Finance (No. 2) Bill
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a telling point and I would not want to diminish the importance of what I am saying by qualifying what he said about despair. As in his constituency, this Friday we will have a wonderful demonstration of generosity in my constituency with the same sort of event—a trolley push. My point, however, which I wish to reinforce, is that there is such a spirit of determination and people are so resilient that they will not be beaten by this situation. However, they will come through it not because of this Government but despite them.
While tax cuts are being handed out to millionaires, 40% of children in my constituency are living in poverty. I cannot see how fairness and the apparent principles of a big society are influencing or informing this Government’s policies one iota. I do not wish to dwell too much on the negativity, but it is unavoidable given that my constituency is the second worst in the country for long-term unemployment. We are asking for fair treatment. North-east England is the only net exporting region in the country; our contribution to the national economy is massive but the people see little of the benefits. It is about fairness.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have repeatedly said that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the largest load. They claim that the 45p tax rate raises more revenue, but one data point is totally unreliable, as has been exposed in the Chamber today. It is also clear that the richest will arrange their affairs, especially when such a reduction was so well telegraphed. The richest have benefited most from our society, and the amount of tax they pay is proportionately more than their numbers, but proportionately less than their wealth. Relative to their income, the Chancellor’s biggest tax rise—that on VAT—hurts those at the bottom most. The rich still do very well, with company directors getting inflation-busting pay increases, and bank executives getting huge bonuses, which the Prime Minister went to Brussels to defend.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Committee may already know, and people will be interested to hear that, in the past two years, pay increases for the top 10% were on average 5.5% in both years. The top 10% have increased their pay by 11%. The Government claim that the rich are making a greater contribution, but they have very thick wallets to start with and, frankly, are sitting comfortably.
Andy McDonald
That is exactly right. I was going to make that point another way and say that company directors of the FTSE 100 received on average a 50% pay rise in 2011—Income Data Service provided that information. The well-off enjoy the benefits of many interesting incentive schemes that are not available to ordinary working people such as Mrs O’Reilly or Mr Hussain in my constituency, where the average income for a full-time employee is less than £500.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his enormous generosity in giving way. I have a schedule from a constituent that details his personal means. Until the beginning of this month he had £21.25 a week left for food and clothing after paying his utility bills and allowing £6 for bus fares. After the introduction of the empty bedroom tax, which will cost £10.31, he will end up with under £11 a week for food. Some problem could happen along the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend, but assuming that nothing else is needed, he will have just £11 a week. We would not want that desperate situation to happen in a developing country, let alone in Britain. How can we justify giving money to the richest when people are in despair and poverty?
Andy McDonald
I absolutely agree. People are getting down to the pennies, not the pounds, yet this month multimillionaires will get an extra £2,000 a week. We should be thoroughly ashamed of delivering that to our people. I sometimes wonder what on earth we mean by patriotism in our land. We can wave our flags and hold the necessary ceremonial events, but where do the people come in? For my money, patriotism must be about our people. We sometimes lose sight of that and get confused by the panoply and array of colourful images of patriotism that do not go to the heart of the living and working conditions of our people.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend mentions patriotism, which reminds me of yesterday’s great spectacle of Baroness Thatcher’s funeral, which many people would have enjoyed watching on television. However, let us not forget that that £10 million would have kept my constituent going on his previous income for 10,000 years, and on his new income for 20,000 years. Is that not a disgrace?
Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is the iniquity of the cut from 50% to 45%. Effectively, a cut in one place unfortunately means that people suffer in other places. Those on the highest incomes can afford to cushion themselves and do not need to spend money straight away. Even someone who earns just £10,000 above the £150,000 mark will benefit significantly. Instead of paying £5,000 in tax, they will pay £4,500. They will have a gain after tax of £500. Most people do not see anything like that increase in their income—incomes are frozen. If someone earning £50,000 has even a 1% increase, they will not get that £500 because it would be taxed. With all the different changes that are being imposed on them, families are losing far more—they are losing, on average, £895 per year.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend will know that the Government’s alleged strategy is that the private sector will move in and generate growth as the public sector is pulled back. In Wales, there is a higher proportion of public sector employment and, as she has said, £790 million will be taken out of demand, and savings rates among people in work are increasing because of insecurity. The whole concoction is pushing Wales and similar regions into negative growth. Does she agree that we should stimulate growth by giving more money to people who are poor, because they spend it?
Nia Griffith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We should get more stimulus into the economy and get more people into work doing useful things, such as through infrastructure projects, which he has championed in our local area. It certainly does not help to have more people thrown out of work. It will obviously lower their incomes immediately, but it will also have a direct effect on the local economy.
Debbie Abrahams
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.
I came to this House just over two years ago, and the main reason I got into politics was my belief in making Britain a fairer society—a more equal society in which the gap between the haves and the have-nots is narrow and in which we protect and look after our most vulnerable people. I believe that to be intuitively right and just, and there is also significant evidence to show that a fairer society benefits everybody in respect not only of life expectancy improvements and mental health benefits, but of educational attainments, improvements in social mobility and in rates of offending. All of us benefit from having a fairer society. Unfortunately, the measures in this Bill contribute not one jot to such a society.
As I said in my speech on the Budget a week or so ago, this Government absolutely fail the anti-poverty test. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but there are also those of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Resolution Foundation, the New Economics Foundation—and the list goes on. They all reached the same conclusion: the poorer people are, the worse off they are.
Raising the personal allowance does little for the lowest-paid workers, many of whom do not pay tax anyway. Over 682,000 working families receiving child tax credit earn less than £6,420, so I am afraid that they will not benefit at all from the increase in the tax threshold. Taken in conjunction with the welfare cuts they are now facing, the lowest earning taxpayers will receive an income boost of 32p a week or £16.80 a year as compared with those not claiming housing benefit or council tax benefit of up to £112 a year. That does not take into account the impact of the 20% VAT hike back in 2011, the additional 26% rise in food prices since 2009 or the 20% increase in energy costs that households face on their household bills. Nearly 8,000 households in my Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency—nearly one in four—already live in fuel poverty. How are they meant to cope? As other Members have said, our constituency surgeries are crammed with families that are desperate about how they are going to cope in the coming weeks and months. My constituency now has a food bank—the first ever in modern Oldham—and the number of recipients of food bank support has trebled over the last quarter. I am deeply concerned about that.
Geraint Davies
I visited the food bank in my own constituency only last Monday, and the key issue put to me was that food banks were designed as places of crisis able to give two or three parcels to people in the moment of crisis—for instance, when benefits had been delayed or something had gone wrong. They were not designed to sustain life over time. I mentioned earlier a constituent whose money available for food had gone down from £21 to £11; he just cannot cope on an ongoing basis. If the food banks do not save him, he is on the way out.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are not talking only about people on out-of-work benefits either, as many of the families affected are working families that are struggling to survive.
As I have mentioned, the Chancellor’s own distributional analysis shows that the cumulative impact of tax, tax credit and benefit measures means net reductions in income for the poorest 40% of households in the country. Although there is strong evidence to show, as other countries have shown, that increasing the spending power of the poorest families helps to boost economies, the Chancellor has done nothing to help them or the economy.
In the short term, the Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that between 2010 and 2015 absolute child poverty will have increased by 600,000 as a result of the Government’s spending plans. Two wards in my constituency have child poverty levels affecting nearly one in two households. That is absolutely unacceptable in a society such as ours. It leads one to question what the Government mean when they say they are committed to child poverty, let alone how they are fulfilling their obligations under the Child Poverty Act 2010.
I also have deep concerns about the impact, particularly of the new benefit changes, on people with disabilities. One in four disabled people already live in poverty, and with the recent welfare changes that is set to increase. I fear that this could be enough to drive people over the edge.
Many of us have already said that these measures are ideologically driven. In tandem with the downgrading of equality and human rights in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which we debated on Tuesday, it is clear that this coalition Government have no commitment to a fairer society. As we have heard before, this is all about choices, and it is quite clear where this Government’s priorities lie. Their response to their failing economic policies is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest in society—£3 billion to more than 300,000 people earning over £150,000 a year, with an average gain of £10,000. What is there for people on low pay? Absolutely nothing. When we take the tax and tax credit benefits into account, we realise that it is not just the poor who are being hit. We know that the average loss to households for this coming financial year is £891.
The Chancellor said in last year’s autumn statement that we needed a welfare system that we could afford. Tax credits and benefits form part of the “automatic stabilisers” that help dampen economies in booms and boost them in recession. That is what we have seen. In spite of the disappointing employment figures yesterday, the effect on unemployment has been less during this recession and in the past because of these stabilisers.
The choices the Government make are underpinned by their ideology—to create an “us and them” culture with power and wealth retained by the wealthy and powerful. By attacking universal benefits such as child benefit, they hope people will start to see our welfare system as irrelevant—and then quietly dismantle it. I am proud of our model of social welfare, born out of the second world war when we literally were “all in it together”. I want to retain this model with its principles of inclusion, support and security for all, protecting any one of us, should we fall on hard times, assuring our dignity and the basics of life, and helping us all back on our feet.
It is often said that the mark of a civilised society is how we care for our most vulnerable. It is a mark of this Government, their ideological priorities and their economic incompetence that they are singularly failing to do that. Fortunately, as recent opinion polls have shown, the British public are seeing through this Government. They are exposing and seeing through the myths peddled by this Government. I shall leave it there to allow more hon. Members to participate in the debate.
Geraint Davies
Every week during Prime Minister’s Question Time the Leader of the Opposition asks why, at a time when there is so much poverty and a need for austerity, the richest in society are benefiting from a cut in the 50p income tax rate, and the Prime Minister replies, “We will raise more money from the 45p rate than from the 50p rate.” We all know why that is, and the Minister knows why it is. It is because rich people are able to manage their affairs and can move their income between tax years, and in this instance they will simply move it into the 45p year. The Minister knows that, and he also knows that if we retained the 50p rate on a sustained basis, we would gather more money.
The Minister shakes his head with a smug expression, but he knows that, and he also knows that many people already pay 52p in the pound. Those with incomes of £32,000 or £42,000 are paying 40% in tax plus 12% in national insurance. The Minister’s claim that we could not possibly have a 50p rate because all those rich people would get on their yachts and leave Britain is absolute rubbish.
Mr Gauke
Let me make two points. First, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the HMRC report on the 50p rate, but if he has, he will have seen that a large element of the loss is due to a reduction in economic activity, and has nothing to do with tax avoidance. Secondly, I am afraid that he has got his facts wrong: people stop paying 12% in national insurance contributions as soon as they reach the higher-rate threshold.
Geraint Davies
That is not my understanding. According to the Minister’s own analysis of economic activity, which he mentioned, the yield from a 50p rate would be greater over a period. The analysis factors in the behavioural change to which I have referred, namely rich people moving their incomes around. It is also the case that people are paying the rates to which I referred. I have commissioned research from the House of Commons Library. It is all very well for the Minister to sit there nodding away, but that is the fact of the matter. It is completely unjustifiable that, at a time when the incomes of some of my constituents are being reduced to about £11 a week and they are on a starvation diet, his rich friends should be enabled to have this extra money.
The Minister continues to resist calls for a bankers’ bonus tax. At one moment he claims that bankers should be taxed in that way, and at the next moment he gives them 5p back. It is absolutely preposterous. The Minister hopes that the food banks that are now emerging in their thousands will help to cope with the Dickensian circumstances that he is causing, in which people are starving in their own homes, but, as I have already pointed out, unless a supplement to the social security system is introduced such people will not be able to survive.
The Minister is pushing us into a situation in which the state is withdrawing in the hope that the charitable sector will help to sustain certain very poor communities. It is absolutely appalling. We have a dementor Government who are sucking the lifeblood out of our poorest communities. Those people want to spend their money, and would otherwise be reviving our local economies. All that they want is a chance to work, and to do a job.
We should be investing in infrastructure, skills and connectivity. We should be marketing local areas and helping businesses to succeed and create jobs, rather than taking away the demand in those local areas. We should also be promoting spending. At present everyone is saving instead of spending because they are scared of the future, but we do not want a future of fear; we want a future of hope. We do not want a future of division; we want a future that cares and a future that works. We want a “one nation” Britain, rather than a divided and weak society moving forward under the Tories.
I hope that the Minister will think again about the need for those with the broadest shoulders to make the highest contribution, rather than just smirking with his colleagues. I would guess that they—in their richer communities in the divided Britain whose divisions they are accentuating—will not have to deal with the number of people who approach our surgeries in despair, asking what they can do with the very limited amount of money that they have.
Some of the changes in the Budget are completely unnecessary. The bedroom tax was originally expected to raise £490 million. The figure has just been revised to £400 million, but in fact the tax will raise no money at all. It was supposedly intended to confront the problem of rising housing benefit costs, which have doubled over the last 10 years, but we know that 70% of that rise was due to the fact that not enough houses were being built and private-sector rents were going up. The displacement into the private sector of people who are being punished because their children have grown up will simply increase housing benefit costs further.
The Minister knows in his heart, and from the analysis, that such changes are unnecessary. They will not raise money, so why make them? Why not let the rich pay a little bit more towards the public good? Even if the bedroom tax does raise £400 million, the Minister is spending £12 billion on ever-increasing tax thresholds. While that in itself is welcome, the fact remains that these changes are about choices. If the Minister’s choice is to give the richest more and hand a bit from the very poorest to the squeezed middle, he is taking the wrong direction in terms of the prosperous and united Britain that I believe we all want to see.
Mr Gauke
We know what the big issues are with growth. We are having to deal with the aftermath of the financial crisis, the eurozone crisis, high commodity prices and the terrible fiscal situation we inherited from Labour. Having an uncompetitive top rate of income tax does not help, a point that previous Labour Governments recognised until we got to the fag end of the previous Government when, as a political ploy, the then Prime Minister put the rate up to 50p. It is striking how the Opposition will not confirm that they will return to a 50p rate.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. Does he agree with the trickle-down theory, which is that if we give the rich more money the poor will eventually get a bit more? Or does he believe that it is more of a trickle-up and that if one crushes the poor, like the dementors I mentioned, one can take their money and give it to the rich, so that we have the bloated group of people whom he represents side by side with people in massive poverty?
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Those are some of the details that we will flesh out. If he will allow me, I will look into the question further. I hope it is clear to him that the intention is that the mortgage guarantee scheme is a UK-wide scheme.
In the time that I have left, I shall turn to new clause 5. We have always been clear that the proposed mansion tax is an issue on which the two parties of the coalition have differing views. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues have supported the principle for some time, as we heard today so eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). In contrast, Conservative Ministers have very real concerns about such a proposal.
We have concerns that a third of properties in London worth more than £2 million have been in the same ownership for 10 years, and that a mansion tax could hit asset-rich but potentially income-poor households. We have concerns that a family could live in a £2 million house, but have a very large mortgage. That would mean that their net wealth was a lot lower than the actual value of the home. We have concerns that any mansion tax would be administratively burdensome for HMRC to operate, not to mention intrusive for the person having their home inspected. But Opposition Members should be aware that we are taxing anyone purchasing a new home at this high value through the stamp duty land tax of 7% on residential properties costing £2 million or more. That is a policy that is easy to administer and it will not impact on existing home owners.
The Opposition have proposed that a mansion tax could pay for a tax cut for millions of people on low and middle incomes. The Government have already introduced tax cuts for those who need it most. We are increasing the personal allowance to £9,440 from April—the largest ever cash increase. That will be increased by a further £560 to reach £10,000 in 2014-15, meeting the Government’s commitment a whole year early. That is a tax cut for 24 million people and together takes 2.7 million people out of income taxation altogether.
