Road Pricing
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to replacing excise duty on fuel with road pricing.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to consider road pricing. As set out in the letter to the Transport Select Committee in January 2023, the Government are focusing on delivering their core priorities.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, road pricing clearly touches a raw nerve in the body politic. The OBR has recently said of the Government’s policy on electric vehicles that it is
“rapidly eroding the £39 billion”
a year
“revenues from petrol and diesel”
taxes. That will leave a large hole in the Budget. The Transport Select Committee in the other place, with a government majority, said that work on road pricing should start straightaway. When I was Transport Secretary 30 years ago, I floated the idea, which is now much more feasible because of technological progress. If taxes made through the fuel duty are not replaced with something else, public transport will become much more expensive, undermining a sustainable transport policy. Should the Treasury be quite so hostile?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Treasury sees that there are many options going forward for the fuel duty and many broader motoring taxes—and indeed for all taxes. As we transition to net zero, the Government will need to ensure that the tax system encourages more EV uptake and that revenue from motoring taxes keeps pace while remaining affordable.
Spring Budget 2024
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome two announcements in the Budget, one of which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Last month, along with other noble Lords, I called for an extension of the household support fund, which was otherwise due to expire at the end of this month. This is money from the DWP to local authorities to help households struggling with food and energy costs. Some £2.5 billion has been invested in this scheme since October 2022. It is the largest investment in the capacity of local authorities to deliver crisis support following the abolition of the Social Fund. Local authorities, the budgets of which are under pressure, would not have been able to find the £900 million to carry on with the scheme, so top marks to the Chancellor for listening to those requests and for extending it.
However, it is now due to expire at the end of September, just before a general election and during the Labour Party conference. I am surprised that none of the spads in the Treasury spotted this elephant trap. I hope that, between now and then, the Government will either bring the support into line with other local government funding and run it through to the end of the year or work up some alternative scheme to replace it, such as what was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister; otherwise, it will become a very hot political issue.
I welcome the introduction of a British ISA, which has not been mentioned so far in our debate, and notwithstanding some of the negative comments in the press. The Times said:
“Why backing British comes at a cost”.
The Sunday Times money section said:
“Jeremy Hunt’s new Isa is a nonsense”.
That appeared a few pages after the business news the very same day had a share tip that said:
“Clean up with this firm”,
backing a UK firm making cleaning products.
There is a good pedigree for this initiative—the business expansion scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. All these are aimed at encouraging investment in UK companies. The British ISA extends the principle to smaller investors and UK-quoted companies. I take the point about definition, on which the Government are consulting, but can my noble friend tell the House whether the scheme will be up and running before the general election?
I want to raise a point about stamp duty and the abolition of multiple dwellings relief, on which I have written to the Minister. I take the point about abuse, which was mentioned in the Budget debate, but there is an unforeseen consequence. In our housing debate last Thursday, I made the point that we need to get long-term institutional finance into the private rented sector to replace the private landlord who is now exiting. Such institutions often buy large numbers of properties before converting them into purpose-built flats. Those hoping to invest in student accommodation could be affected. Can my noble friend have a look at this and see whether the collateral damage might be avoided?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that it was right to cut national insurance, although when he, a former civil servant, described a Government’s decision as “courageous”, it took me back to several episodes of “Yes Minister”. On the ambition to abolish national insurance, I think a more achievable goal would be to merge it with income tax. The two are now sufficiently similar that merging is a plausible option, bringing increased transparency and reduced administrative and compliance costs—though there are some potential obstacles, such as the contributory principle.
My concern about the Budget is about not this year but the future. Real per capita day-to-day spending for unprotected departments is set to fall by 13% over the next five years—nearly as much as in the so-called years of austerity. Those are justice, with the problems with the prisons and courts; local government, with growing pressure on adult services and many local authorities at risk of going bankrupt; and pressure on the Home Office and policing. I ask myself whether those reductions are really achievable, and how the public might react were they to happen.
Finally, over the weekend I was rereading the Ministerial Code and came across paragraph 9.1:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament”.
