaper than that. If he wanted to do so, he should have given a cost analysis. I fear that the proposal is an expensive way of getting at the information that he wants, and probably does not cover everything.

Finally, when the panoply of talent on the Conservative Front Bench was not as great, I spent four years as an Opposition spokesman. I spoke on various measures that, like the Bill, were extant for the life of the Parliament, such as the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. I made similar requests for annual reports and, time after time, Ministers told me that such proposals would be costly and serve no purpose; that they would of course keep the scheme under review; and that there was transparency through other sources of information available to me. Therefore, before the Minister is tempted by the beguiling words of the Opposition spokesman on transparency and the need to review the policy, I ask him gently to remember that, freed from the responsibility of Government, the Opposition are not accepting the arguments that they made in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certain compliance problems would arise. Could we tell whether an address was for work or home? The scheme would become more complicated. Those claiming would need to ensure that they were in one particular postcode area or another, and there would be issues with boundaries. Distortions could be much greater than under the simpler scheme that we have introduced with essentially one boundary and three excluded regions. A host of difficulties would arise if we tried to follow the sub-regional route. Where would we draw the line? Would we end up considering boroughs, wards or polling districts? Exactly how would that work? We will revert to the matter later, but my hon. Friend is right.

Amendments 5 and 6 are aimed at providing flexibility to reduce the duration of the regional employer national insurance contributions holiday for new businesses. This would reduce the cost of the holiday to the Exchequer, and correspondingly reduce the benefit to new businesses. As I have explained, the Government want to target available resources to the regions most dependent on public sector employment. We do not intend to widen geographical coverage, and therefore have no need to find ways of reducing costs. We know that this scheme will reduce labour costs for new businesses, and has been widely welcomed by their representatives.

We have acknowledged that beyond this there is a good deal of uncertainty about exactly how the scheme will pan out in practice. However, introducing some flexibility to change the details of the scheme as proposed in these amendments would increase uncertainty for those who might potentially benefit, and could risk inhibiting decision making. This particular proposal could affect those who are already benefiting from the scheme, or those who are currently considering setting up a new business bearing in mind the Government’s policy. For example, a new business set up this month, which plans to take on employees towards the end of this year, would not get the full year’s holiday for these employees if we were to stop the scheme in September 2012.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn would agree that we were right to start operating the scheme as soon as we could, in anticipation of legislation being passed. Had we not done so, the benefit to businesses would have been delayed, and new businesses that had planned to start operation might have delayed in order to benefit fully from the scheme. I am conscious of the fact that the scheme requires the consent of Parliament, and we have been very clear about that in our guidance to potential beneficiaries. We are not pre-empting the decisions of Parliament. However, I hope that hon. Members would agree that it would not be desirable to withdraw the benefits we had planned to give to entrepreneurs who have already decided to set up in business. That risk applies to these amendments, and I am advised that as drafted the amendment is insufficient to provide a mechanism for extending the holiday, and does not therefore meet the intended aim.

With the commitment I have made today on the reports, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw new clause 1 and, in the light of my comments, not press amendments 5 and 6.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a useful debate. I tabled the new clause and amendments to secure from the Exchequer Secretary a commitment that the expenditure that we are forgoing—some £940 million—will be monitored and reviewed for effectiveness, that a mechanism will be put in place by which we can judge where, for whom and how it is having a benefit, and that we will review take-up over the three years of the scheme. I am reassured that he has reaffirmed what he said in Committee and will produce information on take-up on a regional basis. I genuinely welcome that.

It might help if the Exchequer Secretary could indicate—he did not do this in his response—the current level of take-up of the scheme. In early December, at the end of the Committee stage, he mentioned that about 1,100 businesses had taken it up. One of our concerns was that his ambitious target of 400,000 over the duration of the scheme would not be met because of the slow take-up in the first six months. It would help initially if he could give that information now.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene. The latest number we have is 1,500, which has increased, obviously, from the 1,100 just before Christmas.

[Mr Hanson]

The key issue—this is one reason I have suggested an annual report—is that 1,500 is significantly less than the trajectory we would hope for and which is necessary to achieve a take-up of 400,000 by the end of the scheme. It is already six or seven months since the Exchequer Secretary announced the scheme, and we effectively have two years this September—until September 2013—before completion. A target take-up of 400,000 and today’s take-up of 1,500 show that the trajectory is not there.