Budget 2013 also announced that the fuel duty increase planned for September will be cancelled. The Finance Bill keeps fuel duty frozen at current levels, resulting in the longest freeze in fuel duty for 20 years, helping households and businesses with the cost of motoring.
Meanwhile, those with the highest incomes continue to contribute the most. This year the top 1% of taxpayers—those with an income of more than £150,000 a year—will pay approximately a quarter of all income tax. The top 5% of taxpayers—those on incomes of £68,000 or more—will pay nearly half of total income tax. As part of the Government’s commitment to create a fairer tax system, since 2010 the Government have raised taxes on the rich in every Budget. Budget 2010 introduced a higher rate of capital gains tax, Budget 2011 tackled avoidance through disguised remuneration, and Budget 2012 raised stamp duty land tax on high value homes and announced a cap on income tax reliefs. The autumn statement of 2012 took action to reduce the cost of pensions tax relief.
In Budget 2013 we announced further significant measures to tackle aggressive tax avoidance and offshore tax evasion by high earners. The richest now pay a higher percentage of income tax than they did under the previous Government. No doubt those on the Opposition Benches think a better approach would be to introduce a new starting rate of income tax, but let us not forget that the 10% rate is a policy that they introduced and then scrapped once before, to the cost of many further down the income scale—the people whom they claim they want to help. Fortunately, the Government have a more coherent income tax policy, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Bristol West. Our increases to the personal allowance have replaced the 10p rate, which Labour doubled; there have been successive increases to the tax free personal allowance. Effectively, we have introduced a 0% band.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Amess. The Minister is not addressing new clause 5. Surely this is not in order.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)
I am sure that the Minister has heard the point of order and now perhaps will address his remarks more precisely to the new clauses that we are debating.
Chris Leslie
Why should a constraint on the bonus pool have a constraint on the lending capacity of banks? The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting—this is the classic Conservative attitude to banking—that the one inviolate part of a bank’s balance sheet is remuneration, or “compensation” as they sometimes like to call it: “Do what you like to the banks, but for goodness’ sake don’t affect that bonus pool and don’t change that compensation pool.” Well, I am sorry, but we take a totally different point of view. In fact, if there is one area of bank finance that needs a culture change, and which proves that stronger capital adequacy is not anathema to bank lending, it is management remuneration. It is too bloated and needs to change.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend has been thinking creatively about how banks can make a contribution to getting people back to work. In light of the previous debate, has any consideration been given to the idea of banks being guided into investing in social housing, which could then become part of their assets? Rather than just taking money from banks, which then complain they do not have any money left, their assets could be interwoven with job creation, asset generation and a lowering of the housing benefit bill. We all know that the 17% rise in housing benefit is due to the private sector and a lack of public housing.
Chris Leslie
There is a debate to be had—possibly a separate one—about how we can make a certain kind of socially useful asset class more attractive to private investment. If we as a society want to boost housing investment, we need to attract investors to make those decisions. That would certainly be a more sophisticated way of devising public policy, instead of the dreamed-up approaches in the Help to Buy scheme and the NewBuy scheme, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, delivered only 1.5% of the expected additional housing.
Chris Leslie
I would like nothing more than for our banking sector to move to a more enlightened and responsible approach to remuneration. I would not want to see a bloated and unfair bonus arrangement continuing in perpetuity simply as a result of a function of the tax system. For the time being, we need to start to send a signal on behalf of public policy makers that the current arrangements, which have not changed sufficiently since before the financial crash or during it, continue to be difficult. The banks often say that they want catharsis and that they want to move on, and I do not want to spend the rest of my life in banking legislation, for goodness’ sake, but we are still not there and the bonus levy is part of that process.
I do not want to talk for much longer, but I want to challenge the Minister specifically on the bank levy arrangements as we are debating stand part for clauses 200 to 202. We have had six different bank levy rates and they have failed to raise the right amount. We have talked about this time and time again, and I do not want to keep coming back in our debates on the autumn statement next year or on the 2014 Budget to a similar discussion on retrospectively tweaking the bank levy. I want to hear from the Minister when he replies that he can guarantee that in this financial year £2.5 billion will be netted in by the bank levy. If he cannot guarantee that, he must admit that we must reconsider the policy, which is haemorrhaging money when it should be boosting the Exchequer far more significantly.
As I said before, parliamentary rules prevent the Opposition from tabling amendments that would tweak the bank levy upwards. There is a convention of the House that only Governments can table amendments to a Finance Bill that would increase a charge on individuals or companies. The process is incredibly frustrating, as we need to ensure that we get into the detail of how the bank levy should work and what the rates should be. For the time being, we feel that tabling amendment 2 so that we can consider a review of how a bank bonus tax could help the young unemployed, in particular, and of how to incorporate it into a bank levy that nets the amount it should is the right way forward. I commend the amendment to my hon. Friends.
Geraint Davies
I make my comments in light of the fact that today’s unemployment figures showed an increase of 42% in the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance in my constituency of Swansea West. That comes in the aftermath of the financial tsunami of sub-prime debt that hit our shores in 2008, which was largely a result of the banking world taking unhealthy risks in the knowledge that the state would ultimately stand behind it. On the upside, people can take enormous gambles and make tremendous bonuses in the knowledge that if it all goes wrong, the taxpayer will cough up. The net impact of all that is that we are now doddering along on the bottom of the sea of growth and people do not have opportunities.
The strategic challenges for the Government are how to ensure that money is focused on job creation and that the banking community pays its fair share. We know that from this April, the top rate of tax was reduced by 5 points—from 50p to 45p. I realise that the Prime Minister gets up on his hind legs and says, “Oh, but we will raise more from the 45p rate than was going to be raised from the 50p rate,” but we all know that the reason for that is that people with large amounts of money can move their income between tax years. Bankers and others will simply move money to a different tax year when the rate was 45p instead of 50p and avoid the tax. If the 50p rate had been sustained, we would have generated a lot more money, particularly from the banking community. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) did a great job of highlighting the multi-million pound giveaway to the richest in our communities from the reduction. Our modest proposal would deal with people who are being shielded by the taxpayer from proper competition.
Mark Garnier
It would have been wonderful if it had been brought it in earlier because it would have shown more resolve from the Labour party.
Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee about what is behind the proposal? Is the intention of the levy to reduce the risk of perverse incentives through what can be an obscene bonus system, or is it to generate revenue? One or the other, which is it?
Geraint Davies
I will come to that point. In his preliminary commentary, the hon. Gentleman asked why the Labour party failed to bring in the 50p tax rate, and indeed the Prime Minister boasts that he is taxing the rich more than Labour ever did, and that is great. The Labour party does not exist to introduce high taxes; it exists to give people opportunity and employment. Higher levels of employment bring prosperity and opportunity, so there is enough tax yield from a lower tax rate to fund public services. Between 1997 and 2008, the economy grew by 40%.
If one is concerned, as I am—as we all are—about the debt to GDP ratio, which is the total debt divided by the value of the economy, there are two ways to get it down. The first is to cut the debt directly, cutting most from the poorest as the Tories do. The other is to increase the size of the economy. In 2010, after we had gone through the financial tsunami, but luckily on the back of 10 years of unparalleled increase in growth under Labour, the debt to GDP ratio was 55%; now the forecast is 85%. The reason is not just that the Tories are keen on cutting money for the poorest and getting money from people who do not have it, but that they cannot get their act together strategically to generate a growth strategy that reduces the ratio so that we do not need higher tax rates. We do not want people who are making obscene bonuses to pay higher taxes for the sake of it; we want people in work.
Mark Garnier
Is not the biggest inequity that it is not Government debt that is the real problem, but household debt? In the period from 1997 to 2008, household debt as a percentage of household income went from 80% to 140%, and the boom in the economy was paid for by a colossal bubble of household debt. That is the real problem.
Geraint Davies
That simply is not the case. I was at the Bank of England relatively recently looking at the profile of debt in the run-up to 2008 and from 2010. From 2010, the ratio of the debt between the Government and the banking community was 1:2. Two thirds of the debt was that of the banking community. Do not misunderstand me: there has been a problem with the general public ratcheting up more private debt through the availability of low interest rates, which in themselves are a good thing, thanks to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) introduced Bank of England independence and all the rest of it, and thanks to a feeling that there would be a continuation of growth. People were investing in houses and they were growing in price and so on.
Since 2010, when the Chancellor said, “We will have half a million people unemployed in the public services” and did not say who they were or when they would lose their jobs, there has been a sharp rise in savings rates and a fall-off in consumer demand. We have seen consumer demand basically flatlining, which underlines the reason why we do not have growth, which is why we do not have a reduction in the debt to GDP ratio.
We need confidence to get back on a growth path so that people can spend in the knowledge that they will have jobs in the future. Part of that is to re-engineer the financial world in such a way that money is channelled into productive capacity. Although, allegedly, we have an extra million people in work, overall output is the same. Average production has fallen and average productivity is down, which is very worrying. So we need to think how to ensure that the banking community pays its fair share and how to direct money, in a meaningful way, into job creation and public and private assets.
I was not in the Chamber for the previous debate, but part of that thought process would be, how to encourage the banking community, not in a high-risk way, to start helping people to build desperately needed housing—to get people who have been out of work, many of them in the construction industry, back into work to provide social houses.
Geraint Davies
I will give way in a moment.
After all, one of the big issues that is waved around by the Government is, “We must get the welfare bill down and Labour will not do anything about it.” The flagship of that proposition is, “Housing benefit has doubled to £20 billion in the past 10 years. What is the Labour party going to do about that? We are going to introduce the empty bedroom tax.” In fact, 70% of that increase has come about through escalating private sector rents, and local councils being forced to use the private sector for people in need of housing, because not enough social housing is being built.
If we could somehow get the banks to build social houses, perhaps by allowing them to own partly some of those assets, and by doing so create jobs for people who would pay tax, people would have houses and the housing benefit bill per household would go down because rents would go down—housing benefit is linked to rent levels. We need to think about how to put this together, and part of that debate clearly relates to the banks. When there are obscene bonuses and the recipients are receiving tax cuts, it is not fair, certainly from where I stand, when I am seeing local unemployment up 42%.
Geraint Davies
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) first.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is conducting a very thorough examination of the causes of the financial problems that we face. He mentioned housing. Does he agree that the housing bubble is part of the cause of the problem, because people borrowed against the value of their property, which is not a long-term, sustainable way of producing growth in the economy? One reason why the proposal that we are debating is so important is that we need a sustainable model of taxation to underpin the growth in the economy with the type of investment that my hon. Friend is talking about, rather than using assets as a way of investing, which is not sustainable. Actually, there is some evidence that that problem is recurring now.
Geraint Davies
I agree that part of the previous problem was the false assumption that the value of property would continue to escalate. Lenders would grant 110% mortgages on the presumption that, within a couple of years, the equity would catch up and there would not be negative equity. Therefore, borrowers would start with negative equity. The issue of sub-prime debt is a big problem.
One of the flagship proposals of the current Budget is for the state to come in and subsidise deposits by lending up to four fifths of the 25% deposit. There are people in the financial community who are thinking, quite reasonably, “Hold on; this could be the start of another sub-prime debt problem.” The problem we have is that people cannot afford to save the deposit that would enable them to become an owner-occupier. They are paying a rent that is too high because there are not enough houses, so they cannot save the deposit. There is a logic that asks, “Can we help them with that deposit?” I agree with that logic that far, but we must be very careful. People have said, “Oh well, no one is taking up the offer,” but if this suddenly becomes a very significant amount of money and it is not properly balanced as a risk, we could be going down the path that started the problem in the first place.
That said, ultimately communities are desperately in need of houses. Historically, council houses were invented because the marketplace was failing to deliver affordable, quality housing for very large parts of the community, and we had Rachmanism. I fear, actually, that we are witnessing the start of its re-emergence. So investing in assets in which people can have stable family lives, as a platform to get jobs, is good. We will not solve the problem today, but part of this debate is clearly about reviewing whether we can do some extraction from the banking community. That community have just been given back a lot of money, they have been causing many of the problems and there is a risk premium. They should be paying back to the taxpayers who are covering their back. Then we can think creatively about how to engage the banking community in small business development, housing development and so on.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Conservative Members have asked whether this is a tax-raising scheme or a scheme to create jobs and homes. I put it to my hon. Friend that I am bemused as to why it cannot be both. Surely a scheme that takes from where there is disproportionate wealth and redistributes, not simply in terms of cash in pocket, but into jobs, and taxes paid by people in those jobs, has such a glorious splendour about it that I struggle to see the dilemma.
Geraint Davies
That is precisely right, because the creative challenge is how to get the banking community to invest in jobs and small business, and one way is to take some money from them and create some jobs and small businesses. If they cannot work out how to do it, that seems a reasonable thing to do.
Greg Clark
Through the hon. Gentleman, perhaps I may express the dilemma that was raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I fear that a cruel deception is being perpetrated on the unemployed. They feel that a sum of money will be available to them, but it simply is not possible to raise £2 billion when the total bonus pool is less than that. I think they should know that.
Geraint Davies
Yes. Well, obviously, we clearly need to look at aggregate sums, but what is being debated here is—[Interruption.] What is being debated here is, is whether it is right that a community of people—I am talking particularly about people in the upper echelons of the banking community—who are making obscene bonuses should be given more and more money for doing no more work and having the taxpayers covering their backs in terms of risk, at a time when we are seeing an escalation of unemployment in various communities, including some that I represent, and when the very poorest are being asked to deal with obscene levels of pain in order to reduce the deficit problem.
Huw Irranca-Davies
May I suggest, through my hon. Friend, by way of riposte, that the cruel deception that is being perpetrated is that there is a lack of ingenuity within the Treasury that could extricate some of the undeserved wealth and redistribute it to put people in jobs? I fail to agree that there is a lack of expertise or resourcefulness there; that is an admission of supineness, of surrender. We should be looking for imaginative ways, like the amendment before us, to get people back to work, by taxing those who are disproportionately wealthy and undeserving.
Geraint Davies
That is right, and there would be widespread support for that across our communities and probably in the banking community. People are taking home an extra £1 million and asking themselves whether they should be paying income tax at 45p or 50p, at a time when we hear cases of people earning, say, £20 a week. As I mentioned at Prime Minister’s Question Time, a constituent who recently came to me was a chronically ill man who had £20 a week after paying his utility bills and his bus fare. This month he is down to about £14 a week due to benefit cuts. If such cases were brought to the attention of some of those wondering whether to buy their second yacht, I do not think they would mind paying a little more.
It has been insinuated that a 50p rate would discourage such people and be so painful for them that they would all get in their yachts and go off and live somewhere else, but in Britain today many people already pay more than 50p. Anyone who is earning more than £32,000 and less than £42,000 is paying 40% tax plus 12% national insurance. That is 52%. The only reason that they have to pay more than 50p and the millionaires do not is that they do not have their own personal accountants. That is not fair, is it?
These are sustainable levels of marginal taxation and it is right that they should be paid. It is right that members of the banking community, who have their backs covered, should pay more than their fair share. It is also right that the Government should get their act together to stop abuse by many members of that community who are taking the mickey.
Yesterday I had a meeting with a lawyer who specialises in giving advice to people facing charges of insider dealing and the like from the Financial Services Authority, which is now the Financial Conduct Authority. We were talking enormous amounts of money that people are trying to avoid paying. The point that she made to me is that the people in the FSA, now the FCA, do not have the resources and the clout, and have to deal with dozens of cases, while the defence lawyers deal with only a few cases because the amounts of money are so great. What is more—the Minister might want to do something about this—there is no system of precedent.
