National Insurance Contributions Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He brings a great deal of business experience to the subject. Trying to pick out individual constituencies in the way in which the right hon. Member for Delyn intends will add little to our understanding of the operation of the scheme, but, as a Government, we are keen to put out more information and to make the scheme transparent.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with Mr Mitah from HMRC who pointed out in Committee that the greater complexity and costs involved in the sub-regional route would damage the scheme overall? He said:

“If you have a system that required us to operate a more complicated, or a narrower, range of areas, by reference to which we were giving relief, that would raise the costs of compliance substantially.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 2 December 2010; c. 35-6, Q121.]

[Mr Gauke]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

First and foremost, we know that the NHS needs more money; it has always needed further investment. Indeed, in 2002, the Wanless report set out some of the challenges that our generation of parliamentarians will face in supporting the national health service. More recently, the King’s Fund has highlighted the massive financial pressures on the NHS as it seeks both to make efficiency savings and to deal with the impact of inflation on the cost of treatments. I note that the King’s Fund estimates that the Government’s VAT rise will cost the NHS an estimated £200 million to £300 million every year. In Committee, the Minister argued that the Bill will reduce the amount of national insurance overall that the NHS has to pay by £200 million a year, so it is interesting to note that that reduction will be swallowed up by an increase in expenditure as a result of the rise in VAT that the Government have introduced. That is before we get to the cost of the planned reorganisation. We must ensure that the NHS has as much funding as it needs to meet its obligations, notwithstanding the promises and pledges that the Government have made.

[Mel Stride]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, irrespective of whether the amendment is accepted, the Government have the ability to provide whatever level of resourcing for the national health service that they deem fit?

[Dr Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman raises the interesting question of how we guarantee that. That is precisely the point that I am coming to, because his Government made a pledge to my Walthamstow constituents that they would “cut the deficit, not the NHS”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has set out in his remarks, there is some uncertainty over whether that is the case. Indeed, we could be seeing cuts in the NHS unless we can be sure that the money it needs will be generated. The amendment provides the Government with an opportunity to show how and why they will do so and to consider hypothecation through the national insurance contributions fund, which has been accepted as a principle across the House, to ensure that the money is provided.

There has been sleight of hand in the investment promised by this Government for the NHS through the attribution to social care. As a former local councillor I know that social care is one of the largest costs that any local authority will face, so the cuts that we have seen in local authority budgets over the last couple of months raise severe questions about the ability to deal with adult social care—even before we consider its relationship to health care at local level. It is very clear to me that there are real concerns about the funding that will go to the NHS in the years ahead.

The amendment would mean that we could all have confidence in the fact that money would go to the NHS budget, about which I know Members across the House care, so that the real-terms increase that my constituents and the Minister’s constituents were promised can be made good—not to mention concerns about job losses in the NHS as a direct result of some of this Government’s policies. If Government policy is about job creation and the Bill is about ensuring that people are employed and the economy is in recovery, cuts in the NHS that will lead to job losses will provide a real challenge. The amendment is designed to make sure that, given the pressures on its budget, the NHS has the money that it needs, and that the public’s expectation, which is reasonable and proportionate given the statements made by Ministers both before and after the general election, will be met.

I note in particular that before the election the Chancellor was very concerned about what the national insurance contribution rise might do to the NHS budget. I am sad to see that the Chancellor is not in his place today; I wish he was here to talk to us. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne wrote to him, encouraging him to participate in today’s debate. The Chancellor should apply the same degree of concern to ensuring that the money is there for the NHS.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which deals with the National Audit Office, I particularly support the amendment. The amendment would involve the NAO, which has a strong track record of ensuring not just probity but value for money. It is a key concern for us all in these times of economic austerity to ensure that the money goes to the front line in the NHS, that there is a real-terms increase, as we have been promised, and that the Government are held to account if we do not get that, because my constituents living in a poor area such as Walthamstow are already losing out by not getting the national insurance holiday and should at least have confidence that when national insurance contributions go up, the money will go to the NHS, as many of us hope.

I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is a reasonable amendment to help the Government keep their promise to the people of Britain that the money goes to the NHS so that we can all have confidence that the NHS will thrive in the years to come.