I intend to withdraw the new clause—the Minister can relax in that knowledge and take it as a helpful contribution to the debate—but I hope he will still reflect on the fact that one reason we have asked for an annual report is to ensure that we are able to know every year what the trajectory of the take-up is and in which regions and sub-regions it is occurring. If, for example, by the end of 2011, 30,000 or 40,000 businesses have taken up the scheme, and there is a capacity of 400,000 and just two years left of the scheme, a considerable effort would be needed to generate those new businesses in the two years.

If the Minister does not want to build in failure to his scheme, he needs to monitor that and, if need be, consider the suggestions we will make later about expanding the scheme into other regions, such as London and the south-east, to ensure that the 400,000 take-up that he wants is met. I will make the case later, supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that high levels of public sector employment in London and the south-east region will be hit by public spending cuts; without the necessary debate on those issues generally, that will happen as much in London and the south-east as in north Wales, the north-west, Yorkshire, Scotland, Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

If we do not have the trajectory of take-up that the Minister anticipates, we might end up with a scheme that, after three years, does not deliver a take-up of 400,000. At the same time, colleagues in London and the south-east and eastern regions will have been impacted by public spending cuts, but their constituents will not have benefited from that scheme. In tabling the new clause and amendments, I was trying to give the Exchequer Secretary some flexibility to enable him to design the scheme, review it and bring back suggestions accordingly. More importantly, hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), whose constituency will not benefit from the scheme, can assess its impact.

We welcome the holiday and think it will have a positive impact, although it will not compensate for the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned. We will have to consider what its outputs are, whether we achieve them and whether the scheme is successful, and we will return to these matters in parliamentary questions. I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will reflect on some of those issues before the Bill reaches another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

Increased product of additional rates to be paid into National Insurance Fund

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 8, page 2, line 2, at end insert

‘The National Audit Office shall report to Parliament by the time of Royal Assent on the Finance Act 2011 on the sum that would be required from the product of additional rates in order for the health service allocation to grow in real terms in every year.’.

It is good once again to face the Exchequer Secretary across the Dispatch Box, although not so good to do so from the Opposition side and with him on the Government side. However, he is a serious Minister doing a serious job. He showed that in the way he responded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the debate on the first group of amendments. I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will feel that amendment 8 and the amendments that were not selected were intended to be helpful to the Government. With them, we are offering to him, his boss the Chancellor and his colleagues in government the opportunity to act to prove to the public that they will honour the promises the Government made about protecting NHS funding and ensuring it sees a real funding increase each year, not a real cut.

The Bill and national insurance contributions legislation more generally are about raising and allocating national insurance funds and contributions paid into that fund. The NHS has had a special place in that legislation certainly since 2002, when we decided to move, from April 2003, to raise an extra 1% on earnings above £43,800 and to allocate all that extra income to the health service and the NHS. The amendments we tabled, including amendment 8, give the Government the chance to do the right thing by the NHS and the British people. Amendment 8 in particular lays the groundwork for the Exchequer Secretary and his colleague the Chancellor to make the right decisions in order to honour their promises in the Budget.

There were big improvements as a result of Labour’s investment in the NHS over the past decade—51,000 extra doctors, 98,000 extra nurses, patient satisfaction at an all-time high—and it is hard to remember that in 1997 there were more than 280,000 people waiting more than six months to get into hospital for the operations they needed. I make that point to explain the broader context to amendment 8, as I am conscious that the House is debating a relatively narrow provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we will discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 3, in clause 11, page 6, leave out lines 24 to 29.

Amendment 4, page 6, leave out lines 35 to 41.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The purpose of the amendments is self-evident and clear. We discussed this issue at great length in Committee but it is worth revisiting today to see whether the Minister has reflected over Christmas and the new year on the views that we put forward in Committee. The amendments would do one simple thing: include the regions of London, the south-east and the east in the regional secondary contributions holiday in the Bill. As I have said in relation to earlier amendments and throughout the Bill’s proceedings, we welcome the idea of a payment holiday but we do not believe that its implementation is fair or that it meets the objectives that the Minister has outlined of helping to tackle problems in areas with high public sector employment that will be disadvantaged by the pending public sector cuts, which will impact on both local government and central Government services throughout the country.