If the FSA says to a bank, “You have committed this offence and we are going to charge you £1 million”, which is small change for a bank, the FSA cannot set a precedent. The banking community knows that, if they do it, they will be charged; the FSA has to rehearse the same action again and again. I hope the Minister will look into this as it comes from the horse’s mouth—from people who are giving advice to people who are being defended. They also poach staff from the FSA or the FCA to work for them. They say, “We’ll give you three times as much. You’ve been charging us and you’re very good at it. You’re not paid enough for your success. Come over to our side. Have some of our bonus and we can do some insider dealing. The people at the Exchequer are making cuts at the tax office to save money, so we can have more.”
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend should be a little more charitable towards the Government. There has been a thread of consistency in their approach. Had he been present for the first debate, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) say from the Front Bench that the Prime Minister promised that under the Government’s New Buy scheme, 100,000 families would be helped and only 1,500 families were eventually helped through that scheme. In this debate we heard that the Prime Minister said that £2.5 billion would be raised by the bank levy, whereas we heard from my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that £1.1 billion was raised. Is there not a degree of consistency here? The Government are consistently incompetent.
Geraint Davies
That certainly would be a charitable way of putting it. If financial targets are set and are under-achieved, the Government clearly need to redouble their efforts to deliver those targets. We need to continue to focus on generating joined-up systems to ensure that the money that is available delivers economic outcomes such as opportunity and jobs. The amendment is designed to create imaginative ways of generating opportunity and jobs for the future by using the money that is recovered. We should join together to do that. It is a modest amendment that we should all agree on. We should work together to build a stronger Britain.
I fear that the Government will say, “Oh no, we can’t possibly consider that.” That, alongside their failure to raise the money, would show that they do not have the focus to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their way towards a more prosperous Britain. I fear that the Government will go back to the old Tory ways and say, “Let’s use this as an opportunity to crush the so-called undeserving poor” and pretend that there are workers and shirkers, whereas people just want to get out and get a job. Let us move forward and create a united Britain—a one nation Britain, dare I say—to create a future that works and a future that cares.
Mr Newmark
I apologise, Mr Amess, for popping out. I wanted to make sure that we had the right statistics at hand. I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) that those with the broadest shoulders should pay the largest amount of taxation. After the last Budget, notwithstanding the 5% cut, the top percentage of earners are paying more because of the other tax rises that we have brought in for them.
Unemployment is a tragedy for anyone who loses their job, and I am sorry for the individuals in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency who have in the past month lost their jobs. He spoke about the productivity puzzle, and I agree that that is a challenge. What is important to each of our constituents is surely that they have a job. The facts are that, year over year, unemployment is down by 71,000. Employment nationally is up 488,000 year over year. On jobseeker’s allowance, the figure that he looked to, year over year it is down by 60 people. That is not many, but the figure is down year over year in Swansea West.
Geraint Davies
In Swansea West jobseeker’s allowance numbers have grown by 40%. We have heard of employment levels going up and we have seen that overall output has not gone up, so there is the productivity puzzle, which is a kind way of saying that productivity—production per head—has gone down. All I am saying is that we should look at ways of giving people the tools to do the job, be it skills, building houses, or super-connectivity.
In the run-up to the Budget I got the business community in Swansea together to lobby the Chancellor to invest in a wi-fi cloud and super-connectivity for Swansea. Why should an inward investor come to the congestion and cost of London when they could hook up to the worldwide web in superfast time overlooking the wonderful Gower and the sun and sands of Swansea? That was worth while doing. We were not successful, and subsequently the biggest company in Wales, Admiral, wrote to the Chancellor pointing out that it is a global company and wants super-connectivity on a global basis to its clients and suppliers. That is the sort of investment that we want to make from the extraction from the excess profiteering of certain individuals in the banking community. The modest amendment would enable us to continue that dialogue with a view to taking action to deliver positive change for people who currently do not have enough opportunity.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am—I hope that Government Members are concerned—about the increase in the number of people who have been unemployed for 12 months? In my constituency, the figures today show that the number of those unemployed for more than 12 months has gone up by 17%. Tragically, the number of young people unemployed for more than 12 months has gone up by 40%. Having talked to other hon. Members here this afternoon, I know that they have similar if not higher figures. That is the real tragedy. Here is a generation of young people who will be scarred by unemployment. We need, and we need soon, proper measures, which the amendment addresses— innovative and different measures, not the Work programme, which is not working for people. That generation will be scarred if we do not find them work soon.
Geraint Davies
That is completely right. Clearly, the economic model that must work is to have people making a contribution by being in work. There has been some debate about tax thresholds—with everyone saying how great they were—versus working families tax credit. Let us put ourselves in the position of someone starting a business who can only afford to employ someone for £10,000—£15,000 would not be viable; that is just the way that business works. Along comes working families tax credit, and a single mother, for example, can afford to work for £15,000, but not for £10,000. If the state makes up that difference, we end up with someone who can afford to work and make a contribution, and a business that is now viable. That is good. If that is simply stripped away and the tax threshold is increased to make it more worth while, it does not add up. That is one explanation for why we had such considerable job growth under the Labour party from 1997 to 2008.
Most people do not really understand working families tax credit. It is a way of integrating tax and benefits so that we cannot divide people into those in receipt of benefit and the workers, which is what Conservatives want to do for political reasons. They want to say that there are the workers and the shirkers and they are for the workers and the Labour party simply wants to support people sitting at home. That is the opposite of the truth. The Labour party is about enabling people to have pathways to prosperity through jobs. We should be using the fruits of engaging with the banking community, who make obscene amounts of money, and investing in skills and in communications, whether it be electrification of the railways or high speed rail, in wi-fi clouds, or in creating a global infrastructure in terms of R and D and our universities.
We have heard a lot of talk about the reduction in corporation tax from 21% to 20%, but that makes no difference to multinationals if the comparators are France at 33%, Germany at 29% and the USA at 40%. We are already competitive. But that 1% reduction is a 5% reduction in our tax yield from corporation tax. Would it not be better to spend that on helping universities to grow with industry? There is a good example of that in Swansea, which could be the fruits of what we are talking about today, where the second campus is being underpinned by £250 million from the European Investment Bank, and where Tata Steel, BP, other multinationals and the Welsh Government are engaged. Research shows that that sort of cluster of R and D attracts more and more big business and jobs, rather than just a marginal bit of corporation tax. We need to think cleverly about how to generate R and D engines. Brazil, for example, is spending £5.3 billion from development banks on getting into the global field of biotech. China and other countries are making similar investments. That is the way to organise ourselves in a joined-up way, rather than the laissez faire social and economic Darwinism of the Tories, where we see the weakest die and the greediest become more bloated as they exploit the world.
Mr Newmark
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s fascinating speech, and a philosophical divide is clearly developing. Does he really believe that it is best for a company to pay an extra 1% to Government, because they know how best to spend that money to create jobs? Or is it best to leave it with the company? Let us leave bankers aside, because I know that one is obsessed with those. Let us talk about the Tatas of the world, the manufacturers who historically have done a great job in Wales in creating jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is best that that 1% extra goes to Government, because they are in a better position to create those jobs, than a company such as Tata, which would take that extra 1% and use it efficiently for R and D or job creation?
Geraint Davies
You, Mr Amess, probably have one of these sophisticated iPhones. I bring it out of my pocket because all the heavy lifting of the technology in this phone, which is a multi-billion pound product in a global marketplace, has been done by the public sector. We invented the internet, but GPS, touch sensitivity, voice sensitivity and most of those things were done by the institute of technology in California, which is why the Californian government are suing Apple for £26 billion to try to recover some of the money earned. Apple did a bit of packaging and marketing, produced the goods in a lower cost place, and paid tax somewhere else. We have global companies, which we all know about, which do not pay tax where the economic activity takes place. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question whether it would be better to give money back to companies for R and D is that companies want to do a bit of R and D, but they want to do it on the back of the heavy lifting of the public sector. That is the reality. Part of our challenge is to attract those companies to where we have public sector activity, to engage in partnership, and to ensure that we tax where the economic activity and marketplaces are, so that we get our fair share of the added value and a return from our taxpayer investment. So the answer is yes, yes, yes.
Bill Esterson
With regard to why Government have to intervene, my hon. Friend mentioned Swansea, but around the country there are regions with big problems, particularly youth unemployment—Merseyside is a key area where that is a problem—where we need such intervention. We are talking about a levy on banks, not on Tata, and we need that money to be directed where the job shortages are for young people. A small number of my constituents who have not been able to find work locally travel to London to obtain work, with all the inherent problems of high housing costs. It is not an attractive option. It is not what they want to do, but they have no choice. However, the vast majority are not in a position to do that, and that is why youth unemployment in the regions is going up, and that is why we need the kind of intervention that my hon. Friend is talking about.
Geraint Davies
Yes, and my hon. Friend makes an important point about the growing regional imbalance in the British economy. I realise that the Government have paid lip service to that issue, but if the only place to get a good job is London, that inflates costs, and young people come to London to live in squalid conditions in the hope that they can get the experience to go home at some point. There is a brain-drain as well, so this policy does not make any sense. One of the first things the Government did was to get rid of the regional development agencies. They said that they were no use and cost too much.
Geraint Davies
I will give way in a moment.
I went to visit UK Trade & Investment, which has 83 offices around the world. Its mission is to market Britain for trade and inward investment. I was in its office in Dusseldorf and it told me that typically it would market Britain as a great place to come to—a low-tax, stable society with a platform into various markets, a skills base and great universities.
For example, a German distiller might come along and say that it wanted to set up a factory in Britain. That would go on to UKTI’s computer platform and the RDAs would then bid for it, saying, “We want that in Yorkshire” or “We want that in Lancashire” and setting out their case. Immediately after the RDAs were destroyed, there was a queue of companies looking to invest in Britain through UKTI, but there was no one to bid for that investment. It was crazy to destroy them, especially at a time when we want growth and regional balance.
The Government said the RDAs were too expensive, but now they ask why we have growing unemployment, zero growth and increased housing benefit costs in London. It is because rents are going up, we are not building houses and we do not have regional balance. Therefore, the amendment is partly about thinking of creative ways to move forward and engage the banking community in a sustainable growth plan that has a regional dimension.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that the life sciences cluster at Swansea university, which brings together the best of the private sector, with micro-businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises and technological innovation, is working also because the project is supported by local and national Government in Wales? It is not about one or the other; it is about both. I have visited a company in Maesteg, at the top of the Llynfi valley, a former coal mining area, which is investing in life sciences. Does he also agree that the sort of intervention that that company would love to see is in a jobs guarantee to help it increase its manufacturing base? That is the sort of clever intervention the state can make to grow SMEs and micro-businesses, not just the Tatas of this world.
Geraint Davies
I completely agree. There are clearly certain growth markets within the global market environment, and life sciences is one that is of great interest in Swansea, as are biotech and green technologies and all the rest of it. What the public sector can allow is a critical mass of research that benefits from economies of scale and a shared risk that would not be taken by individual operators, and that can attract inward investors. What we want is a benign partnership, as we have in Wales, with a Labour Government and local authorities working with universities, perhaps on a city-region basis, which is the future, to deliver benefits for all. That is what we want, rather than the laissez-faire approach.
I will have to bring my comments to a close in a moment, because obviously other Members wish to speak, but I promised first to give way to the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).
Neil Carmichael
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he welcome the fact that in the long term Hitachi has invested £6 billion in some of the regions he has referred to, such as the north-east, where trains will be made, and in my area, where nuclear power stations will be built? He refers to “heavy lifting”. Does he not agree that through his industrial strategy the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has introduced the aerospace centre, which will be a massive investment, essentially in the public sector, to promote the development of aviation? That will also be repeated for the automotive sector. That is precisely what he is talking about, so the Government are doing that already.
Geraint Davies
I certainly welcome those things. The trouble is that it is very much a U-turn—although that is fine. One moment the Government were withdrawing and saying, “We don’t have to do anything, because the market will spontaneously grow.” Then nothing was growing in the garden, so they go and put in some pot plants and that sort of thing, which is great. Hitachi is very welcome, and Tata has been mentioned. Some of those big companies, such as Tata, will make strategic investments, particularly because of the quality of the coal and the history of skills and the innovation, such as the partnership with Swansea university, where they are developing a new type of steel that has six layers, generates its own electricity and, when used to clad buildings, lowers the carbon footprint. It is the future.
With regard to aerospace, we of course have Airbus in Wales and, again, a supportive Welsh Government. Any support from the UK Government for strategic investment to boost our export and manufacturing base in modern and growing markets is very welcome. That is something we can certainly support. The more active the intervention from the Government with regard to an industrial strategy, the better. We want to see jobs, rather than people sitting on their hands—that is how the Government see it—and rather than watching bankers take loads of money for doing very little while people in Swansea and elsewhere who want to work are blamed for being unemployed but are not given a hand-up.
Geraint Davies
I will take one final intervention before bringing my remarks to a close, because I know that other Members wish to speak.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at this stage in his long and fascinating peroration. He made several references to the fact that bankers are obscenely overpaid and that they should pay more tax. Does he think that people who earn up to £250,000 a week are underpaid, reasonably paid or significantly overpaid, and should they be making a greater contribution to the sort of problem he has been discussing? I am talking, of course, about premier league footballers. I look forward to his comments.
Geraint Davies
I do not want to be drawn into talking about football, because there is a rivalry between Swansea and Cardiff, and Cardiff, to be fair to them, have just been promoted. I feel that people who earn more should pay more towards the public good. Whether or not the cut-off point is £250,000, we all have a contribution to make and those with the widest shoulders should pay more and at a greater rate. There is a debate about what that rate should be, but certainly those people who advocate a poll tax that would mean the poor paying the same as the richest for local services are at the far extreme of reasonableness. Most of us, I would like to think, want the rich to pay more.
Sadly, what we saw in the Budget was the poorest paying most to pay for the bankers’ recklessness, so that a certain amount of money could be thrown to the squeezed middle in order to buy votes. That is not the way forward. We need a unity of purpose to grow in prosperity for a future that cares and a future that works. On that point, I must sit down, because I know that colleagues and others want to speak. Thank you, Mr Amess, for indulging me.
Alison Seabeck
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who gave an absolute tour de force. I rise to support amendment 2. We have heard it said repeatedly, both in interventions and in my hon. Friend’s speech, that bankers who earn large sums of money in this country continue to receive huge bonuses, irrespective of whether the institutions they work for have improved their performance, and meanwhile unemployment persists and the Government attempt to create full-time jobs. It has failed.
Indeed, in a week when we saw low-paid working families affected by the bedroom tax—or spare room subsidy—we also saw large numbers of top bankers awarded obscenely large bonus payments and, in some cases, benefiting from the tax cut for millionaires. Some have deferred paying income tax until this financial year to avoid paying at the 50% rate, thereby making additional gains on the back of the poor, a point that was terribly well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West.
That is yet another Government economic plan that has been poorly evidenced. It is part of an endless package of ill-thought-through policies. The Government had 13 years to work up those policies. We expected them to have worked up deliverable policies, but clearly they have failed miserably. They do not even have a plan B for the economy—the one that the International Monetary Fund now suggests they switch to—which is shocking.
In the financial year 2010-11, the bankers’ bonus tax introduced by the Labour Government raised around £3.5 billion. It was a sensible tax on the country’s top earners. It was scrapped within weeks of the coalition Government taking office and replaced by a bank levy, which the Prime Minister has consistently claimed would raise £2.5 billion a year. The simple truth is that it has not done that, so one could say that the Prime Minister’s accuracy at the Dispatch Box has been found wanting. Members should not take my word for it—the Office for Budget Responsibility evidence, published alongside the Budget, confirmed the figures. The OBR has said that the coalition’s bank levy will bring in just £1.6 billion from the last financial year—almost £1 billion less than the Prime Minister said it would, and less than half that raised under Labour’s bank bonus.