No one doubts that the Budget Statement is such a policy, so is the country not fortunate to have such perceptive economic correspondents in all our newspapers and media that, independently, they all came to the same conclusion that the only logical thing for the Chancellor to do was to cut national insurance by 2%, and that they then persuaded their editors to back their hunch with a splash and a lead story? I leave the alternative explanation hanging in the air.
Financial Stability: Private Equity Firms
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord. As he will have seen in the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor set out significant tax cuts to encourage growth. That is where we are focusing our firepower at the moment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the original Question about high interest rates, at the last general election the Green Party was committed to borrowing an extra £95 billion to pay for its commitments. What would this have done to interest rates?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would not wish to speculate; however, I am not sure it would have been good things.
Cross-Government Cost Cutting
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn (Con)
No, I would not agree with the noble Lord at all. Efficiency savings are something that Governments of all colours have striven to deliver, including in previous comprehensive spending reviews under the Labour Government. It is absolutely right that, when we look at departmental spending, we build in an assumption of improved efficiency and value for money, but also that, at this time of increased inflationary pressures, we put even more work into looking at where we can achieve efficiencies and release savings to be reinvested into those budgets.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My noble friend said that the Government were ambitious in their search for cost-cutting savings. May I suggest that ambition be extended to the number of Ministers in the Government? In 1979 there were two Ministers in the Department of Transport; there are now five. In 1979 there were five Ministers in the DHSS. That department has since been split into two and there are six Ministers in each. Is this not an area worthy of some exploration?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I take my noble friend’s point. The scope of government and what it is attempting to deliver has changed somewhat over that time, but whether the growth in Ministers has matched that scale of delivery is another question.
Financial Inclusion in England
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government are conscious of the poverty premium. We have used the Financial Inclusion Policy Forum as somewhere that we can bring together different actors on this. I will give some examples of action that we have taken in this area. The FCA, the regulator, has taken action on motor and home insurance to stop customers who are renewing being charged more than new customers. We have also seen the age agreement put in place for older customers to be able to access travel and motor insurance, and some work has been done with the Association of British Insurers looking at the poverty premium, specifically in the rented sector, and it has provided some recommendations to the Government that we are considering how best to take forward.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lord Holmes’s campaign to ensure that physical currency is available and valid, but what are the Government doing to ensure that the currency is fit for purpose? Many noble Lords may recall the farthing. The farthing was withdrawn in 1960 because it was redundant. The 1960 farthing is worth 2.8p today, but the halfpenny was withdrawn in 1984 for the same reason. So what is the life expectancy for the 1p coin languishing in saucers up and down the country?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid to say to my noble friend that I do not recall the farthing myself. The Government had a consultation on cash and digital payments in 2018 and the responses strongly supported not changing the denominational mix of coinage at that time. However, as with all areas of policy, we keep this under review.
Financial Markets: Stability
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome this timely debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. While the economy has been centre stage for the last two months, we have not debated it since the summer—apart from the 40-minute Statement on 19 October. I join others in welcoming my noble friend Lady Penn back to the Front Bench, this time as a fully-fledged member of the Treasury team.
I want to focus on the final element identified in the noble Lord’s Motion—the rental market and, in particular, the private rented sector. I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Best, will also do this. There is a vicious circle operating here. Rising interest rates with earnings lagging inflation are making home ownership less affordable. This adds to demand for private renting, pushing rents up. This is reinforced by cost pressures on landlords, as buy-to-let mortgage rates increase, with less advantageous tax arrangements and higher environmental standards. This in turn leads to landlords leaving the market, leading to a further imbalance between supply and demand and yet higher rents. Too many renters already pay more than 50% of their income in rent, making home ownership less attainable. The ONS notes:
“Given the excess of demand over supply, rental prices are expected to rise further.”
In September this year, Rightmove reported annual growth in rents of 12.3%.