I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has said, that the Bill as a whole is not a panacea for tackling long-term unemployment or, indeed, the impact of public spending cuts and further potential unemployment across the board. What it does do, however, with its limited scope, is ensure that we provide an incentive over a short period—the next three years—for new businesses to be established. They will receive a payment holiday for national insurance contributions, which will be a small but a significant help towards the establishment of new businesses.

The Minister’s logic is that the scheme will operate in the selected regions because it should be used to help businesses where there has been a major impact on public sector employment, and he has specifically excluded the whole of the London, south-east and east regions. Let me chide him slightly, because I think he has fallen into the trap of believing that the whole of the London, south-east and east regions are similar in characteristic, have low levels of unemployment, low levels of deprivation and a low level of public sector employment. If the Government did not believe those things, he would have included those three regions in the scheme.

There are certainly high levels of employment and great prosperity in the east and south-east regions and there are certainly constituencies and even sub-regions with low levels of public-sector employment. However, there are also areas, as I am sure my hon. Friends who represent those areas will testify today, with extremely high levels of deprivation, unemployment and dependency on public sector employment that will be excluded from the potential benefits of the secondary benefits holiday because the Minister has excluded those three regions from the scheme.

[Joan Ruddock]

Perhaps my right hon. Friend is aware that the average level of public sector employment in the UK is 21.7%, but the figure in my constituency is 30%. Does he share my astonishment that my constituency and other parts of London with such a high level of public sector employment—leading, I am sorry to say, in these times, to high public sector unemployment—are being excluded?

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend makes that point in relation to Lewisham and her constituency, but as I shall discuss, it is not just her constituency and Lewisham borough that will be excluded and disadvantaged by the scheme. For example, the constituencies of Oxford East; Luton North; Lewisham East; Canterbury; Southampton, Test; Eltham; West Ham; North Thanet; Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Tooting; Islington North; Dulwich and West Norwood; and Brighton, Kemptown all fall, by the Minister’s own criteria, in the top 60 constituencies for public sector employment, but they will not be eligible for the scheme because the Minister is excluding them from it.

If the Minister looks, as he has, at the House of Commons figures that I raised with him in Committee, he will see that 23 of the top 100 constituencies for public sector employment in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland fall within the three regions that are excluded from the scheme. So my right hon. Friend makes a clear and telling point on behalf of her constituents, but 23 of the top 100 constituencies fall into the same category.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I accept the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but does he not recognise the need to rebalance the economy on a geographical basis? If he does not support this measure, what measures would he like to introduce?

[Mr Hanson]

I certainly would not have abolished the regional development agencies or cut public spending with the speed and to the extent that the Government are doing. I certainly would not have cut the Welsh Assembly Government’s budget in our own areas to the extent that the Government will do over the next two to three years. That would have helped to manage the necessary downturn in public spending that we needed to make to readjust the economy in a way that was proportionate, fair and met our constituents’ needs for public services and for employment.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend refers to 23 of the top 100 constituencies, but if he extends the list to 105 constituencies to include Ilford South—my constituency—all those next five constituencies are also in the relevant regions, so he could refer to 28 of 105, and there is 38% public sector employment in my constituency.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Would I ever try to miss out the good constituency of Ilford South? My purpose was to indicate that the inclusion criterion that the Minister has selected is based on one simple issue: how to compensate for and deal with public sector job losses and provide a mechanism to help to support the creation of new jobs where public sector jobs are lost. On his criterion, 23 of the 100—or 28 of the 105, to take my hon. Friend’s figures—show that those issues are not being dealt with in the way in which the Minister has said.

If I look at the impact of the possible 490,000 public sector job losses, I see that they will hit hardest those constituencies with public sector employees. If I add to that, as I have to do, the benefits of job creation and look at local authorities on the economic deprivation index, I see that no fewer than seven of the top 12 of those economically deprived boroughs fall within areas that are excluded from the scheme. The boroughs of Hackney, Newham, which is represented here today by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), Tower Hamlets, Islington, Barking and Dagenham, Haringey and Lambeth are all in the top 12 economically deprived boroughs, yet they cannot avail themselves of the scheme.