Alison Seabeck
That is an interesting question and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so well informed about his constituents. However, he seems conveniently to forget that my constituents, like his, are also being hit by increases to VAT, which takes a significant chunk out of their incomes. Furthermore, particularly if they are low-paid workers, they are being hit by a flat-rate pay freeze and in turn by housing benefit changes. I am talking about working members of my constituency. If someone was to knock on the doors of Plymouth, Moor View, that person would find that people said they were significantly worse off and finding life very hard indeed.
Geraint Davies
I had better intervene, because the rendition given by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) of what I was meant to have said was completely inaccurate. I did not say that tax had increased for people but that the working families tax credit had been massively cut, as well as other opportunities.
The average person would lose £14 a week under the bedroom tax because their children had grown up and they had an empty bedroom. That is the same as the £13.50 that somebody might get from the raising of the tax threshold to £10,000. There are swings and roundabouts. Only £400 million will be saved from crushing the poor but it will cost £12 billion to put up the tax threshold. The judgments are difficult, but the Tory instinct is to crush the poor and help the squeezed middle, while ours is to help everybody. However, I made no insinuation that tax was being increased.
Alison Seabeck
My hon. Friend has put his position on the record, so I will not take further interventions on that point.
I come back to the amendment and its call for a review.
Sammy Wilson
I agree that a general proposition that every specific tax raised should be hypothecated for a certain purpose would be very dangerous, but this is not a general proposition; it relates to one specific case and that case has to be made.
Geraint Davies
In following the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s eloquent argument, am I right in saying that he agrees that what banks should really be doing is supporting small businesses that have large order books and successful products and that want to upsize and build their business, but that do not have a lot of collateral and houses? That is what the banks should be focusing on in our local communities and economies, not on massive bets against share price changes and derivative bundles, which will develop multi-billion pound bonuses in an almost virtual world. What we want is a real economy supported by banks, not a bonus culture backed up by the state.
Sammy Wilson
That is one of the arguments for separating retail banking from the riskier banking activities described by the hon. Gentleman.
The fourth argument is totally different from the others, but I think that Government Members were getting increasingly desperate as they clawed for arguments against what is a reasonable proposition. One Member asked several times whether the amendment was designed to change behaviour, to act against perverse incentives or to raise revenue. All taxes tend to have behavioural consequences anyway; it is in their nature to change behaviour. Some are specifically designed to do so, while some are more genuinely revenue-raising because they do not affect behaviour as much. If the revenue from the tax goes down because fewer bonuses are paid, that does not necessarily mean that it is bad for the economy. For example, if banks decide not to pay bonuses and to keep the money as profits, corporation tax revenue will go up; or if they decide to put the money back into the bank and thereby increase liquidity, that will have a beneficial effect on the economy, because banks will be able to make more loans to businesses. Just because it may change behaviour does not necessarily make it a bad proposition. In fact, the proposition stands, as it could have other tax revenue-raising consequences or induce changes in bank behaviour that mean they have more money to do what the public expect them to do, rather than simply giving huge bonuses to their top-ranking employees.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is right to say that exporting is important. It is one area where, as an economy, we have not performed as well as we would have liked over many years, although we are making striking progress in some of the major developing economies. However, we face difficulties, in particular with the eurozone, which is our biggest export market.
Let me return to what we are doing as a Government to ensure that we meet our objective of having the most competitive tax system in the G20. We have already made considerable progress. As evidence, let us look at the KPMG annual survey of tax competitiveness, in which senior tax professionals were asked to name their three most competitive tax jurisdictions. In 2009, just 16% named the UK among their top three, but by 2012 the UK was named by 72% of respondents, ahead of every other jurisdiction. Since that survey was undertaken, the corporation tax rate has fallen from 24% to 23%, but we will not be complacent. Clause 4 will cut the main rate of corporation tax to 21% from April 2014. As we announced at the Budget, we will then reduce the corporation tax rate by an additional one percentage point from April 2015—a measure in clause 6 that will mean that the United Kingdom has the lowest business tax rate of any major economy in the world.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that before and after the Budget the corporation tax rate in France was 33%, while in Germany it was 29% and in Britain it was 21%, why is it necessary to reduce it to 20% and in so doing to get rid of 5% of the corporation tax yield? How long will it take to get that 5% back? Will we produce 5% more inwardly investing businesses or will the size of the business community grow by 5% to make it up? We are already extremely competitive on that front, so how long will it take to make up that money, which the Minister has given away for no apparent reason?
Mr Gauke
I hope the reduction to 20% will have all-party support, but I am sorry if it does not. The advantage of 20% is that we will have a corporation tax rate that is consistent with the small profits rate. It is the lowest in the G20 and sends a clear signal to businesses around the world that the UK is open for business. That is something that we in this Government are proud of and that we believe is putting in place the conditions for growth. I hope that the Opposition will support this measure, although Labour in government did not make as much progress in reducing corporation tax rates as it might have done and we lost a competitive advantage. This Government are restoring that competitive advantage, which is something we are proud of.
It is not just corporation tax rates: clause 34 will introduce the new above-the-line credit for large company R and D investment from April 2013—a measure that will make the level of support more visible to those making investment decisions and thus more beneficial to foreign-parented multinationals looking to invest in R and D in the United Kingdom. This Government have also made a clear commitment to support the creative industries through the tax system. Building on the success of the film tax relief, which last year supported investment in more than 300 British films, clause 35 introduces new corporation tax reliefs for the animation, high-end television and video games sectors. The new reliefs will be among the most generous in the world, encouraging investment in these highly skilled and innovative parts of the creative economy. They are measures that will bring jobs to the United Kingdom and funds to the Exchequer.
This Government recognise the need for a broad industrial base, and measures in the Bill will support a wide variety of sectors. Clauses 77 to 90, for example, provide certainty over decommissioning relief on the UK continental shelf. Clause 7 supports small business by increasing the annual investment allowance for two years and clause 56 provides for an extension of the capital gains tax holiday. Those measures send the clear message to businesses, entrepreneurs and investors across the world that if they want to come to the UK, invest in the UK and employ people in the UK, they will be very welcome in the UK.
Mr Gauke
There is a balance to be struck, and we have rightly focused on bringing down the rate of corporation tax, not only for larger businesses but for smaller ones as well. Let us remember that the small profits rate was set to go to 22% when we came into office, and that it is now 20%. We have increased the annual investment allowance for that two-year period to try to stimulate investment at a time that is not necessarily the easiest for many businesses. That is part of what we have done to help small businesses during this difficult period. Taking steps to bring the rate down is important; it is a tradition, if you like. It has been our direction of travel in the UK over many years, and I think that we have now got the balance about right.
Geraint Davies
I have here a letter to the Chancellor from the Admiral group in Swansea—the biggest business in Wales. It expresses disappointment that Swansea was not included as a city with super-connected city status in the last Budget and asks that it continues to be considered in future. Will the Exchequer Secretary positively consider that request? Business is asking for the infrastructure tools to succeed, particularly so that large businesses can connect worldwide with suppliers and prospective clients. We obviously welcome the investment in the creative industry, which is also very important.
Mr Gauke
I shall certainly take that intervention as lobbying in support of the proposal. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight our super-connected cities policy, which is further modernising our economy and further benefiting a number of cities. I appreciate the case he makes for Swansea, and I am sure that it will be properly considered.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful for the Minister’s enormous generosity in giving way a third time. On the issue of transparency in pensions, does he accept that the people who are going to be hit hardest are the current young, who are the future old? They are also paying much higher student loans, they face debts, they will need much higher deposits for their mortgages, they will have to pay higher rents so they cannot save, and they face much greater uncertainty about job prospects. Downstream they will be hit again by the pension changes, which are not transparent to them, partly because they are not thinking about that now because they are young.
Mr Gauke
I will try not to digress too much. If I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he is concerned about the proposals in the Bill, which will apply only to those who make the biggest contributions to their pension fund and receive tax relief for that. He makes a number of important points, but those are not necessarily relevant to the proposals on pension tax relief. If he is concerned about that, I look forward to hearing his concerns over the course of the many debates that we will have.
The Bill is substantial. Building on the invaluable work of Michael Jack and John Whiting at the Office of Tax Simplification, it delivers a number of important reforms to simplify the tax system, including the implementation of recommendations from their reviews of small business tax and tax-advantaged share schemes. This is a significant Bill. It is a clear statement of our ambition to secure a tax system that restores the competitiveness of our private sector, clamps down on avoidance and evasion, and helps to build a fairer society for those who want to work. It is a clear statement that we remain committed to reducing the deficit and building a prosperous economy in the United Kingdom once again. It is a Bill that will energise business and support hard-working people, and it is a Bill that I wholeheartedly commend to the House.
Chris Leslie
If I can try to be optimistic, I hope that there will be a sustained increase in employment, but I am getting worried. The latest figures showed that unemployment is rising again. We must look at the underlying situation reflected in the productivity gap and the capacity problem in the economy, which the Treasury is worsening. The Minister spent a large part of his speech trumpeting the reductions in corporation tax that the Treasury have put into the Bill as the big solution to those problems. Of course we want the UK to be seen as a good place for investment, but the Treasury has not produced any analysis of how those further cuts in corporation tax will feed through into economic growth. We hope they will, but it is time we saw some clear proof that inward investment and business growth are flowing from that approach, and that we are not just stacking up corporate surpluses which are locked away because businesses fear that they will not be able to access bank credit.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend will know that the debt to GDP ratio will have grown from 55% in 2010 to 85% in 2015, and that the way to sort that out is by confronting the debt and/or confronting the GDP—namely, growth. Does he accept that even though 1 million more people are in jobs, overall production has not gone up, so their average productivity has gone down? Does he agree that it is time to invest in infrastructure, super-connectivity and skills, and to make Britain more productive and make it grow?
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not a good sign that it is taking more and more people to produce the same amount of output. In the long run that is not a sustainable strategy for our economy. Ministers need to look more seriously at that issue. The problem is not just the fact that the Bill neglects economic growth.
Chris Leslie
Where is the regional economic strategy from the Government? Where is their attempt to revitalise those parts of the country that have suffered most of all? I am sorry if I sound a little like Eeyore to Government Members, but somebody has to say, as my hon. Friends have been saying, that Government policies are just going to harm those parts of the country that are in desperate need of regeneration and will make the situation worse for them. My hon. Friend makes that point well.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the Government’s biggest failures has been not to resuscitate consumer demand, which would stimulate growth? It is the poorest in our communities who spend the highest proportion of their income, because they cannot afford to save. By hitting the poorest the hardest the Government are hitting growth overall and making a more unbalanced economy and a more divided society.
Chris Leslie
It is the politics of shooting oneself in the foot. The difficulty is that the Chancellor does not even understand that his strategy is making his task far harder in the long run. It is not just the fact that people on lower and middle incomes are suffering as a result; it is the unfairness when they compare it with what the Government are doing for those parts of the economy and of society that they favour. The banks are still getting away with not paying their fair share. A tiny corner of the country is doing very well out of the Chancellor. The banks, whose actions created the deficit, are not contributing their fair share towards repairing it. In fact, astonishingly, they are benefiting from the Chancellor’s generosity. This Bill fails to get a grip on the contribution the banks ought to be making. It is still too weak on the very institutions that had to be bailed out by the taxpayer because of their perilous self-indulgence. We have debated in the past, and we will do so again, the fact that Ministers have failed lamentably when it comes to tackling bonuses. In opposition, the Prime Minister promised:
“Where the taxpayer owns a large stake in a bank, we are saying that no employee shall be paid a bonus of over £2,000”.
My hon. Friends probably remember that comment. However, when I express my dismay about the Bill’s weakness, I am not just talking about the lack of a bank bonuses tax. The Government said that the bank levy, as a charge on bank balance sheets, was their answer to clawing back some of the costs for the taxpayer.
The Prime Minister said in 2011 that once the levy was “fully up and running” it would raise £2.5 billion each year—in fact, he said that it would raise £9 billion over the spending review period. We now see that the Government have totally failed to live up to their promise and that the banks have swerved to avoid the bank levy; they have not paid anything like the amount mentioned. In fact, the Chancellor has raised nearly £2 billion less from the banks since the Prime Minister made that promise just two years ago. Those are not my figures, but the latest figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility and HMRC.
The Government repeatedly claim—the Minister did it again today—that the bank levy will raise £2.5 billion a year and that the cuts in corporation tax will not benefit the banks; the Minister said that those corporation tax cuts would be offset by increases in the levy. However, the OBR figures, published alongside the Budget, estimate that in the financial year that has just ended, 2012-13, the bank levy will raise just £1.6 billion—a massive shortfall. We have then to deduct a further £200 million because of the generous corporation tax cut. All in all, the banks have paid £1.1 billion less than Ministers promised. That is even worse than in the previous financial year of 2011-12, when the combined shortfall was £800 million less than the Minister promised.
What on earth is going on? Why cannot the Minister get a grip of the issue? The bank levy strategy is haemorrhaging money when it should be boosting the Exchequer far more significantly. I ask my hon. Friends to think of what that nearly £2 billion could have achieved in the past two years. This is the third or fourth attempt by the Government to get the issue right, but each time they have failed to raise what they promised. The Minister has to go back to the drawing board now and come up with a policy that will actually work, rather than something designed to pass a press release test.
The Chancellor is making bad decisions because he is getting deeper into difficulty, proving time and again that saving his own skin comes before getting the judgment right. It did not take long for the world to see, for example, that the Government had not properly thought through their flagship Help to Buy scheme after it was announced in the Budget. That was hailed as the boost that we needed for housing, but focusing only on demand without any corresponding action to supply more affordable homes is only a half-policy partially thought through.
I hope that the scheme succeeds, but why on earth cannot the Government ensure that funds are not siphoned off for second-home purchases? By contorting the scheme so that it does not count against the deficit figures, do they not realise that they have added complexity that might hinder take-up? After all, the Government promised that 100,000 people would have used last year’s NewBuy scheme by now, but only 1,500 people have become involved so far.
Chris Leslie
The Government are not putting any of those resources into building affordable social housing. Kicking people out of their homes will not help people in that way. We have already seen evidence that nine out of 10 of those affected by the bedroom tax have no option of going anywhere else at all. The Government have totally neglected the supply of affordable housing. They have not prioritised that.
Then we come to the grotesque spectacle of a Chancellor of the Exchequer demeaning his office—using the case of a multiple child killer to argue for his changes to the welfare system. We knew that Conservatives relish any opportunity to do down social insurance protections and that the Government’s policies are actually pushing more people into welfare—not helping them out, but pushing up the welfare bill to record levels. However, we did not know the depths to which the Chancellor would stoop. The nasty party is back.
The Chancellor certainly grabbed the headlines, but I say to Government Members that what he said diminished his standing in the eyes of millions who rely on benefits—those in work relying on tax credits as well as people looking for work, pensioners and the disabled. Those millions have absolutely nothing in common with Michael Philpott whatever and were all sickened by the evil behind those crimes. In his speech at the beginning of the month, the Chancellor had the audacity to castigate his critics for their “shrill, headline-seeking nonsense”—he said that without a hint of irony. He suggested that those who dared to criticise his plans
“always complain, with depressingly predictable outrage”
and are just another bunch of “vested interests”.