Autumn Forecast

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We certainly want to support the construction industry. It is one of the specific sectors that we are looking at, as the growth review that we publish today sets out. If I can just correct the hon. Gentleman, however, I must say that the capital investment programmes of this Government are actually higher than the capital investment programmes set out in the March Budget. If he is not aware of what the Labour party fought the election on, so be it.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and, in particular, today’s OBR forecast, which sees projected public sector job losses drop from 490,000 to 330,000. Based on the previous 490,000 figure, PricewaterhouseCoopers projected that half a million jobs would be lost in the private sector. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the likely reduced impact on private sector unemployment as a result of today’s lower projected job losses in the public sector?

[Mr Osborne]

The OBR also makes a projection for private sector employment and takes into account all the potential impacts on that, and it finds that a net 1.1 million jobs will be created over the period: there will be 30 million people in employment at the end of this Parliament, compared with 29 million today.

Banking Reform

Mel Stride Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mudie]

Let me finish my point and I certainly will. The behaviour of the banks over bonuses at the senior level is obscene and offensive to every one of our constituents. At a meeting on Saturday morning, I spoke to someone whose wife works for Halifax. She is going to lose her job. If one speaks to people in every part of the community one finds that they are looking forward to 2011 with great worry and concern because more than 100,000 of them are going to lose their job in the public services alone.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mudie]

Excuse me for a second. Given the amount of money that the state has pumped into the banks to rescue them, it is unacceptable that bankers and senior bankers still, at this stage in the game, demand obscene bonuses at levels that many people could never think of earning even when they have worked all their life. That shows a state of mind that is not exactly right. We hear that if all that does not work, Bob Diamond will take business away from the UK. What on earth is the point of spending time building up a regulatory structure if that is the attitude? For safety, I join the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) in thinking that Glass-Steagall is a good alternative, but unfortunately for us both, as we move in that direction the Governor of the Bank of England seems to be moving in the opposite direction. We can never pin that man down, can we? I think that is the direction we should go in.

In the minute that remains, I shall explain the reasons other than safety why I support a move in that direction. I know that this might mark me out as old-fashioned, but I want the retail banks to go back to the fine role that they have historically played in financing individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises. That was their function and they did it very well, but that has been lost because the emphasis has shifted to the investment side of banking. If we are talking about rebalancing the economy, the engine for growth must be the banks. If we can get them to move across to their old role and let the investors go off and play their casino games, our real interests will be satisfied because we will get people in the financial world to focus on the productive side of the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak against the motion, not least because of the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) that implicit in the motion is the suggestion that the Government have done nothing to avert a future banking crisis. I also believe that the motion is too prescriptive at a time when these matters are being considered in detail, not least through the Sir John Vickers commission. This Government set up the commission and released its issues paper as recently as last September.

Huge complexity, tensions, conflicts and dangers are inherent in the development and implementation of policies that are designed to stabilise the banks. Many hon. Members have spoken about banks being too big to fail. It is true that if we have banks that are too big to fail, there is moral hazard in the actions of those who run them, because they always know that the taxpayer is there to back them up if necessary. In such situations, there is an element of unfair competition in that larger banks, backed by the taxpayer, can afford to take larger risks. However, we are also told by many in the industry that size is a function of competitive advantage and that being big is important in global markets.

Many hon. Members have rightly mentioned capital asset ratios. It is important that banks strengthen their balance sheets and that Basel III is implemented, yet there are inherent dangers even in that. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the implementation of Basel III in the UK will result in £600 billion put into increased capitalisation, which could in turn reduce growth by between 1 and 2%. I therefore welcome the fact that Basel III will not come into full effect until about nine years’ time.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that it is inconsistent to argue both that the banks should lend more to small businesses and that the improvement in capital ratios should be speeded up, as we have heard from some hon. Members?

[Mel Stride]

That is precisely my point. If we speed up the rate at which the banks have to recapitalise, there is a real danger that we will choke off the supply of lending. There is an argument that lending is not just about supply, but about demand. Companies are not taking up many existing bank overdraft facilities, so it is conceivable that there is an issue with demand, as well as with supply.

We have heard a great deal about the importance of united global action. In an internationally competitive world, there is such a thing as regulatory arbitrage. If one jurisdiction adopts a particularly light approach to regulation, vast sums of money can flow in that direction. However, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, our country needs to retain flexibility to reflect the particular conditions in our banking markets.

I agree with many of the comments on the importance of transparency in corporate pay, and in particular bonuses. I accept that because banks can ultimately turn to the state and the taxpayer for support, we have a right to take an interest in that matter and to see that fair dealing prevails. However, I concur with Sir David Walker’s recommendation that we should act in a united way globally so that we do not disadvantage countries that might move on their own.