One in five households now lives in private rented accommodation—a doubling in two decades—and nearly all are on six-month assured tenancies. The theme of the noble Lord’s debate is stability. I believe we need a fundamental review of the private rental market to put it on a more stable and sustainable basis. In a nutshell, we need to move from a market dominated by the small private landlord, buffeted by tax changes and interest rate movements, where tenants have limited security of tenure and where it is not their tenure of choice, to a market more like that of France, Germany or Switzerland. There, a higher proportion of the population see private renting as the “normal” tenure choice and financial institutions invest in the sector for the long term, ensuring that properties are professionally managed and in good condition and, crucially, have long leases to provide stability for the tenant.
This is not to say there is no role for the private landlord, but the sector as a whole needs to be put on a more stable long-term basis. There are signs that this transition is taking place here. Institutions such as Legal & General have started building thousands of flats for rent, targeted at students, professionals living in cities, and those who need mobility for their career. But we need to accelerate the transition and broaden its base. Build to rent is only 5% of the rented market. This would be a good investment for pension funds. Historically, they have invested in equities, gilts, commercial property and fixed interest loans, but they have had little direct exposure to the residential property market. This is perverse, as it has consistently outperformed equities.
To make the transition happen smoothly, we need to understand the motives of private landlords. They invested in buy to let for two main reasons: capital appreciation and a buoyant income. In many cases, they preferred this over a pension. But the disadvantage is that their capital is illiquid and owning property brings with it management problems and the prospect of a tougher regulatory regime.
To facilitate this transition, what is needed is a quoted housing investment trust to whom landlords could sell their property not for cash but for shares in the trust. So the investor would retain his investment in residential bricks and mortar—the trust’s only asset—with an income stream linked to rental values and capital values rising over the long term, but without the hassle of management and with easy access to capital. The property could be sold to the trust without giving notice to the tenant as it would be held as an investment.
The process could start with blocks and properties in a specified area, with management undertaken by registered social landlords such as housing associations, giving further reassurance to tenants. There would be a role for the Treasury to play in helping the transition to get off the ground. Normally, when a private landlord sells, capital gains tax is payable, and this could be a deterrent. However, under the scenario I have outlined, if capital gains tax was deferred until the shares were sold, that would act as an incentive.
I put this proposition forward to provide stability to a sector that is the least stable form of tenure in the housing market. I do not ask for immediate adoption today, but it would be good if the Minister could give it a nudge by encouraging the Department for Levelling Up, with its new Secretary of State, to explore further the potential of the idea I have just floated.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in paying tribute to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. It was a positive and moving speech which underlined the importance of committed parents and teachers if one is to improve the life chances of a child. We look forward to her future interventions in our debates.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Queen’s Speech which, with measures on probation and adoption, seeks to build a reputation for this Government for social reform to match that of the previous Conservative Government of the 1980s on economic reform, but that reputation will be further enhanced if more progress is made on one of the key responsibilities of local government: housing, which has already been touched on. I very much welcome the measures that have already been taken to increase supply, but there was hope that there would be a commitment to legislation on homelessness in the Queen’s Speech following the interest shown in this recently by DCLG Ministers and following the welcome ring-fenced funding provided in the Autumn Statement.
Homelessness is sadly on the increase and the law as it stands creates a two-tier system involving people in “priority need”, who are owed the full homelessness duty, and those who are judged not to be and can be turned away with little or no help. This binary distinction is increasingly difficult to justify. The devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales are actually ahead of us here in England, having introduced reform to abolish that distinction.
In Scotland, priority need has been abolished which means that all homeless people are entitled to accommodation. The UK Government could learn from the progress that has been made and reform the law in England, as proposed by the housing charity, Crisis, and supported by the National Housing Federation. These proposals have been costed and the new duties to prevent and relieve homelessness would require an additional £43.9 million, to be offset by a £46.8 million reduction in spending. I hope that when he replies, my noble friend will be able to confirm that the prevention of homelessness remains a key priority and that legislation has not been ruled out.