Let us just think about that accusation—“vested interests”. Putting to one side for a moment the fact that the Chancellor knows a thing or two about defending positions of privilege, is he really saying that those who care about defending the well-being of some of the most vulnerable in society are “vested interests”? Well, for the record, yes—we are interested in, and deeply concerned about, the impact that the bedroom tax, the withdrawal of council tax benefits and the changes to disability benefits will have. However, the more important question is why the Chancellor is not interested. Why does he think it makes sense to tell 660,000 people, most of whom have a disability, that they need to give up a spare room but leave nine out of 10 with no option of moving anywhere smaller? Why does he think that some of the poorest and most vulnerable can cope with significantly higher council tax bills as a result of the withdrawal of council tax benefit, the arrears from which could end up costing a fortune to collect? Why does he think it makes sense to penalise working people by cutting their tax credits at a time when we should be making work pay?
The Chancellor is not concerned because for him this is a political game. He is not serious about helping those on welfare; for him, and for the Conservatives’ new spin supremo, Lynton Crosby, this is all about ideology and tactics.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend will be aware that housing benefit costs have doubled in the past 10 years, but is he also aware that 70% of that increase is due to private sector rents because rents have been inflating and we have not been building enough houses? Does he accept that if we built more houses we could lower average rents, sort out housing benefit and give people stable communities and more chance of getting a job as well?
Chris Leslie
Looking at the situation in the round, that is exactly the sort of welfare reform that we need. If we are going to get to the root of these problems, we must have serious reforms to our welfare system, and we need a Government who are serious about delivering them.
The Chancellor and his Ministers are not serious about solving these issues; all they want to do is to stoke up fear and prejudice, blame the unemployed and the welfare system, and deflect attention from their own woeful failures to repair public finances. Serious welfare reform has to be a continuous process to fit the modern circumstances of society. Reform is never just a “job done”, nor should it aim only at being headline-grabbing. We should crack down harder on fraud but also on tax evasion, we should better reflect the contributory principle, and above all, we should focus relentlessly on getting people back into work so that they are making a productive contribution while also paying taxes again to bring in those much needed revenues.
A Work programme where only 2% of participants find themselves in sustained employment is a humiliation for these Ministers. They should never have scrapped the new deal, and if they were genuine reformers they would immediately set out a compulsory jobs guarantee, using the repeat of the banker bonus tax to fund a minimum-wage job placement for all young people unemployed for a year, and using the money saved from reducing the pension tax relief for the richest 1% to fund a job for all adults who are long-term unemployed for two years or more. No excuses: if they turn down those decent and properly paid job opportunities, they should forfeit unemployment benefits. Languishing on the dole for the long term must end, but we need to treat those looking for work with respect and give them a decent and real job opportunity, not cast them aside.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
As you know, Mr Speaker, I took the time to pay my tribute to Baroness Thatcher last week. I asked whether she had lived up to her own terms of reference and brought harmony where there was discord and hope where there was despair. I came to the conclusion that she had not, and that she had created a more divided and unequal Britain. Given the contents of the latest Budget, I fear that that is the kind of Britain we are now hurtling towards again.
A man who came to my surgery on Friday told me that he had £20 a week to spend after paying his utility bills and bus fares. At that rate of disposable income, he could take 10,000 years to get to the alleged cost of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. When the empty bedroom tax hits, he will be down to £2 a day, so he would have to keep going for 15,000 years. In the Budget, the very poorest are being squeezed hardest to give some money to the squeezed middle to encourage them to vote Conservative, while millionaires are being given tax breaks when the top 10% in Britain have seen their average income go up by 11% over the last two years alone, simply through the machinery of the marketplace.
There were a few bright spots in the Budget. There were the mortgage deposit schemes, but according to people in the financial world, there is a real risk that they will generate the sort of sub-prime debt and irresponsible lending that banks are not supposed to be engaged in if we are not to encounter a problem, as we did in 2008. There was the 1p beer give-away. There was rejoicing in Swansea, because outside one pub, a sign said, “Buy 299 pints of beer and get one free.” People were very excited about that. However, the general situation is that we have no growth, as people have mentioned. The problem is the debt to GDP ratio. Debt as a proportion of the value of the economy was 55% in 2010, and it will be 85% in 2015. There are two ways of sorting that out: to increase GDP—the size of the economy—as Labour did in the 11 years from 1997 to 2008 when it went up by about 40%; and/or to attack the debt.
The total focus is on attacking the debt. In 2010, when the Chancellor announced that he was cutting half a million jobs, what happened? People, particularly in the public service, stopped spending. The savings rate went up, consumer demand went down, growth was flattened, so debt as a proportion of GDP is rising, and more and more people are doing less work. We hear about the extra million jobs, but they are producing no overall extra output, so average productivity is down.
We need to invest. People make a big joke about that. They say, “You’ve got to borrow to pay off your loans,” but there is a difference between investing in productive capability—in skills, infrastructure and marketing and in super-connectivity; I mentioned earlier that Swansea had put in a bid for super-connected city status—which would help the economy to grow, and simply spending and borrowing to pay people to do nothing and keep them on the dole. That was the old problem for the Tories pre-1997 and we are going back to that situation.
In other countries, there is enormous investment in research and development, particularly in emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India. When we study the behaviour of multinational companies, we see that they are drawn to R and D clusters, not just to ever-decreasing levels of corporation tax. Obviously that is one of the criteria, but reducing corporation tax from 21% to 20% and reducing the yield by 5% does not make much sense. The money would be better spent on super-connectivity for all our smaller cities, including Swansea. In Swansea, there is massive investment by the European Investment Bank in a second campus, which is creating an R and D cluster that is attracting the involvement of companies such as BP, Tata and Boots. That will create real international global value.
Aside from that, the focus has been on clobbering the poor. If money is cut for people who are already poor, growth will be cut overall. If cuts affect better-off people who are saving, they are not investing their earnings in the local economy either.
The bedroom tax is a cruel inefficiency. Housing benefit has doubled in the last 10 years, but 70% of the increase was caused by private sector rent growth. People are being put into the private sector because not enough council and social housing is being built. In Wales, 29,000 families are affected, but there are only 400 empty single-bedroom units of accommodation, so there is nowhere for them to go. Two thirds of the people affected are disabled. In Swansea, moving someone from a three-bedroom council house to a two-bedroom private sector house would cost 50% more, so housing benefit will go up again. A lot of these measures are counter-productive and destructive, but that particular one encourages people to have more children, even if they were not going to, to fill up the rooms. Meanwhile, the overall benefit cap encourages families to break up so that there are two units that can come up to the £400 threshold. The policy has not been thought out, and we are seeing an awful return to a Dickensian view of the worthy and unworthy poor, the shirkers and the workers, and the strivers and the skivers.
We need to refocus on growth, capacity, exports and jobs. Jobs and growth are the only things that are going to pull us back on the right track to balance the books and make Britain strong again. We want a Britain that cares and a future that works—a one nation strong and united, not a weak nation divided by the Conservatives.
Oral Answers to Questions
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a good point about how we must tackle the record national debt that we inherited. It went up threefold during the 13 years of the previous Government’s time in power. When we set out the Budget forecast next week, my hon. Friend will get a good answer.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Businesses in Swansea are telling me that assessing net debt should include an assessment of net assets, and they have written to me and the Chancellor asking that Swansea be considered for superconnectivity status, namely that the Government invest in our broadband capability. Is that something he is willing to look at positively with the businesses involved?
Mr Speaker
That was very wide of the subject of public sector net debt falling as a share of GDP in 2015-16. The hon. Gentleman needs to do his research and have another go. Go back to the drawing board. We are grateful to him.
Tax Fairness
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
What more can I say? I thought the hon. Gentleman supported the proposition in our motion, but clearly he does not. However cynical and defensive he may feel, Liberal Democrats should at least acknowledge that a principle of fair taxation is at stake today, and that it ought to transcend party differences as we try to create a more just society.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend share my fear that the Liberal Democrats may become an endangered political species? Before 2010, they were very popular in Swansea but following the tuition fees, VAT and deep cuts turnaround, they lost the council. If they do not support the mansion tax, which was part of their manifesto, does he not think there is a real danger that we will never see them again in the political sphere?
Chris Leslie
It would be a great loss for the House to lose some of the skills and contributions of Liberal Democrat Members. Perhaps at our next Opposition day debate a Liberal Democrat protection order should be on the agenda. They may cling on in a number of ways in different places.
I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats do not support the mansion tax proposition. It is hardly surprising that Conservatives do not support the idea. After all, half of them are in politics to defend the wealth of the wealthiest, and the other half will probably need to declare an interest before they speak on the issue.
Let us consider the mansion tax in relation to the other tax benefits that the richest 1% receive. If the Lib Dem design for a mansion tax were to be enacted, it would just recoup a mere fraction of the money being given away to high net worth individuals in the millionaires’ tax cut from April—the first of too many examples of unfairness. In the last Budget, the Chancellor took the decision to hit pensioners with the so-called granny tax, which is more accurately described as a freeze on the old age personal allowance and has caused widespread disgust, especially because the Government chose to use the money to fund a cut in the higher rate of income tax. That is not fair and it is not right, and it certainly should not be part of the society we want to build. Even Liberal Democrats must know that it is deeply resented across the country, yet the Government continue to clobber lower and middle-income families, whether by freezing the maternity pay of new parents, taking child benefit away in a fiendishly complex tax assessment process or reducing the value of the tax credits on which so many working people rely. They cannot even ensure that the money men pay their fair share, with a bank levy that for two years running has undershot the supposed target of £2.5 billion that the Chancellor claimed it would collect.
On maternity pay, the bedroom tax and the cuts to tax credits, the Government have their priorities all wrong. They are handing a tax cut to millionaires when millions of hard-working families pay more. Voting for the motion is an opportunity, especially for the Liberal Democrats, to tell the Government that they need to rebalance their priorities.
Mr Gauke
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong. People earning just over £40,000 have seen tax cuts and a reduction in the total amount of income tax they pay, because the personal allowance has increased to more than compensate them. The higher-rate threshold has not increased as it might have done, because higher-rate taxpayers would gain more from the personal allowance than basic rate tax payers. Someone on between £40,000 and £44,000 a year is paying less income tax as a consequence of the Government’s policies than they would have done otherwise.
Geraint Davies
Will the Minister take this opportunity to confess that the reason why the Treasury predicts less will be generated by the 50p rate in the one year of its operation than the 45p rate is that he knows, as I do, that millionaires can move their money between tax years? As the rate only runs for one year, they will move their money to the lower tax year. He would raise more money if he kept the 50p going. It is a con for his mates.
Mr Gauke
There are two points. It is correct that the wealthy are often able to move income from one year to another, but the conclusion that HMRC and the Office for Budget Responsibility reached is that even taking into account the forestalling effect, the behavioural consequences of the 50p rate were so significant that it barely raised any revenue. That is the reality. It even takes into account the hon. Gentleman’s point about forestalling. That approach has been confirmed by the OBR. The 50p rate failed.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right. The Labour Government were in office for 4,758 days. For all but 36 of those days, the highest rate of income tax was at 40p. Then it moved to 50p. There is a good question to ask the Opposition about why they kept it at 40p for so long. Why did they leave it until the fag-end of their Government, when it was clear that they would not be in government any more? The reason is that the 50p rate, predictably enough, did not do what it was supposed to do. It did not raise revenue, and an income tax that does not raise revenue is not something that a sensible Government would persevere with.
I turn to the mansion tax.
Mr Gauke
No. I shall make a little progress, devastating though the hon. Gentleman’s interventions so often are.
We have always been quite clear that the proposed mansion tax is an issue on which the two parties in the coalition have differing views. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues have supported the principle for some time. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) will make that clear when he winds up the debate. In contrast, Conservative Ministers have very real concerns over such a proposal. We have concerns that a third of the properties in London worth more than £2 million have been in the same ownership for over 10 years, and that a mansion tax could hit asset-rich but potentially income-poor households, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison).
Mr Gauke
This is a difficult time for all major economies, and the UK is no exception, but matters would be much worse if we were to abandon our desire to bring some control to the public finances. We must ensure that there is the political will to deal with the public finances, and that is what this Government will continue to demonstrate. The approach of ignoring the deficit, believing that this is all an issue that can be addressed at some future time, is economically irresponsible and unfair on future generations who will face the bill that they will have to pick up because we failed to address those problems now.
Geraint Davies
Is this not also about fairness? For instance, while the threshold changes that he has mentioned of £3,000, which deliver a saving of £11.50 a week to taxpayers, cost £9 billion, he will save half a billion pounds from inflicting that £11.50 on people for the empty bedroom tax. With a small amount of the money used to raise the tax threshold, he could have alleviated that for the very poorest. Is not this about values and not inflicting the most hardship on the most poor while giving a bung to the voters?
Mr Gauke
I take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that rather than raise the personal allowance, he would prefer us to spend more on the welfare bill. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s position, fair enough, but I do not agree. Raising the personal allowance, taking people out of income tax, and making sure that work pays, are all things that a sensible Government should do, and I am delighted that this coalition Government are able to do that.
I come now to the taxation of those on highest incomes, on which we have already touched. The top 1% of taxpayers, those with incomes of over £150,000 a year, will pay more than a quarter of all income tax, while the top 5% of taxpayers, those with income of £68,000 or more, will pay nearly half of income tax. We agree that it is important that we create a tax system that ensures that those who earn the most contribute the most, but it is also important that we create a tax system that works. Among other things, that means a tax system that does not damage our economy by undermining our international competitiveness.
The Government inherited a top rate of tax at 50p, a rate that our predecessors, who this afternoon have painted themselves as the party of taxing the rich more, had put in place for just 36 of their 4,758 days in power. The rate that they left us with was the highest top rate among major economies. The last Labour Chancellor had made it clear that it was temporary. It was also very clear that it was having an immediate impact on our competitiveness.
Let me say something that I hope is not controversial: the principal purpose of income tax is to raise revenue. So we commissioned HMRC to analyse just how effective the 50p rate was in raising revenue.
That HMRC report, laid before the House, set out thorough and compelling evidence on the impact of the 50p rate. It showed that the rate was uncompetitive, distortive and inefficient. Not only did it not raise much revenue, but it could even have cost the Exchequer money when the indirect impacts on other taxes were taken into account. This Government were not prepared to maintain a rate of income tax that was both ineffective at raising money and that left us with the highest statutory rate of income tax in the G20, so we acted, in the interests of the country, and the top rate of tax will fall to 45p from April this year. This will see our top rate of tax drop below that of Australia, Germany, Japan and Canada, which will send a signal to businesses taking decisions on investment and location that the UK is a competitive environment.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
What a load of codswallop we have been listening to since the Minister got up on his hind legs! Obviously, this motion is setting out a direction of travel. We are saying that those with the broadest shoulders should take the biggest load and the poorest should not pay the cost of the bankers’ recklessness.
The myth that is habitually recited by Government Members is “What a fine mess you’ve left us in,” so it is important to remind people of the facts. I recently met people from the Bank of England, and I have in my hand a graph showing that our growth rate rose continuously between 1998 and 2008, but then dipped when there was the financial tsunami. The GDP growth under Labour was 37% before that dip. We then had the fiscal stimulus thanks to our friend Mr Obama and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), which got us back to some fragile growth moving into 2010, but then the Tories came to power.
I also have a graph showing that two thirds of the deficit—the green bit—is from the bankers and the other third is the Government spending above their earnings in order to pump-prime, to avoid a depression and deliver a mild recession and a prosperous future for Britain. What happened? Obviously, George Osborne came along, announced that half a million people would be sacked but he did not say who they were, so public servants stopped spending—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please refer to the Chancellor by his title, not his name.