We have heard very little about taxation on banks. I congratulate the Government on being the first to introduce a permanent tax on banks. However, the arguments about taking out capital that banks might otherwise lend also pertain to that measure. We want the banks to lend more, but the picture is not clear as to why they are not lending, as I alluded to in response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock). It may not be just a lack of supply owing to recapitalisation and a greater aversion to risk among the banks, but to do with a lack of demand among companies, many of which are focusing on paying down debt, rather than taking on more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned competition. This country has a highly concentrated banking sector and it became more concentrated after the financial crisis, when some foreign lenders withdrew and some banks amalgamated. Lloyds and RBS make up 50% of lending to the retail, mortgage and small and medium-sized enterprises sectors. That is a huge degree of concentration. There are high barriers to entry to banking, not least the very regulation that we are discussing. Over the past century, the only new high street bank, disregarding demutualisations, has been Metro Bank, which was created last year. On the other hand, Australia and Canada have highly concentrated banking sectors and seem to have been spared the worst of the financial crisis.

I welcome the Government’s approach to Basel III and their setting up of the Financial Policy Committee, along with its oversight role in relation to the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority. I particularly welcome the setting up of the Independent Commission on Banking under Sir John Vickers, which has been welcomed broadly by business, including in a recent speech by Richard Lambert, the director general of the CBI. I welcome some of the approaches that the Government are taking to encourage equity finance to increase above the current level of 1 or 2%.

I fear that stalking the perimeters of the debate on the Government side and perhaps at the heart of the debate on the Opposition side is the idea of bashing bankers and of revenge. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who I think is no longer in the Chamber, denied that that was what he said. However, when he was speaking, I jotted down his reference to bankers being “to blame”. That is the kind of populism that we must get away from; emotionalism must not triumph over the rational when we consider such issues.

This is a highly important sector in which we have a world-leading position and we must retain that. Protectionism, trade imbalances and exchange rates are threats, but I argue that we must not lose momentum on banking reform, particularly in countries that have not been as swept up in the crisis as we have, for what has bitten us may yet come round to bite them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

One of the odd things about this debate is that those of us who believe that structural reform of the banking sector is necessary are characterised as being anti-free market, anti-capitalist and anti-banking. I am none of those things. In fact, I believe in the necessity of such structural reform precisely because I am pro-capitalism, pro-banking and pro-free market. The case for some kind of firewall, along the lines of the one introduced by Glass Steagall, is irrefutable. That will be considered by the Vickers commission over the next year but that is no reason not to discuss it here.

[Mel Stride]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the problems in Iceland and Ireland were caused solely by retail banks? The Lehman Brothers collapse presaged the financial crisis, but that was wholly an investment bank that never took a retail deposit.

[David Mowat]

I intended to address that later in my remarks, but I shall take it head on. Lehman Brothers was a bad bank and it rightly went bust. However, that affected a whole lot of other banks, which required massive Government bail-outs, because there was no firewall. Nothing in my remarks will imply that retail banks such as Northern Rock will never go wrong or need to be saved. Frankly, my hon. Friend’s example makes my point rather than contradicts it.

Two or three hundred years ago, capitalism was developed by joint stock companies, which was a clever and wonderful thing. If such companies made the right decisions and were wise, they prospered and grew. The other side of that was that companies failed if they made unwise decisions or mistakes, lost money, or failed to recognise risk—Gaussian distribution or not. In the past 15 to 20 years, unintentionally, a new type of company has emerged. Such companies are not subject to the same penalties for risk as other businesses. That creates moral hazards and poor decisions. In the end, that was a large contributing factor to what happened in this country two years ago.

The arguments in favour of a firewall are overwhelming, but what are the arguments against it? The principal argument against a firewall has been the subject of the most intense banking industry lobbying imaginable, and I hope that when the time comes to legislate, hon. Members and the Government do not bow to it.

The first argument is that such a separation implies that investment banking, derivatives and all that goes with that are casino-type activities and of less value to society. I do not think that at all. I sold my business to investment bankers, I like investment bankers and I understand why we sometimes need derivatives. I have no problem with those instruments, but I do have a problem with the fact that if the people using them mess up, they cannot go bust, because there is not a firewall between their activities and the rest of the banking world. That is the problem.

The second argument was raised just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—the Northern Rock and Lehman Brothers example. I will not repeat what I said, except to say that Lehman Brothers should have been allowed to go bust, but should not have been able to bring in billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money after it, as it did.