A second housing issue is equally pressing: the challenge that faces supported housing. Last year, as part of the proposals to save money on welfare, the Government said that social rent should fall by 1% each year, with consequent reductions in housing benefit. This was very welcome for the Treasury and for tenants, but it had an impact on the financing of housing associations. I commend their response to the challenges that confronted them, because they reorganised their plans and managed to maintain investment in the mainstream programme. However, restrictions on housing benefit have a disproportionate impact on supported housing, which helps older people who want to remain independent, and victims of domestic violence, and probation hostels and homes for those with drug and alcohol problems, for which the running costs are much higher than for mainstream housing.
The imminent reduction of local housing allowances has also caused a critical problem. In response to representations on both sides of your Lordships’ House, the Government deferred the impact of these reforms while they announced a review. In the meantime, this has had a chilling effect on investment in the sector, with local authorities reporting that substantial investment has been suspended and the viability of a number of organisations is in doubt.
In a debate in the other place in January, the Minister said:
“The future of supported housing matters, which is why my Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have jointly commissioned a fact-finding review of the sector. This will report by the end of March”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/16; col. 288.]
That review is still awaited and I hope that the Minister can confirm that a stable financial framework will be announced for this key sector of the housing market by the Summer Recess.
As I still have two minutes left, I shall make a slightly less serious point, which relates to the Government’s vision for pollution-free transport. I declare an interest in that recently, I was incentivised by the Government to invest in an electric car for journeys that are too long for me to do on a bicycle. My problem with these cars is not range anxiety—Members of your Lordships’ House are familiar with range anxiety, as we wonder how many more of life’s milestones we will pass before our bodies run out of energy. The problem with electric cars is the infrastructure for charging the batteries.
If I refuel a conventional car at a petrol pump, it does not matter who owns the pump. I pay with cash or by credit card. But if I refuel an electric vehicle at a charging unit, I need a fistful of individual company cards because there are seven national schemes that own charging units and 12 regional ones, each with their own business model and membership card. This is nonsense. Owners should be able to pull up at any charging unit, pay by credit card and refuel. The Government have considerable leverage as they are funding the rollout of these charging units. So, will my noble friend who is replying to the debate make it his personal mission to rationalise the system, so that one card will keep me on the road instead of 19?
Autumn Statement
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in commending the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Carrington in introducing this debate. I, too, welcome the broad thrust of the Autumn Statement. If I had two general comments to make, one would be on the absence of measures to deal with the balance of trade, which remains worryingly in deficit. Secondly, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there is an absence of measures directly to deal with productivity which has got to improve dramatically if we are to remain competitive in world markets.
In the time available, and as a former Housing Minister, I want to focus on the Chancellor’s welcome proposals to double the housing budget—fixing the foundations, as it were, while the sun is shining. The Government are broadening the definition of affordable housing to include accommodation for sale as well as accommodation for rent. This brings home ownership within the reach of more people through shared ownership, help with deposits and interest payments and by obliging developers to sell at a discount. There is much to be said for this change of emphasis, as home ownership is the preferred tenure of most people. This policy may, in the long run, be more cost effective. As my noble friend Lord Horam said, for many people the only answer is social housing for rent. My proposition to the Chancellor, therefore, is that these welcome measures to promote home ownership should, in the first instance, be focused on current tenants of social housing whose circumstances have improved and for whom home ownership is now a realistic proposition. By bringing home ownership to them, it frees up a re-let in social housing for rent for those in need.
I have a proposal for the Government on buy to let, on which the Chancellor had some proposals in his Autumn Statement. I understand why this section of the market has come under criticism during the past few years. In its defence, if one looks at the housing market during the past 15 years, the only section that has actually worked is the private sector for rent. Social housing for rent has been depressed, as has market housing for sale, so the private sector has provided accommodation for those who could not afford to buy but who did not qualify for social housing for rent. However, with all the fiscal and monetary changes that lie ahead, this sector faces turbulence and I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister to bring stability and resilience to this section of the housing market.