Geraint Davies
Exactly. The Chancellor, no less, decided to announce that half a million people would be sacked but did not say who they were, so people stopped spending and started saving, consumer confidence fell and the economy has been flatlining ever since.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman refers to employment. Does he recognise the fact that there are 1 million new private sector jobs net, unemployment is falling and the level of employment, which is currently about 30 million, is the highest on record?
Geraint Davies
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If 1 million more people are in work but there is zero growth—in other words, there has been no overall increase in production—that implies that people who had been in full-time jobs are now in part-time jobs and that aggregate production has not increased, which is a complete failure. It is symptomatic of Tory Britain, with people scratching around for anything they can find in difficult times.
There has been some discussion of the 50p rate of tax. As I have mentioned, the reason the Treasury thinks it would not make any money from a 50p rate is that it knows that millionaires can move money between tax years, which is precisely what they have done. They knew that their Tory mates would reduce the top rate of tax the next year and so simply shifted their income to that year. The point that I had wanted to make in another intervention—I appreciate that two were taken—relates to the idea that the 50p rate does not work and is therefore dead. However, people earning between £32,000 and £42,000 already pay 52% marginal tax—12% for national insurance and 40% for income tax—but of course no one talks about that. How does that change their behaviour, and why is it fair that they pay the higher rate while people on £150,000 do not because they have accountants? It is ridiculous.
Geraint Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene? Perhaps he earns £150,000; I do not know.
Mark Reckless
I want to develop the hon. Gentleman’s point. We currently have a tax band between £100,000 and £115,000 in which people face a marginal tax rate of 62%, with the personal allowance and national insurance. Is he suggesting that that is somehow justifiable, or more justifiable than the top rate tax he is suggesting for those earning more than £150,000?
Geraint Davies
I am simply saying that those with the broadest shoulders should take the greatest weight, that there is a strong case for a 50p rate of tax and that some people already pay the 50p rate. I am not saying that they should pay that. Our tax system is not very fair, and I will move on to that later.
The problem we face is that there is no growth in our economy because there is no consumer demand, and although the deficit—the rate at which the debt is increasing —has gone down by 25%, as we are constantly reminded, the overall debt continues to rise to unprecedented levels. We are almost back to a pre-1997 situation in which we are paying people to stay on the dole and, at the same time, cutting services. That is the old Tory vicious cycle. We want to get back to Labour’s virtuous cycle, with people in jobs and paying tax and with unprecedented growth.
The other point that is always made is that the banks were unregulated and that is why everything went wrong. The reality is that the Financial Services Authority—I know that it has had a bad name—was introduced in the teeth of opposition from the Tories, who said that there was too much regulation already. Then, when the banks started going bust, the Labour Government said that we had better nationalise them so that people could still get money out at the hole in the wall. The Tories said, “No, let them fall.” That would have been a complete catastrophe. So in other words, the previous Labour Government did a very good job. We now have a situation in which, instead of confronting the deficit, which is what we should be doing, the Government have the wrong balance between growth and cuts, and within the cuts there is the wrong balance—80% cuts and 20% tax.
As for the claim that we are all in this together, we are now in a situation in which the poor are paying the most. I mentioned in a brief intervention—I also raised this in Prime Minister’s questions—a man who came to see me who had £20 a week, after utility bills, for food and clothing. He now faces a further hit of about £7 a week for having an empty bedroom. How will he survive on £2 a day? Allegedly, that change will save the Government about half a billion pounds, but of course it will not, because obviously people will move to the private sector, where rents are higher, and there will be empty houses in the public sector because councils will be forced to evict people. It makes no economic sense at all. However, if it did raise half a billion pounds, which is about one twentieth of what the Chancellor is investing in the tax thresholds, the hit to the very poorest will be similar to the gain to a very large number of people, and that will cost a great deal of money.
The point I am trying to make is that what will probably result in no savings will inflict enormous hardship on the most vulnerable, which is unnecessary and wrong. Those people, because they are very poor, have no option but to spend all their money locally, which helps to boost growth. If that money is redistributed from the very poorest to the squeezed middle, which is obviously good for votes—a callous and cynical manoeuvre in difficult economic times—then clearly that is not in favour of growth either. In so far as it will push money right up the income scale to the millionaires who live in mansions—the people we have been talking about—what will they do with the extra money the Government will have bunged to them? The threshold has gone up, so those at the top will also gain as a result. They will hide it away offshore.
There are therefore difficult issues to confront. We need to invest in our productive economy, but what is a fair way to do that in a—dare I say it—one nation way? Britain wants a one nation future that works and a future that cares, and the question for us all in difficult times must be how we deliver that. How do we invest, as I mentioned during Treasury questions, in super-connectivity for the city of Swansea? We do it on the back of investment in universities, electrified rail and communications and by marketing city regions, and indeed Britain, for inward investment. Those are all important. The Minister mentioned some of the issues about marginal corporate taxation, but the research tends to show that the major inward investment drivers are around research and development skills and access to markets, and we are well positioned on that.
On corporate taxation, there is a lot to be said—to be fair to the Minister, he mentioned this—for the idea of taxing economic activity where it occurs, whether we are talking about Google, Amazon or other companies. Amazon is local to my constituency and provides valuable jobs, but it needs to be fair and there needs to be a level playing field. If people are buying on Amazon rather than at a local shop, it is important that the local shop knows that they are all playing the same game.
Let us take the example of Apple phones and all the technology in the phone I am holding in my hand. The internet was invented here, and the other stuff, such as touch-screen and voice-activated technology, was invented in the national institute of science in California. So Apple is being taken to court by California for $26 billion because it does not pay any tax. Apple has taken innovation from the public sector, repackaged it, branded it, manufactured it overseas and got it taxed somewhere else. A big issue is that global conglomerates need to be brought to account and to pay their contribution to the public services where people are consuming their products.
Some of these people obviously live in mansions. The issue about the mansion tax, of course, is that it is part of a more general review of council tax, as other Members have mentioned, which has not been uprated. There needs to be a progressive system of taxation. Obviously the mansion tax, which is a Liberal Democrat proposal, had not been completely thought out in all its intricacies, but it is a direction of travel. If someone lives in a £2 million house, it is not that difficult to find ways of getting income out of it. It can be rented out and, with the rental income, the owner could have a palatial place in south Wales and a profit, so they could sit by the sea and enjoy themselves. For those people who are stuck in £2 million cupboards in London, allegedly, and we feel sorry for them, there are ways of releasing equity, as they could be rented out and people will pay the market rate.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman make some progress on the mansion tax. Obviously it is a Liberal Democrat policy, and I am really looking forward perhaps to voting for it later. Can he explain to me—I am keen to know—whether it will be in the Labour party manifesto at the next election?
Geraint Davies
Sadly, I cannot confirm that at the moment because I am not quite in a position to be writing the party’s manifesto, although I have ambition.
In difficult times we should focus on growth and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take the weight and that we do not just squeeze the poor for the bankers’ mistakes. This proposal is part of a tapestry of opportunity to move forward on that, and we call on the Liberal Democrats to support us on what is, after all, their idea. Locally in Swansea the Liberal Democrats have been a very strong party with control of the council. Since 2010, they have been in a woeful state because people are worried about their broken promises on tuition fees and so on. This is their chance to redeem themselves so that there can be some glimmer of belief in a future for the Liberal party. If they do not vote for their own policy, what hope is there? Very little, I am afraid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)
I begin by thanking those Members who gave a welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton). I join them by adding my own welcome.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is absolutely right. The debate may have been robust, but it was genuinely thoughtful. It is thus a great disappointment that when she closed the debate and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) opened it, they did not take the opportunity to apologise to the country for the Labour Government’s role in creating the economic difficulties in which we find ourselves. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) was right too. On the Government Benches and in the country at large, we say “What a fine mess you’ve left us.”
I congratulate the Opposition on their proposal, because one good thing happened today: after three years of opposing our revenue-raising policies, three years of opposing our cuts and three years of failing to propose a single solution for the economic mess they left us, I am glad that in the Chamber today they have at last put forward an actual concrete policy. As we heard, it is a Liberal Democrat policy, but I am delighted that Labour Members now support our mansion tax. I shall be even more delighted when it takes pride of place in my party’s election manifesto in 2015—something I can say but they apparently cannot.
Mr Foster
Let me make a little progress and I will happily give way.
We have been perfectly up front: this is a matter on which the two parties in the coalition disagree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) made clear in an excellent speech, the Conservatives have always been vocal in their opposition to such a scheme and Liberal Democrats have always been vocal in our support for it.
Mr Foster
No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
It is worth reminding ourselves that although we as Liberal Democrats accept that a mansion tax would be a further step in creating greater fairness, by being part of the coalition with our Conservative colleagues we have made huge strides towards building a fairer society and a stronger economy. I agree with the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who said that creating fairness is vital. Our achievements in doing so are in marked contrast to those of the Labour Government.
Mr Foster
No.
The previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator, hitting the pockets of families and businesses, whereas we have taken steps that will make pump prices 13p per litre lower than they would have been under Labour. They abolished the 10p tax rate, hitting 800,000 single earners, whereas we are taking 2.2 million people out of paying tax altogether. Whereas in 2000 they gave pensioners a miserable 75p a week pension increase, last year we gave the biggest ever increase of £5.30 a week.
Mr Foster
We are not here to discuss the under-occupancy arrangements. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, who has breezed into the Chamber, that we have had discussions on many occasions about this. I am aware of 300,000-odd families with two or more spare bedrooms and 250,000 families who are overcrowded, so it is right and proper that we take action to try to help them out, and that is what we are doing. I am more than happy to talk about this Government’s record on fairness.
Economic Policy
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is a powerful champion of businesses in his constituency and has spoken to me about what they need. He is absolutely right. Of course we want to get credit to businesses that want to expand and take people on. That is why we run the funding for lending scheme with the Bank of England. We have also provided additional annual investment allowances in the way that I have just set out. The reaction of business organisations to the news of the last couple of days has been striking: they have absolutely supported the Government’s determination to deal with our debts.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I congratulate Swansea City on its triple A rating after winning the league cup? At the same time, the Chancellor is fouling up the economy and has caused a penalty that has lost us the triple A rating. He should be focusing on a growth strategy and should not be cutting the poorest hardest, given that they spend the most.
Mr Osborne
Of course, I congratulate Swansea on its victory in the Capital One cup.
We have to take difficult decisions on things like welfare, but we are helping people to have incentives to be in work, helping people who are in work and supporting people by, for example, increasing the personal allowance and taking the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that.
Food Banks (Wales)
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That is what is so unfortunate about the Prime Minister’s attempt to use statistical shenanigans to disguise the fact that the real issue is the sheer number of people who now have to go to food banks. I compare that with the charitable aid that was on offer under the previous Government, and that will always be present in our society, one way or another, which is to be welcomed. It is the scale of what is being done, not what is being done, that is most important.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In Swansea, tonnes and tonnes of food are being gathered every month for the food bank, and thousands of people are affected. My hon. Friend will be aware that some 30,000 people now rely on food banks in Wales. What is his projection for after April, when 40,000 people will be affected by the second-bedroom tax? Does he agree that the least well-off will be worse off and relying on food banks?
Kevin Brennan
I will not make a projection, but I am sure the Minister will want to do so, because, of course, he should be very concerned about the impact of the Government’s changes. No doubt he has done a considerable amount of work on the issue raised by my hon. Friend, and he will perhaps say something about it when he winds up the debate.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing this important debate and on his compelling contribution, in which he painted a stark picture. As he said, the Government’s response to the increasing despair among Opposition Members about the growth of food banks has been to say that food banks grew under the last Labour Government, that they are a sign of the big society, that they are somewhere for people to go if, as the Downing street source said,
“they need a bit of extra food”,
and that we should thank them for the work that they do. I certainly agree with the last part. I thank Raven House Trust and King’s Church in Newport, which do a superb job with the little resource that they have. They are hugely dedicated, and I thank the volunteers in local churches who collect on their behalf. I am not sure that I know what a big society is, but I can certainly recognise examples of the good society operating in Newport.
As my hon. Friend said, we must all agree that the huge growth in food banks is sobering and a terrible reflection on how bad things have become. Raven House Trust, based in my constituency, became a charity in 1994, helping Newport’s homeless with furniture and food. In December, it gave out 850 food parcels, and this week it told me that in the last six months of last year, it had seen a marked increase in demand due to welfare changes, and that it is bracing itself for a dramatic increase from April. That trend is confirmed by the Trussell Trust, which is based in Newport and operates food banks elsewhere. It says, as my hon. Friend said, that 40% to 45% of those who ask for help do so because of changes to benefits and delays in benefit payments, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, many working families on low pay are also in need.
Everyone who needs a food parcel will have a different story, but it is true to say that those in desperate need and asking for help have often been the homeless, those with drug and alcohol problems and, in my area, asylum seekers. That is absolutely awful, but Raven House says that, increasingly, families with children are relying on food banks to survive. Changes to the benefit system—which often leave people with reduced payments while claims are processed—low pay and rising fuel and energy bills are causing the cost of living to rise the fastest for the poorest households.
Geraint Davies
On that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that the online delivery of universal credit will mean that many families, who are vulnerable and often dysfunctional—some people have mental illnesses, and many do not have access to computers—will have no benefits, leading to a massive escalation in poverty, hunger and reliance on food banks?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday, as he will know, we heard evidence from charities working with people with mental health issues in Wales. They said that for their clients, not being able to do things online was a huge problem, as many clients had difficulties opening the letters. That is a big issue.
Recently, food banks in my constituency have seen a marked change and desperate need. Let us remember that families must be referred by an agency or an advocate, such as a citizens advice bureau, social services, Newport City Homes, Women’s Aid, and others. However, help is not unlimited. People are expected to use the parcels to tide them over and get back on their feet.
The picture is much the same at King’s Church, which collects food to donate back out to agencies. When it set up it did not feel best placed to assess the need, and did not want to interrupt the established process between, say, a social worker and their client. It collects the food to pass on to agencies, which decide who to give it to. King’s Church opened in 2009 and at that stage gave out 50 food hampers a month. It has expanded the areas it covers across south Wales and now gives out in excess of 1,200 a month.
In 2012, King’s Church gave out 12,500 hampers. It expects to deliver 18,000 in 2013 and forecasts a need for 24,000 in 2014. It is important to remember that in the King’s Church model the official agencies identify the need. Demand is going up. King’s Church feels that it is just scratching the surface. Both King’s Church and Raven House are gearing up for the benefits changes, and we can see why. A study by Bron Afon housing association into those affected by the bedroom tax in Torfaen quotes tenants—it visited every one of them—saying that they would rather go without meals to find the money to stay in their home. Teachers report seeing hungry pupils each day and food banks are working with schools.
Providers in my constituency know that things will get worse. The trend has been a steep rise in demand, even before the Government’s austerity measures really hit. When FareShare Cymru, which is based in Cardiff and does an excellent job, is reporting that charities are finding it hard to pay the membership fee to join its organisation, and that it is finding it difficult to maintain the service, the Government need to open their eyes to see how their policies are hurting. They should not just make flippant remarks about people getting an extra bit of food.
David T. C. Davies
Mrs Riordan, my apologies.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 50% tax cut for millionaires several times. That was introduced to increase the amount of revenue that the Government have, and it was certainly not put in place during the previous Government.
The reality is that there is poverty in the whole United Kingdom; there always has been and I assume that there probably always will be. The Government have an enormous problem dealing with the economy at the moment, as a result of the deficit and debt that they inherited when they took over in 2010.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Gentleman loosely referred to the relationship between local government and food banks. Does he accept that the Welsh Government, by paying for the 20% cut that will be imposed in England on council tax, which would cost the average person on housing benefit in Wales some £5, have done a lot to try to stem the flow of people having to go to food banks, and have put money back into the pockets of the poorest at a time when his Government are taking money out of their pockets?
