Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Mike Gapes

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend brings up a very good point. The Government have to find a balance between wanting as many people as possible to have pensions, and economic sense when there is an impact on employers. My officials have discussed the issue with the National Farmers Union. We understand it and it will be looked into in the course of the 2017 review.

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

T8. How can the Government meet their target to reduce the disability employment gap—in fact, to halve it— when they are cutting by 80% the resources available to do that? Are those not just empty words?

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Mike Gapes

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I wish to concentrate on the situation facing my constituents and many others in London. The House of Commons Library has published a note that is of great help to all who take an interest in the subject of today’s debate, and it says that, on the basis of International Labour Organisation measures of unemployment, the highest rates are in London, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber, where the figure is 9%. However, although the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber are to benefit from the measures in question, London is entirely excluded.

As has already been made clear, a number of boroughs and constituencies in London have very high levels of deprivation and unemployment. My borough, the London borough of Redbridge, does not feature as one of the most deprived boroughs overall, but there are wards within it, including three in my constituency, that are in the lowest decile for deprivation and need. Therefore, the impact of any changes that discriminate against Londoners, against small businesses in London and against ethnic minority businesses in London—the population distribution in this country means that London has a much greater concentration of people from all ethnic minorities—has to be borne in mind. These proposals are inherently discriminatory; they are discriminatory in their own terms and they therefore need to be seriously questioned.

The Federation of Small Businesses has sent me some information about this matter. It points out how more than half the firms in London, 64% of small businesses in the south-east and 58% of firms in the east of England are likely to operating under capacity. It states that the regional discrimination involved in these proposals is based on

“a crude assessment as it does not account for areas within these regions that would really benefit from policies that would help bolster employment.”

If the FSB opposes the proposals, why on earth are the Government not listening to it, given that they claim always to be listening to small businesses? As I speak, the Essex FSB is having a meeting, which I am obviously not able to attend, and one of the issues it will discuss is precisely this discrimination against the east of England, the south of England and, in particular, London.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

The point needs to be made that the Minister has explained that a significant extra cost would be involved in making this a national programme. As the Member of Parliament for Watford, an area that faces significant unemployment problems, I would say that it would be very nice to have this programme, but the Minister has explained that the cost involved would be more £660 million. I am pleased to see this principle being used, because I believe that selective regional policy can be used in the future. I hope that the Government’s localisation agenda will mean that holidays and similar tax benefits for rates will be extended to specific areas. But for the moment, because of the mess that the Labour Government left us with—