The financial institutions in this country, unlike those abroad, have never invested in market accommodation for rent. They have equities, gilts, commercial properties and fixed interest stock, but they have never invested in residential accommodation. Historically, this would have been a very good investment as part of a balanced portfolio. I believe they should now establish an investment trust to which buy-to-let landlords could sell their properties in return for shares. This would ensure that those landlords would continue to have exposure to the private rental market and possibly defer capital gains tax liability until such time as they disposed of their shares. Their tenants could remain in place, avoiding turbulence for them, and the properties could then be managed by social landlords who, of course, have good experience of managing rental properties. I believe that this would promote the transition on a voluntary basis to a more stable, better managed market rented sector. I would be grateful if the Minister replying would share this proposal with his opposite numbers in DCLG.
Professional Standards in the Banking Industry
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The debate got off to a difficult start and those watching it might have been driven to the conclusion that this was not the forum for a rational debate about the ethics and conduct of banking. Of course, the Government motion proposes a joint parliamentary inquiry, and those who have served on Select Committees and Joint Committees know that such inquiries are conducted in a far calmer atmosphere than the rather heated beginning of our debate, particularly if they are tempered by the presence of those from another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made that point in his compelling speech.
I hope that Opposition Members read, if they did not listen to, the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who has said that he is ready to serve as Chair of the Committee if it goes ahead. He made it absolutely clear that he was not interested in a witch hunt, that his inquiry would be forward looking, that the objective would be to get banking in better shape quickly and that he wanted a broad-based inquiry including participation from Opposition Members. I hope that Opposition Members will be reassured by his speech.
My hon. Friend also asked for an assurance about resources from the Treasury. In his statement on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that the Treasury would be happy to give resources to the Committee.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House give way?
Sir George Young
Let me make a little more progress.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). In a thoughtful speech, he made the point that the gap between the two forms of inquiry was narrower than many had implied, particularly so far as powers were concerned. He also reinforced the imperative of reaching a unanimous conclusion, which often happens with Select Committees of the House. Indeed, he drew on his own experience on the Public Accounts Committee. My right hon. Friend cast some doubt on the December target, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester seemed content with it.
I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said. He is a signatory to motion 2 on the Order Paper and made it clear that if that motion was not carried he would not oppose motion 3. That is the right approach if we are to resolve the issue this afternoon.
I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who made the point that the gap between the two sides was not quite as wide as the rhetoric at the beginning of our debate implied. He underlined the urgency of making progress, particularly if we are to catch the legislative train that is going through the House in this Session.
The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) asked why the Government were against the inquiry proposed by the Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in his speech the timetable for public inquiries and that was one reason why we did not think that that was the right way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) made an interesting speech explaining the difference in culture that had occurred in the City, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who was put off a career in the City by being asked the question, “How greedy are you?” One only has to look at him to realise that the answer is not at all, as he has the figure of a pipe-cleaner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) spoke on behalf of the thousands of people who work in banking who were not responsible in any way for what has occurred but whose reputations are now tarnished by the actions of a minority. She spoke on behalf of the hard-working majority in our banking services and supported the parliamentary inquiry.
Many of the contributions underlined powerfully the need for urgent action to put out the fires that are threatening to engulf one of our leading financial institutions and to prevent further wrongdoing at the heart of banking. Banking employs more than 1 million people, and it generates £63 billion in Exchequer revenues and 8.9% of our gross domestic product.
I do not think that there is any disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on what we need to do, which is to sustain a strong, vibrant, transparent and more accountable financial sector in the UK that commands international confidence. Although we are united on the direction of travel, there are clearly differences on the choice of vehicle and its speed. We favour a cross-party Joint Committee of both Houses that is accountable to Parliament; in operation before the summer recess; equipped to navigate the legal minefield of criminal investigations; and well positioned to produce recommendations that can be implemented through legislation that can be introduced in this Session. The Opposition, as we have heard, prefer a more costly public inquiry led by a judge and run by Queen’s Counsel and other lawyers that would coincide with and perhaps undermine other regulatory proceedings operating on a time scale that cannot easily be controlled.
Those who support the first motion should listen to what the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell said in the debate in the upper House on Tuesday:
“I was involved very much in setting up the Leveson inquiry, and my experience of judge-led inquiries is that you have to be incredibly careful about tying them down to specific issues and timetables.”