Other constituencies throughout the country—again, I will alight on Tatton, because its is the Chancellor’s constituency and one that I know well—where unemployment is low and there are many business start-ups and great pockets of wealth, will benefit from the scheme and can apply to include businesses in the scheme, while boroughs such as Newham, Tower Hamlets and others that I have mentioned will not be able to do so. If we look at the unemployment rate across the United Kingdom, which is 7.9% on the latest figures, we see that unemployment in London is 9.1%.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

As an MP from the south-east, I resent being put into this invidious situation. But why does the right hon. Gentleman think that we are in this invidious situation, whereby we must make tough choices to re-stimulate the economy after the economic disaster in which the Labour party left the country?

[Mr Hanson]

I am happy to discuss macro and micro-economic issues with the hon. Gentleman. There is a clear divide between the current Government and the previous Government. We had a deficit reduction plan over three years. We would have cut public expenditure and made savings. In the Department in which I was a Minister in the last Government, we had earmarked £1.5 billion of savings over the next three years. We would have done that.

There is a difference about the scale and depth of the cuts. The hon. Gentleman and I can argue about that, but he needs to recognise that, if he walks through the Lobby to vote against the amendment today, he will be denying new businesses in his constituency the ability to gain access to the scheme, while allowing areas with lower unemployment and lower deprivation, perhaps in parts of the north of England, which are not completely a desert, to benefit from the scheme. He has to wrestle with that issue. Let me advise him that however he deals with it, we have the ability to let the residents of Crawley know what he will do on the issue. He and others need to look at that. There is still time for him to vote with the Government today, but then to speak to the Minister privately, to get his colleagues from Kent, other parts of Sussex, Berkshire and Hampshire together, to get them to talk to the Minister, and to get the Minister to reflect on this in the other place, so that we can make the scheme much wider. Colleagues from London and I would give him credit for doing that.

I put this to the Minister: the unemployment rate in London is higher than in the south-west, in my region and in that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), in Wales. It is higher than in Scotland, the east midlands and the north-west, and it is above the UK average. The unemployment rate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham was 6.8% at the last count. The rate is 7.7% in Tottenham, and 6% in Camberwell and Peckham; in Tatton, Richmond and Derbyshire Dales, it is under 2%.

I have no objection to a scheme being developed to help create employment where employment is lost, but if the logic of the scheme is what the Minister has made it out to be—to deal with public sector employment —I should point out that at the moment 23 of the 100 constituencies with the highest levels of public sector employment are not included. If it is to deal with unemployment, which is higher in the places that I have mentioned than in other parts of the country, the Minister needs to reflect on that in relation to what he has done today.

The Minister does not need to listen to me; John Walker, the national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, has said:

“With small firms in the South East most likely to be working below capacity, this shows how wrong the Government is to not include this vital region, as well as the East and London, in its proposals for a National Insurance holiday…With 600,000 public sector jobs expected to be lost, stimulating private sector job creation…in small firms, will be vital to rebalancing the economy.”

The Thames Gateway London Partnership makes similar points:

“the data clearly shows that…the National Insurance Holiday is unfair as it excludes areas in the Thames Gateway which we believe would otherwise be targeted for government support.”

The partnership has helpfully shown—this backs up what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has said—that there are high levels of public sector employment in the London area, which would benefit from the scheme.

[Joan Ruddock]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He may be aware that of the 10 Thames Gateway London boroughs, seven are in the 40 boroughs with the highest levels of multiple deprivation. My borough is at No. 39. Surely we have to be included in the scheme.

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point supporting my central argument. I am trying to argue on the Minister’s own grounds. He argues that the scheme aims to help where there is loss of public sector employment. If 23 of the 100 constituencies with the highest levels of public sector employment do not benefit, the Minister’s scheme is not meeting the needs that he has set it to meet.