David T. C. Davies
The Government are not taking money out of the pockets of anyone that they do not have to. The people whose pockets have been picked most under this Government are those in the very wealthy bracket, who are now paying more, proportionately, of total tax revenue than they were under the previous Government. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman’s question.
I have already said that there is a huge problem with council tax in Wales. In Monmouthshire, where we have a food bank, council tax has risen more than anywhere in the whole of Wales. It has risen by more than virtually anywhere else in the entire country. Monmouthshire receives less funding per head than any other local authority in Wales, by quite a long way.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned the economy, which of course is crucial in this regard. He talked about the forces of global capitalism. I was struck by the fact that the economic problems of the previous Government were always said to be the fault of the invisible hand of global capitalism, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not support, although I thought that most members of his party these days did. Yet the economic problems that we now face are apparently nothing to do with the previous Government and nothing to do with global capitalism, but all down to the policies being followed at the moment. That is incorrect.
The problems that we have are simple. We owe £1 trillion on the books and probably the same amount again in figures that are kept off the books—public sector pensions, private finance initiatives, and so on—and we have to find a way of paying it back. Instead of paying it back at the moment, we are borrowing £120 billion a year from the banks.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman talk passionately about poverty, and we had more crocodile tears than in the Limpopo valley of South Africa, where 24,000 crocodiles escaped from a farm last week, according to the press. We did not hear the hon. Gentleman mention one single thing that he wanted to do about any of this—not one solution.
The solution is simple. We need to create the conditions that will allow growth, prosperity and jobs to be created in this country. We will not do it by borrowing money, levying higher taxes on people or printing money. We will do it by getting the deficit under control and starting to pay back some of the enormous national debt, which was created by Labour Members. That is how we will create growth in this country. That is what the Government are doing, and they have my 100% support.
Mrs James
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree entirely. It is a worry that there is this alternative to the benefits system. We understand all the stresses and strains in the economy, and we know that there are huge pressures and increasing demands on income, but we just cannot let people fall behind. A measure of any good society or state is how it looks after its weakest, poorest and most vulnerable. I am ashamed to say that we are not doing a good job with some of the hard-pressed people I meet.
In Swansea, the demand on food banks has increased, and not just over Christmas. In September and October, they distributed two tonnes of food, which I am sure equates to many dozens of bags. It is hard even to grasp the idea of weighing out two tonnes of food on to pallets. Thank goodness the Churches and schools were having their harvest festivals; it meant we met the demand. However, we were really concerned about Christmas. I was so concerned, and the issues raised with me were so concerning, that I went to local employers and shopkeepers and asked, “Will you donate food?” The response was magnificent, and we got the additional food. Through a concerted effort with other organisations in Swansea, we managed to help people over the Christmas period.
It is no fun if someone has not had their benefit payment, and if paying bills has taken the food out of their mouths. That is the reality: people are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Will they heat the house? Will they put food in their children’s mouths? I am worried—I hope the Minister will respond to this point—about the one in 10 people in Wales who tell us they have skipped a meal to feed other members of their family. They are not making that up, and that is a serious issue.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that when the law is changed, and tenants, not landlords, receive housing benefit under universal credit, there is a real danger, under conditions of increasing pressure in which people do not have enough food to feed the family, that people will end up being evicted, because they feel they have to feed their children? There is now greater reliance on food banks, but we are building a time bomb of problems in terms of hunger, homelessness and devastation in many of our communities.
Mrs James
I agree. It is a ticking time bomb. It is not wrong to use terms such as “explosion” or “huge growth”. I do not know where this will end. When constituents are sitting in front of me, and we are wading through the complex new rules and regulations, we solve one problem, but we are left with a raft of other problems. I often have to tell people, “Hold on now. I do not have the answer yet.” That is the biggest issue in my postbag. There are many fearful people out there; they are really worried about what is happening to them and about the changes we have heard about—the bedroom tax, the changes under universal credit and the changes to the designation of who can receive disability living allowance—but I do not have all the answers. However, I do know that there will be more and more problems, and I meet more and more fearful people.
Food is not a luxury, but an essential of life. We all like to have a good diet, and we all enjoy certain foods. People are not receiving luxury items, but the staples and the basics of life. Their circumstances are putting huge pressure on their daily incomes.
We already have particular problems in Wales, and we all know about the problems we have had historically and geographically. We have lower incomes. The Office for National Statistics says that pay has fallen by £80 per month on average. That puts pressure on people. There are more cuts and changes to be implemented. As I said, I meet people who are very fearful. They are worried about this poverty explosion.
The number of people using food banks is a good indicator of what we need to do. We need a solid plan from the Government to get us out of this mess. We do not want false promises or denials of what is happening in our constituencies. The situation will not improve unless we have direct Government intervention. That means that we must take responsibility for people on benefits. We should not see them as an easy and quick way of saving money. We must think not necessarily of inflating people’s quality of life and standard of living, but about ensuring that people receive a decent basic wage and decent basic income.
Every day I hear about constituents losing their jobs, or about benefits that have been delayed or crisis loans failing to appear. As I have said, the changes to the welfare system are huge and will have far-reaching effects. We have a maze of new rules and regulations to go through. I am working at the moment with other bodies—the local authority, charities and Citizens Advice. We are all picking our way through and trying to come up with something practical for our constituents. No sooner do we get to the bottom of things than more changes are made.
I echo a question that has already been put: is that what we want in modern Britain? I do not want to be melodramatic and talk about Victorian soup kitchens and going back to handouts–
Infrastructure
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
The problem is that this is just a wish list. Those things are not happening—as John Cridland says, the diggers are not on the ground. As I have said, housing investment is down 8% in just one year, and 129,000 jobs have been lost in the construction sector. I look forward to hearing Government Members explaining why they are supporting those policies.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chinese have a five-year plan involving $1.5 trillion of investment in strategic new industry and infrastructure, and that their economy has been growing at 10% a year for 10 years. Is it not time that we took some lessons from growth economies such as China, and indeed Brazil, which is investing some $66 billion in its fiscal stimulus? Let us get on with it.
Rachel Reeves
The economic and political system in China is a bit different from that of the UK, but what we must learn from other countries is that we need a proper industrial strategy if we are going to create the jobs and growth that we need, and if we are going to excel and win the global race that the Prime Minister has talked about.
Two weeks ago, at Treasury questions, the Chancellor said that I was being “creative” with the facts when I said that he was spending less than Labour planned to on infrastructure investment. He said that I was being misleading on his record on investment. He had to withdraw that slur. Channel 4’s “FactCheck” has looked into his claims. The verdict is in, and I quote from its conclusion:
“Latest figures from the ONS show that Mr Osborne’s claim to have spent more on infrastructure than what Labour had planned is wrong.”
The Chancellor has refused to come to the House to put the record straight, so let us do that now. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility—which the Government set up—the Government are spending £12.8 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans they inherited from the last Labour Government. They are cutting too far and too fast. I am happy to take an intervention on that point.
Greg Clark
I do not quite understand the basis of the hon. Lady’s intervention, because the point I was making was precisely about the gulf between the capital and our provincial cities, and she has pointed out that London streaked ahead. By contrast, in other countries the performance of the regional economy kept pace with the capital, and that is something I want to champion; I want to encourage our provincial cities to be the equal of the capital on growth. I know she will recognise that in the past two years, at least, the performance of my native north-east, the place she represents, has indeed outstripped the rest of the country on creating jobs.
Geraint Davies
On the basis of what the Minister has said, does he agree that Wales should get its fair share of the High Speed 2 investment? It will run from the south to the north of England at a cost of £33 billion, and our fair share would be about £1.9 billion. On the basis of what he has just said, does he not agree that Wales needs a fair deal and that extra £2 billion?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is a fair man. He will know that the plans to electrify the Great Western railway and the railways in the valleys represent an important investment—I am sure he would acknowledge that—and a big contribution to the economic revival of Wales. It is very important that they should do that.
The divergence between London and the south-east, and the rest of the country is not a record of which to be proud. In the most difficult of circumstances, this Government are having to find the money to build the infrastructure that should already have been put in place during these years of plenty, speeding Britain to recovery. By failing to control current spending in the good times, the legacy of the previous Labour Government was not just a record deficit, but an infrastructure backlog and reduced capital budgets to pay for it. We need to invest more in infrastructure. Nick Pearce, of Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has said that the
“cut…was a decision of the last Labour government which the Coalition inherited”.
We need to remember that successful infrastructure investment does not begin with the allocation of budgets, but with clear-sighted, strategic decision making.
Let me give just two examples of the way in which Labour, over 13 years, failed to address the strategic need for leadership on infrastructure, the first of which relates to roads. When Labour was first elected, John Prescott was appointed as Secretary of State and soon took charge of transport. One of his first actions was to cancel almost all approved road schemes, all across the country, including the dualling of the A21 in my constituency. The reason was not that the Government did not have the cash. I am pleased to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) had left the economy in rude health and so they were in a good position. These road schemes were cancelled, along with many others, because John Prescott had fallen under the spell of a doctrine that said, “If you build more roads, they will only attract more traffic, so you should not build them in the first place.”
Greg Clark
It is disappointing when the Opposition treat these things as matters of levity rather than of seriousness that should be pursued. I neglected to mention the improvements to Reading station only because if I were to list all the investments that are taking place, I would detain the House for longer than I have done already.
Had Labour in government taken a greater interest in the long-term future of our railways and of our cities and begun action immediately when it took office, we could have been looking at a high-speed line to Birmingham and beyond opening before the end of this Parliament. High-speed rail is a long-term project. It takes a long time to execute, but even in the two and a half years that this Government have been in office, we have increased the pace of delivery on the ground. As well as six national road schemes funded since October 2010, 17 local transport schemes approved by the Government are already under construction, including the Mansfield interchange, the Kingskerswell bypass and the Portsmouth northern road bridge, and by May 2015, 36 of these vital new schemes will be open.
We are changing the way that decisions are made in funding infrastructure investment. Why should it be the case, as it has been for the past 13 years, that our great cities should have to come cap in hand to London to beg for the investment that they need? Our programme of city deals has given the right of initiative back to the civic and business leaders of the cities themselves. Greater Manchester is, as a result, investing over £2 billion of its own resources in transport infrastructure, and it is able to do so because it has negotiated a city deal that allows it to share directly in the increased prosperity of the area that would otherwise flow to the Treasury. City deals have been struck with each of the eight biggest English cities outside London, and I am currently examining expressions of interest from 20 more cities, from Plymouth to Sunderland, from Preston to Portsmouth.
Geraint Davies
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. He mentions the city deals, where the cities invest and get a share of the economic added value. Is that something the Government might consider for Wales so that with investment in economic development, we could get a share back and reinvest?
Greg Clark
There is a Government of the Welsh Assembly led by the hon. Gentleman’s party. I commend the example that we have put forward in this country. Our close working with each of the leaders of the eight cities has achieved very encouraging results to date. I dare say the hon. Gentleman can go back to Wales and commend that to his colleagues.
The way that investments can be financed has also been transformed for the better. Labour saddled future generations with PFI debts of £279 billion, of which less than £40 billion has been paid off, and which cost at least five times and often more than the original project cost of the underlying investment.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
What a ragbag of complacency and distorted history we have heard. All of us will surely remember that, pre-1997, we were under a Government with problems of massive unemployment, repossessions, companies going bust and people dying as they waited for operations. The reason was that people were not working and paying tax—debt and taxes were going up and public services were being cut. From 1997 to 2008, there was an unprecedented period of economic growth, thanks to a Labour Government’s getting people back to work. People were then paying tax and the money was reinvested in jobs and public services.
In 2008, the sub-prime debt tsunami hit our shores; if it had not been for Mr Obama and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who invoked the fiscal stimulus, we would have gone into a world depression instead of a mild recession, which ended in 2010 with the fragile growth inherited by the coalition Government. They then wasted that opportunity by immediately announcing that half a million people in the public services would be sacked. They did not say when or who, so people stopped spending money. Consumer demand went down to the floor and since then growth has stagnated. The result, of course, is that tax revenues have fallen, debt has risen and more people are on the dole.
We hear figures that claim that more people are in jobs, but how are more people in jobs when there has been no increase in production? The simple answer is that people who used to be in full-time jobs now have two part-time jobs. The situation is a complete mess. The amount of infrastructure investment was cut in the first two years of the Government. There are proposals for more infrastructure investment, which I want, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating—we will believe it when it comes.
I want to make a couple of quick comments about my own area. It is my firm contention that Wales should get its fair share of HS2—£1.9 billion. I welcome the electrification to Swansea, which has been mentioned. I am also interested in city regions and more investment in those, and I welcome those thoughts. More investment is needed in the M4 in south Wales, around Newport and Port Talbot, to speed up business, commuter and tourist flows and to spark more investment. I would like to see an evaluation, which has been promised to me by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, of the Severn bridge tolls. If the Government paid for them, would they recover the money from more income tax and lower benefits because of increased jobs? The tolls are simply a tax on trade between Wales and England.
I move swiftly on. As I said in an intervention, we should look further afield to the emerging economies, which are growing at an enormous rate. I appreciate that we do not have the Chinese political system, but we could look closely at the Chinese commitment to, and focus on, investment in research and development. Brazil has; it is investing $5.3 billion in renewable energy and biotech and becoming a world leader. China’s investment has meant that certain US and European companies that used to lead in solar power are being taken out. We need to think strategically about how to invest in both the infrastructure and the innovation agenda.
I make no apology for again mentioning Swansea, where, in a fine example of strategic investment, the European Investment Bank is investing to enable an overall investment of £250 million in a second campus at Swansea university. The university is linked up with industrial partnerships in modern manufacturing, green technology, biotech, and so on—new, cutting-edge, exportable technologies which, interestingly, are the very areas that Brazil and China are looking at.
This is not just a matter of spades in the ground, and roads and railways. I welcome roads and railways, as well as flood defences and the like, but it is also about making rational choices and investing in infrastructure alongside innovation. When we look at the migration of global companies and where they go, it is clear that it is partly about infrastructure, partly about cutting-edge research and development, and partly about markets. We need to get our mix right.
On housing, the Government need to remember that when one looks at the accounts, one needs to look at the balance sheet. If we invest in housing, then clearly we have an asset. Looking at the balance sheet and the net liabilities, we see houses as assets for the future that we need to drive down people’s rents and give them somewhere to live and the stability to work and have jobs. I encourage the Government to look at more innovative housing schemes in the United States whereby a local authority will provide the land and then a property company will come along with a shared equity and spend the money on building houses, half of which will be social housing and the other half private houses. The public sector then ends up with free council houses, an income stream from the private houses, and half the overall equity. This is also supported by pension funds for long-term rental opportunities.
There are enormous opportunities for bringing in outside capital investment from countries with surpluses, be it from oil or trade. Countries such as Qatar are looking to invest in tourism infrastructure and cultural infrastructure so that downstream, when the oil runs out, they will have alternative income streams. We should be creatively looking at that rather then saying, “Oh no, we can’t afford it.” We need to invest to increase our trajectory of economic growth, and that includes things such as schools. It is very sad that the preparatory work done by the previous Government through Building Schools for the Future was dashed, and it is now being looked at again. Investment in hospitals, keeping workers in work and keeping people in good condition, is clearly a good investment as well.
The other key strategic investment is the internet. People running companies in costly and congested London can now consider the possibility of going down a high-speed route on an electrified railway to sunny Swansea and locating there on the internet, outside the cost and congestion, helping us to spread out our economy. This is the strategic approach that we need to take, but we very much need to up our game.