That is what the Opposition are seeking to do. He continued:
“What people have said they want from this specific inquiry means that it will grow bigger and take longer or that it will be incredibly superficial”.
Lord O’Donnell was not alone in expressing those concerns. Two other former Cabinet Secretaries voted against the Opposition’s proposals, and even Lord Eatwell, the Labour Treasury spokesman said:
“I am supportive of the idea of a Joint Committee moving forward to deal with the specific implications and consequences of the LIBOR element—what Mr Tyrie refers to as the ring-fence proposals.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2012; Vol. 738, c. 617-623.]
Some hon. Members have claimed that a parliamentary Committee will be unable to rise above the political fray. However, we all realise that a Committee report pushed through on party lines will quickly be devalued. Others have suggested that a parliamentary Committee would lack the inquisitive force of an inquiry barrister. I want to make it absolutely clear that a Joint Committee will have what it needs to carry out an inquiry including, if it wants them, resources for counsel. If we establish a Joint Committee we are fortunate to have more than 1,000 Members in both Houses with the necessary expertise to hold an inquiry. The advantage of a parliamentary Committee is that it is in a position to ensure that the recommendations are carried forward—something that we cannot have with a judge-led inquiry.
A number of my hon. Friends have made the point that today’s debate has not just been about the conduct of the banks. To a lesser extent it has been about the capacity, reputation and relevance of parliamentary institutions to rise to the challenge. I have to say to those who resist a parliamentary inquiry that I have more confidence in the ability of Parliament and its Committees to rise to the challenges that confront us this afternoon than all those who say we are the wrong people to do this.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) did not make clear—and neither did the shadow Chancellor—whether, if motion 2 is defeated and motion 3 is carried, the Opposition will participate in the inquiry. I very much hope that if motion 2 is defeated the whole House will support motion 3. I hope that all parties will nominate those with the qualities needed, of whom there are many throughout both Houses, to the Joint Committee, and I hope that we can show the country that we have the ability and self-confidence to discharge the responsibilities placed on us and address the central issue at stake today—restoring confidence in the UK’s banking industry.
Question put.
Economic Affairs and Work and Pensions
Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I am very grateful for this opportunity to address the House for the first time. Today’s debate and the excellent speeches of so many hon. Members have done nothing to reduce the awe with which I approach this task, and I commend the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for her passionate speech and associate myself with her views on the blockade of Gaza and the importance of creating employment. I share in the salute of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) to the brave soldiers of the Mercian Regiment, who have laid down their lives for our country.
My first thanks are due to the electors of Worcester, who have sent me to this Chamber, and I am conscious that I shall be forever in their debt. I intend to repay that debt by working tirelessly on their behalf and being Worcester’s man in Westminster. I must thank also my predecessor, the former Member for Worcester, Michael Foster, who for 13 years was a fierce advocate for his party, a tireless campaigner for animal rights and a distinguished supporter of his Government. As a Whip, a Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Minister, he did much to further the interests of peace in Northern Ireland and international development, and for that he deserves the approbation of this House.
It would be remiss of me not to mention some other former Members for Worcester. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is now an Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, served the city well until boundary changes took him from us. He is a friend and a mentor, the first MP for whom I ever had the privilege to vote, and now one who has the dubious privilege, shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), of having voted for me. I know that every Member will join me in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire success in providing the best possible equipment to our gallant armed forces over the years to come.
Before my hon. Friend’s time there was, of course, another Member for Worcester with whom I am very familiar, but as my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently on his behalf in his maiden speech, I shall say only that, as many thousands of constituents have reminded me on their doorsteps, he is a hard act to follow. I owe that Member, my father, my lifelong knowledge of, and deep love for, my constituency and its history, not to mention my support for the once and future premiership rugby team, the Worcester Warriors, and my support—shared with the Governor of the Bank of England—for the cricket team, which has the most beautiful ground in the country.