Let us look at public sector employment in the London Thames Gateway region. Some 21% of people employed in Barking and Dagenham work in the public sector. The figure is as high as 31% in Greenwich, 30% in Lewisham, 33.6% in the borough of Newham, 28.4% in Redbridge, and 26.6% in Waltham Forest, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy). The Thames Gateway London partnership has helpfully provided me with information on the subject. Even boroughs represented by two Conservative Members of Parliament, such as Southend-on-Sea, will not benefit from the scheme, although it has 24.66% of people employed in the public sector. Let us look at authorities in Kent, represented not by Labour Members of Parliament, but by Conservatives. In Medway, nearly 24% of people are employed in the public sector. In Gravesham, it is 22.2%, and in Swale it is 19.7%. Those are areas with high public sector employment that will not benefit from the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The Government are doing a great deal to help London. We need only consider the transport infrastructure as well as the fact that we are protecting investment in Crossrail, in upgrading the tube and in Thameslink. We are taking a number of steps. I think it is astonishing that Labour is complaining about the fact that some businesses will not receive a reduction in their national insurance contributions when its policy at the last general election was that businesses should be paying more.

It is very helpful to look at the well-remembered interview with the shadow Chancellor on the “Today” programme on 4 January, when he said that we need to get the structural deficit eradicated and that there was no argument about that. He recognised the existence of a structural deficit and did not particularly differ from the Government’s position on the size of the structural deficit. There was a disagreement on timing—I think he disagreed with his own policy on timing, but he disagreed with the Government’s, too. He said that the balance between public spending cuts—we do not know which of our proposed public spending cuts the Opposition support—and tax rises should be 60:40. I think that the proportion for tax rises was 40%, although it was not entirely clear.

The shadow Chancellor was asked by Evan Davis:

“In principle you would like VAT not to go up and instead, at some point, not now, National Insurance to go up by more?”

The shadow Chancellor’s response was, “Yes.” He said that that was the Labour party’s argument at the general election and that it was still its argument now, because national insurance is a better tax. That is the Opposition’s position—they want to increase employers’ national insurance contributions. They oppose all the cuts and they oppose our VAT increase, but they want to increase national insurance contributions. Yet when we have a Bill in this House that provides a reduction in national insurance in some areas, their biggest complaint is that they want to do it in more areas. How incredible is that? How lacking in coherence is that policy?

[Mr Hanson]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the net benefit of this Bill as a whole is a £1.42 billion increase in national insurance for employers, even after the thresholds he has introduced?

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the state of the public finances that we have inherited. We have pursued the policy that we set out in our party manifesto before the general election and have reversed the most serious effect of Labour’s jobs tax. The Opposition’s policy is to go further—they want a bigger jobs tax. The increase in the rate for employers’ national insurance contributions, which is mitigated by the increase in the threshold, involves the rate going up from 12.8% to 13.8%—I say that for the benefit of any Labour Members, including the shadow Chancellor, who are not quite aware of that. To raise the same amount of tax as the VAT increase would have done, Labour would have had to increase that rate not just to 13.8% but to 16.7%. What do hon. Members think that the impact on the Thames Gateway, east London and jobs in Walthamstow would have been if we had pursued that policy, which the Labour party believes in? It does not have much by way of economic policy, but that is one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

That is the same Federation of Small Businesses that said that the Labour party’s policy to increase national insurance contributions would cost about 52,000 jobs just among its own members.

We have touched on the fact that labour markets are much bigger than ward, borough or constituency boundaries. It is not quite clear what the Labour party would do if it were to extend the scheme. Its policy seems to be that it would remove the scheme from some parts of the regions that would currently benefit. It is not quite clear how the Labour party would do that. I do not know—perhaps the right hon. Member for Delyn could explain—whether the plan is that the scheme would be available in Flint but not in Prestatyn. I am not quite sure what the Labour party has in mind. Perhaps it thinks that the scheme should be available in Oldham but not in Saddleworth. I really do not know what the Labour party wants to do with the scheme, but it clearly wants to increase national insurance contributions, not to reduce them, despite what we have heard this afternoon.

The NICs holiday is targeted at regions and countries with the highest proportion of public sector dependence, to encourage new businesses to start up and take on employees. Expanding the holiday to the whole economy would undermine the policy rationale. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Delyn to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a very good debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy), for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) have put the case strongly for their constituents to be included in the scheme.