Catherine McKinnell
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes that point very well. Infrastructure investment fell off the cliff when this Government came to power and we are seeing the economic consequences of that today. Many Members have referred to the Chancellor’s 2010 spending review. It took place in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the UK’s economy has grown by just 0.4% since then. During that time, the USA economy has grown by 4.2%, Germany’s by 3.6% and France’s by 1.5%. Our economy, however, has been stagnating for the past two years, and borrowing is now rising, not falling, as a result.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that the United States strategy for the top 2% to pay more towards reflating the economy and getting 1% extra growth is a good idea and that we should not be hitting the poor to pay for debts?
Catherine McKinnell
This Government’s choices on spending and tax have resulted in millionaires being given a tax cut while the poorest bear the brunt. We are seeing the results of that, not just in the suffering that we see at our constituency surgeries, but in the lack of economic growth. That is why it is so disappointing—indeed, unforgiveable—that the coalition Government have been asleep at the wheel on the issue of infrastructure investment.
National Assembly for Wales
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to rise at this slightly later than anticipated hour to debate the Green Paper on the future electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales.
I do so against the background of the Government’s wanting to reduce the number of MPs in Wales from 40 to 30 as part of a broader remapping of boundaries which has, I am delighted to say, failed in its attempt to reshape the political map, particularly in Wales but across the country, for party political gain. One of the key problems with that proposal is that it would break the coterminosity in Wales between MPs and Assembly Members. In the knowledge that they were doing that, the Government produced a Green Paper that said, in effect, “Don’t worry about it—we’ll reintroduce the coterminosity as a sort of Trojan horse to bring about a 30:30 arrangement, reducing the number of democratically elected AMs, increasing the list numbers, and changing the prospective balance of power in the Assembly.” That was done without any consultation or collaboration with the Assembly itself—a complete disgrace.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he think that given the Prime Minister’s assurance to the First Minister that any changes in Wales should have the consent of the Welsh people, it was pretty outrageous that he just went ahead regardless, which does not say much for any kind of respect agenda?
Geraint Davies
I will be mild in my criticism, but I thought it was completely disgraceful. It showed a great lack of respect for the blossoming new democracy that we have in the nation of Wales, with a Welsh Government doing very good things and the road of devolution moving forwards. Where important decisions can be made locally by the people they affect most, that is what should happen. It was very unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the Prime Minister showed such disrespect to the leader of the Welsh Assembly Government.
The other propositions in the Green Paper include the idea of a five-year cycle for the National Assembly for Wales detached by a year from Westminster’s five-year cycle. That might be quite sensible on the grounds that it would be unfortunate to have both elections on the same day because there could be confusion in Wales as a result of the media carrying more about UK policies of the Labour party and other parties that may differ from those in Wales. It is important in the interests of effective democracy, and effectively communicating democracy, that the elections do not occur in the same year, and I am therefore minded to support the idea of moving to a five-year cycle displaced by a year.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Would he not argue that extending the Assembly’s term—I agree with what he said about the longer-term prognosis for that—so that the elections did not clash was an example of the respect agenda in practice? I have some sympathy with what he said earlier, but in this instance we saw the respect agenda in practice.
Geraint Davies
It is a good idea, but that does not mean that it is about the respect agenda. I think that perhaps the idea came from this place without proper consultation and it just so happened that the Welsh Assembly Government agreed with it. Will the Minister tell us whether there was consultation on that part of the Green Paper. My understanding is that there was no consultation on any of it. Was there, in any sense, an element of the respect agenda, or was it just a blind coincidence of view?
There is also a move towards the resurgence of dual candidacy whereby somebody can stand in a first-past-the-post election and, should they fail, reappear like a vampire figure through the list mechanism and find themselves transposed into the National Assembly without a mandate, having failed to win in the first place. In other words, losers will be winners; I will be talking about Bob Dylan later.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman holds the strong view that the Green Paper was an attempt to gerrymander the political system in Wales. However, the implementation of the double jeopardy rule that prohibits people from standing in the list and in a constituency was the worst kind of gerrymandering by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman proud that the electoral system that we now have for the National Assembly for Wales is mirrored in only one country in the world—Ukraine?
Geraint Davies
It is a shame there is no one from Ukraine present to speak up for themselves—no disrespect to Ukraine, but that matter could be taken up in another place, namely Ukraine.
On double candidacy, the proposition was put in a manifesto which was voted for in an election. There was a White Paper and it went through a proper system. Of course, it is possible to disagree with something that has been properly considered and passed in a democratic way—I respect that and I am sure that we all share that view—but we are complaining about proposals that were put through in a one-sided and seemingly political way without proper collaboration with the institution that would then have to run the situation, namely the National Assembly for Wales.
Could the Minister confirm whether the boundary changes are now dead and buried in the aftermath of the vote here, particularly in the light of a Wales Office spokesperson saying that it is now not in anyone’s interests to change the boundaries as proposed by the Green Paper?
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The proposed parliamentary boundary changes have been abandoned, which means that £1.5 million has been wasted by this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that, should the Minister confirm, as is likely, that the review of the Assembly boundaries is dead and buried, they will have wasted even more money?
Geraint Davies
That is completely right. For a Government who are obsessed with cost cutting, they are wasting money on completely unnecessary new things. Had the changes been made, the lack of coterminosity, the confusion and the bedding in of various challenges would have cost enormous sums of money. The money would have been better spent in Wales on services and jobs for Wales, instead of on administrative expense for the sake of it that has now hit the dust. I want a reassurance that the Government do not plan, certainly in this Parliament, to re-tamper with the boundaries.
What is the Government’s position on the fixed term? Is the Minister at last consulting and collaborating with the National Assembly for Wales, and do the Government intend to press for five years, which I support in principle?
I am interested in the issue of double jobbing. There are examples of Assembly Members, MPs and peers who do two of those three jobs at the same time. What is the Minister’s position on that? My instinct is that one should do one job well and that it is very difficult to be in Cardiff and Westminster at the same time, even given modern media. Other people can fill different positions and one can meet up with them to compare notes.
I have already mentioned double candidacy—what is the Minister’s position on that? Is he hurtling ahead with it without consent or collaboration? Will he push it forward irrespective of the Welsh Assembly Chamber that it will affect?
This is about balance. There was no consultation on the boundaries, co-determination could have happened, and it is possible for a movement of competence, under the respect agenda, to the Assembly itself. The Silk report is being discussed, so the Minister might want to talk about that. I am sure there will be active engagement in the question of the future arrangements for competence over these issues or, at least, for co-determination. We should move towards giving that competence to the place where the impact of these decisions will be felt, which is, of course, Wales. I want a general reassurance that there will be no further unilateralism that could be construed as gerrymandering.
Our great forefather Aneurin Bevan saw political economy as a struggle between private property, poverty and democracy, and that at times of economic difficulty democracy would be compressed and would suffer and be undermined by private property stopping poverty getting its fair share. In the pit of this recession, which is being made worse and worse by the Conservative-Liberal alliance, we have seen an attempt on a number of fronts to undermine democracy, to pick away at it and to increase the odds of the retention of power by the incumbents.
That attempt has included the boundary gerrymandering, the attempt to impose voluntary registration for voters, which was disgraceful and eventually had to be withdrawn, and individual registration. There has been cross-party support for the last measure, but I think that it is unfortunate because 25% of people are functionally illiterate and some households contain many people who cannot speak English, so people often need help to register and participate. The Green Paper, which comes on the back of the attempted boundary changes, is another attempt to change the political balance when things had settled down after a proper democratic process.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend has used the word “gerrymander” a couple of times and he is right to use that term. Does he agree that the bottom line is that the proposed boundary changes for Wales were all about preventing the election of another Labour Administration in Wales? That was the motivation and it has been stopped.
Geraint Davies
The evidence certainly points in that direction. Thankfully, there are different institutions in the United Kingdom that can take forward different policies and ideas. For example, in Wales people can go to university for £3,000 a year or about £10,000 across three years, rather than pay £30,000. In this place, the Conservatives say, “It is impossible to have lower fees. Where would the money come from?” That idea and many others show that there are different ways of doing things. That is healthy for democracy.
The attempt to use the power that this place has had historically to blunt the blade of innovation in Wales is quite wrong. Unfortunately, all the evidence suggests that these changes are being proposed for party political gain.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman is being very gracious in giving way. I am sure that he will be glad to hear that Gareth Bale has just scored for Wales and that we are beating Austria 1-0.
There has been cross-party consent in Wales on creating a fairer electoral system. The Richard commission published its report in 2004 and argued for 80 Assembly Members elected by single transferable vote. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that parties across the divide, both here and in the National Assembly, should come together and look again at those proposals?
Geraint Davies
There is a case for having a broad debate about the best way forward. That is part of the Silk discussion and I agree with that. I am surprised that Plaid Cymru’s position is that there should be co-determination as opposed to devolution on these matters. Perhaps that is a change in its position and it is now less devolutionist than I appear to be. That is there for the record.
I will be helpful and give the Minister time to respond and to answer any questions that other Members may have. Clearly, there are more questions than answers in the aftermath of the great boundary victory—a constitutional change for which we can thank the Liberal Democrats, who are here in abundance. I can barely see the green leather, there are so many of them here tonight!
We need to move forward with effective democracy. It would help to have coterminosity of seats for Assembly Members and MPs. Obviously that could change in the future. It would be good to have stability in our relationships with constituents and for decisions increasingly to be made where they have the greatest impact.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Lady asks a direct question about the cost of the Green Paper consultation and I will give her a direct answer. The consultation on the Green Paper cost just over £3,000. If she or any of her colleagues are tempted to say, “Isn’t that now a waste of money because we are not proceeding with changes to Assembly constituency boundaries?” I remind them that the Green Paper was about a lot more than the shape of constituency boundaries for Assembly elections. Important parts of the consultation still need to be considered, and I will come to that in a moment.
Geraint Davies
The Minister seems to suggest that the Government’s plan was to improve democracy. He will correct me if I am wrong, but the plan that has been mentioned was, in essence, to reduce the number of directly elected MPs from 650 to 600, and increase the number of peers by 50. In other words, to substitute 50 elected Members of Parliament for 50 unelected Members. How can that be democracy? It is ridiculous.
Stephen Crabb
I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last year, but he will know it was this Government’s serious intention to see a substantial directly elected proportion of the House of Lords, and there is still a huge appetite for that. As a result of Parliament’s decision to defer the reform of parliamentary constituencies until 2018, it would not be in anyone’s interest to proceed with that aspect of the Green Paper at this stage.
Stephen Crabb
I am going to make some progress. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Labour party is using this opportunity for point scoring and attempted grandstanding, rather than for a serious discussion of the issues.
While the Labour party engages in what has become characteristic negativity, and in the absence of any constructive contribution to the debate from Labour Members, the Government will consider how to take forward the other important proposals in the Green Paper. First, should Assembly terms be increased from four to five years? Secondly, should the prohibition on standing as a candidate in both a constituency and a region be lifted? Thirdly, should Assembly Members be prohibited from sitting in Parliament and from having multiple mandates?
Geraint Davies
Before the Minister answers those important questions, will he confirm that the boundary changes are dead and buried and that there is no plan to introduce further boundary changes in Wales before the next election? Following his point about the Lords, will he confirm whether there is a plan to introduce a change to the House of Lords before the next election? I would be very glad to hear that there is such a plan.
Stephen Crabb
I have been clear about the consequences of the vote taken in the House last Tuesday—I was disappointed with the outcome—and that we will not proceed with the aspect of the Green Paper that deals with changes to Assembly constituency boundaries.
Of the three questions I have highlighted, the most pressing is on the length of Assembly terms. Hon. Members will be aware that, as a result of concerns expressed by the Welsh Government during the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Assembly election scheduled for May 2015 was deferred by one year until 2016 to avoid a clash with the next general election. That is a good example of the UK Government listening to the concerns raised by the Welsh Government and, to address another point the hon. Gentleman raised, collaborating with them. That is a one-off change. The two elections are set to coincide again in 2020 unless provision is made to prevent it.
A majority of respondents to our consultation favoured a move to five-year terms to reduce the likelihood of elections coinciding in future. The decision is a finely balanced one—good arguments have been made in support of both options—but however we decide to proceed, we are mindful that electors in Wales should be clear on how long they are electing their representatives for. Importantly, all four political parties in the Assembly favoured a move to five-year terms. It is worth putting that on the record.
In the Green Paper, the Government set out our intention to repeal the prohibition on a candidate at an Assembly election standing in both a constituency and a region. All three Opposition parties in the Assembly favoured removing the ban, but I acknowledge that, overall, a small majority favoured retaining the prohibition in their responses to the consultation. A significant majority of respondents agreed with our proposal to prevent Assembly Members from sitting in Westminster.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned competency—that issue was discussed at length during the debate of 3 July 2012. I should point out that the Government are simply operating within the framework that the previous Government set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006. As he knows, the Act states that competency and responsibility for electoral arrangements for the Welsh Assembly resides at Westminster. There is a Silk process—part 2 was launched recently, which provides a great opportunity for people who have concerns and other ideas to contribute. The Government have made it clear that we will listen and read very carefully all submissions to Silk part 2. We will announce our response in due course. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but other hon. Members in the Chamber were, and I remind him that they supported the previous Government’s legislation and the framework that retains competency and responsibility for Welsh Assembly elections at UK level.
Stephen Crabb
If ever there was a false premise to an intervention, that was one. It was not wasted at all. We had extremely valuable responses to the consultation that will feed into our deliberations about the other parts of the Green Paper package. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. If we were not consulting, he would be the very first Member to stand up and complain about a lack of consultation. We can never win with the Opposition: there is either too much consultation or not enough consultation, or we are going too fast or going too slow. Actually, we think we have the balance right. We are taking the time to do this properly. We know that the most timely part of the changes will be, as I said earlier, the need to make a decision about the length of the Assembly term—whether we move from four years to five years—and we will proceed on that in a timely manner.
Geraint Davies
The Minister may have already answered this, but just to clarify the point about the list and dual candidacy, he mentioned he has had some feedback. I think he said that the feedback was that there should not be dual candidacy. What is his instinct about the way forward, and how will he be collaborating with Cardiff?
Stephen Crabb
The responses to the consultation were mixed. I acknowledged that a majority of correspondents appeared to say that there should not be dual candidacy—where somebody is both a candidate on a list and a candidate in a constituency. However, when I read through those responses I have to say that a large number of them seemed to come from the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and seemed to bear a remarkable degree of similarity. They got hauled up recently for copying each other’s press releases. Far be it from me to suggest that some of his colleagues might have been doing that when they responded to the Green Paper.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the decision not to proceed with changes to Assembly constituencies does not mean an end to all the proposals in the Green Paper. We do not intend to let the significant work we have already undertaken go to waste. The work is not wasted—I refute that suggestion made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). These are issues of real importance. We can joke about them as we have done a little this evening, but we need to get them right. It is right that we consulted the people of Wales, and we are considering how best to proceed before announcing our plans. In light of the Commons vote last week, we will announce how we intend to move forward in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Geraint Davies Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have provided funding to local authorities to enable the council tax freeze to be delivered. Of course, councillors in those areas will be answerable to their constituents if they fail to deliver the substantial financial benefit that that offers. He is right to say that council tax doubled during the Labour party’s time in office.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cost of living increases have hit the poorest hardest, including the man I mentioned last week in Prime Minister’s questions? Should we not therefore follow the US in taxing the top 2% more, having net investment and generating an extra 1% growth, rather than hitting the poor hardest?
Danny Alexander
In that case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the wealthiest in society are paying more in every year of this Government’s time in office than they ever did under the Labour party.