The task of representing Worcester, made so enjoyable by those factors, is made all the more daunting by the fact that the city has been represented in Parliament since the 13th century. Empires have risen and fallen and royal houses have come and gone in the time that MPs have spoken for Worcester, but I do not intend to go on for that long. The city, of course, played its own major part in the civil war. The first shots of that war were fired beyond the boundaries of my constituency, near Powick bridge, and its last slaughter took place at the Sidbury gate, now in the heart of modern Worcester, as Cromwell finally crushed the King’s army and took the faithful city. That war started after an arrogant Government had overspent and oppressed the people of the country with unfair taxes.
At the end of the battle of Worcester, the parson of the parliamentary army addressed the troops and said to them:
“Say you have been at Worcester, where England’s sorrows began, and where happily they are ended.”
I hope that, given the alleged role of Worcester woman in bringing Labour to power over the past 13 years, the same might be said again today.
The civil war was one of the historic events that gave us the evolved constitution that we have today. Respect for that constitution is one of the things that inspires me in politics, and, despite much tinkering over the past 13 years, there is still much to be defended: the unique position of the Crown; the privileges and stature of this mother of Parliaments in holding the Government to account; the powerful ties that bind Members to their constituencies; and a system of election that is simple, effective and allows for the removal of failed Governments. All those are worth fighting for with the same passion with which our ancestors fought on the battlefields of Worcester.
As I am passionate on that subject, so also I am passionate about opportunity. My party has always been the party of opportunity. In the Gracious Speech and in this debate, we have set out plans to support opportunity for British businesses, for young people, and for those on welfare to escape the traps of unemployment and dependency. Opportunity in business, and that unleashed by the national insurance reforms that we propose, will benefit Worcester Bosch and Yamazaki Mazak, innovative manufacturing companies that, between them, employ thousands of people in my constituency.
The coalition Government have set out exciting plans to support green technology, and I support those initiatives. I believe that they will benefit companies in Worcester, but I am concerned that there has so far been no mention in Government statements of the renewable heat incentive. Given that homes are responsible for 21% of the carbon emissions generated in this country, and that 73% of energy in the home is used for heating or hot water, supporting renewables for heating should be given as high a priority as support for the renewable generation of electricity.
Worcester has a range and diversity of businesses, great and small, that reflects the range of topics covered in the Gracious Speech. The breadth of our economy ranges from engineers to health care companies, industry associations, recyclers and housing associations. I have visited firms, such as Craegmoor Healthcare, Skills for Security, the Remarkable recycling company and Sanctuary Housing, which are all headquartered in Worcester and, as an MP, I want to ensure that Worcester remains a place to which businesses want to come, maximising the opportunities for my constituents.
To maximise opportunity, we need the best education to be available to all, and that is why I welcome the exciting reforms proposed by the Secretary of State for Education. We have already seen how academies can turn around the fortunes of failing schools and, in Worcester, the Tudor Grange academy is a shining example of that trend, so I welcome the decision to open up the opportunity of freer education to more schools in the area.
Supporting opportunity means careful nurturing of further and higher education. I shall support both, and I am very proud that Worcester boasts the country’s fastest-growing university. The university of Worcester, which I congratulate on its recent Ofsted report, was rated “outstanding” for its training of teachers at primary and secondary level, and the principal of Worcester college of technology was recently elected president of the Association of Colleges.
For opportunity to thrive everywhere we need fair funding in education. Today the average pupil in Worcestershire receives £370 less than the national average and a staggering £762 less than children in the neighbouring authorities of Birmingham, despite the fact that some parts of my constituency are among the 10% most deprived areas in the country. I have high hopes for the coalition Government’s pupil premium policy in addressing that issue.
The last Walker to speak for Worcester began his maiden speech by saying,
“I hope that if, in the course of my remarks…I make what are considered to be constructive criticisms of the Government’s economic policy, this will not be considered indicative of a person representing a constituency noted throughout the world for its production of sauce.”—[Official Report, 20 April 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1433.]
I shall be equally ready to make constructive criticisms and to place my constituency at the forefront of my parliamentary career. In the interests of Worcester, I commend the Gracious Speech.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At half-past 6, you will leave the Chair for the last time. May I endorse what Mr Speaker said earlier and, on behalf of the whole House, thank you for your impartial, firm but courteous service over 13 years?