The scheme does not do what is says on the tin. It will not fulfil the Minister’s objectives. It will not help regions and areas with the highest public sector employment. I reiterate for the House’s benefit that 23 of the top 100 constituencies in the country for public sector employment will not benefit from the scheme. The Minister knows that we have suggested alternatives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South mentioned a range of ways that we could cut the cake to include London, the south-east and east, so that those areas of high deprivation with high public sector employment could benefit from the scheme. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response. We need to ensure that the scheme is fair and equitable. I therefore intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

This is the fourth Treasury Bill that I have dealt with as Opposition Treasury spokesman in four months, and it is the fourth Bill that has reached this stage without a single amendment being passed, so I am continuing with my fine record of scrutiny but little success in making changes.

I want to be clear at the start that despite concerns about some aspects of the Bill, we support the broad thrust of the measures before us. I note, however, that despite the rhetoric about national insurance that occurred at the general election, the Bill takes through the national insurance contribution increase of 1%. I accept that the Minister has included in the Bill changes to the employers’ threshold, which will make a contribution towards those costs. However, even after that has taken place, the Bill still brings in a rise that will cost businesses about £1.4 billion a year. I make no complaint about that, because we proposed to do it at the election; my complaint is that there has been a lot of smoke and mirrors from the Government in their approach to national insurance.

[Mr Gauke]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the policy that we are pursuing is entirely consistent with what we set out in our manifesto. Given the position of his party and the shadow Chancellor on this, presumably they will be opposing the increase in the threshold for national insurance contributions that will be introduced very shortly.

[Mr Hanson]

The electoral rhetoric does not match the actuality of this Bill. The Minister has rightly said that threshold increases were trailed in the election manifesto, but £1.4 billion of extra expenditure on businesses is still being put forward in the Bill. I make no complaint about that, as it formed part of our manifesto commitments. However, we should examine the electoral rhetoric. During the election the Conservatives said, “Let’s Stop Labour’s Jobs Tax”, but they are still executing, through this Bill, some £1.4 billion-worth of extra costs on employers; again, we have no objection to that. We will look at all these matters in due course and make our judgments when we see the proposals that the Government bring forward. However, given what was said at the election, there is still a sting in the tail for employers in the small print of what the Minister has brought forward today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) announced in the pre-Budget statement on 9 December 2009 that we would increase national insurance contributions by 1%. However, in this Bill there is not only that increase but, side by side with it, the 2.5% increase in VAT that the Government have introduced. The Minister has put an extra £1.4 billion on national insurance and, at the same time, increased VAT. At least we were clear about our objectives in the election. However, we will support the Bill today.

We support the national insurance holiday, which engendered most debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We think it is important to consider measures that encourage business, but we disagree with the exclusion of London and the south-east and eastern regions. We have made the case on that issue and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will reflect on it.

This debate has been very positive. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who have contributed, particularly those from London and the south-east and eastern regions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for their help and support during the course of the Bill. We will not vote against the Bill this evening, but we will undoubtedly return to the scrutiny of it in another place shortly. Some of the arguments bear further repetition in Committee and on the Floor of the House there. Finally, I thank the Minister for his patience and co-operation. I look forward to seeing him on numerous occasions in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Chancellor does not need to bear that in mind. He has explained his position very clearly, and we are grateful to him. I now call Tobias Ellwood, as his question is also in this group. He is not here. Oh, dear. I call Mr David Hanson.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor confirm that in adopting his policy on tuition fees he has raised the Government borrowing requirement to £10.7 billion by 2015—a rise of £5.6 billion—in addition to cutting at least £800 million from the university budget and tripling fees, which will deter poorer students? Will he now for once confirm to the House that his choice on tuition fees is about ideology, not deficit reduction?

[Mr Osborne]

What we are doing is taking the report commissioned by the Labour Government and improving on it so that it is more progressive. [Interruption.] Yes, we are increasing borrowing to help students; that is part of what we are doing to fund our higher education institutions.

The truth is this, and the shadow Chancellor said it this month: it would

“be very difficult to make a graduate tax a workable proposition.”

That was the shadow Chancellor, who is now advocating as an official policy of the Labour party something that he says would be difficult to make a workable proposition. We have come forward with workable propositions on higher education, which the Opposition used to agree with when they were in government. They have now mistaken opportunism for opportunity.