The third argument is that a firewall would be too complicated: banking has now got global and is so mixed up that we cannot separate out investment banking and retail banking. Well, we can. The Basel III agreement contains a requirement that the capital considerations for each part of the banking portfolio be different. That can be done.

The fourth argument is that we can do all this with capital ratios and that if we impose them on banks we will not need this firewall, this separation. That is partly true, but actually they are not mutually exclusive—we need both—and, as was said earlier, capital ratios, unless we are careful, will shrink bank balance sheets and reduce lending at a time when we want more credit. What I am proposing would not do that.

The fifth argument is that, if we did this in this country, in front of the rest of the world, it would put our banks at a competitive disadvantage. That might be true—it is a reasonable argument—but I would say two things in response: first, the banking sector in this country is about four to five times as significant, as a proportion of GDP, as it is in any other country, so we ought to be leading the world in this regard. It matters more to us. Secondly, even if the argument is right, it is not a reason for us not to try to get the world behind us, create these firewalls and get this under control.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has confirmed that. Tomorrow’s business leaders who want to start businesses in the constituencies of Oxford East, of Luton North, of Lewisham East, of Canterbury, of Southampton, Test, of Eltham, of West Ham, of North Thanet, of Hackney North and Stoke Newington, of Tooting, of Islington North, of Dulwich and West Norwood, and of Brighton, Kemptown will miss out. I mention those constituencies specifically because they are in the top 10% in the country with the highest percentage of public sector employment.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are 650 constituencies. His policy is supposed to help compensate for possible loss of employment in the public sector. Those concerns have been reflected today, and I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Portsmouth North, for Meon Valley and for Basildon and Billericay, who have defended their constituencies and raised their concerns about how the policy will be applied.

If there is to be a holiday, it can be applied in different ways. It could be applied regionally, as the Minister has done, or on the basis of unemployment levels or regional levels of public sector employment per constituency, instead of the blanket regional approach that the Minister has chosen.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The shadow Minister has heard that rolling the scheme out across the entire country would cost an additional £660 million. Will he explain whether he would propose to raise that by increasing our deficit, by cutting expenditure—in which case what expenditure would he cut—or by raising taxes, in which case what taxes would he raise?

[Mr Hanson]

That is a fair and valid point. Yesterday, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister emphasised the cost of the scheme for the regions covered. My purpose today is to challenge the Minister’s logic for allocating the resources for the payment holiday to the regions that he has selected, because that distribution does not necessarily reflect the level of deprivation or public sector employment. The cake that the Minister has allocated may be sliced in several ways, but he has sliced it to exclude the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends in London and those who represent seats in the south.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Exchequer Secretary commended the first part of the Bill by saying that it was fair, that it was progressive and that it supported the poorest in society. In so commending the first part of the Bill, he damned the second part, because he could not say that the second part of the Bill was fair, progressive and supported the poorest in society. That is the essence of the Opposition’s argument this evening.

The second part of the Bill is incoherent in principle and in practice and, worse than that, it is ineffective in practice. Let us look at the fundamentals. Who is it that leads us out of recession? I am happy to make common cause with Members on the Government Benches and say that it will be the private sector, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, that will lead us into the growth that this country badly needs. Why is it, then, that the holiday provision is given precisely in those areas where private sector growth has been proven year after year not to take place?

We know, and it has been a cause of problems to us, that it has been in London and the south-east that small businesses set up and grow. That has been the engine of the private sector in our economy, yet instead of seeking to use that to advantage, the second part of the Bill is incoherent in principle because it denies that region the holiday and because it denies those potential businesses the benefits that will be made available in parts of the country that have been proven not to be able to utilise them, and therefore not to be able to bring us out of the recession and be the engine of growth that we all want.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) made the point that to extend the holiday to London and the south-east would cost £660 million. Of course, there will be a cost to the scheme, wherever it is put in place, but presumably that cost is seen as an investment to achieve the growth and dynamism in the economy that will return that investment multiplied to the Exchequer. Yet £660 million is not being invested in the very parts of our country where we know from experience that the private sector is most likely to give the maximum returns to the public purse. That is incoherent.

Now let us look at whether the measure is incoherent in practice. The Budget documentation quoted in the explanatory notes to the Bill states:

“The Government’s strategy to support private sector enterprise in all parts of the UK aims…to encourage the creation of private sector jobs in regions reliant on public sector employment, through reducing the cost to new business of employing staff”.

Yet we have heard this evening that that is not the case. There are parts of London and the south-east that are far more reliant on public sector employment than parts of the country that will receive the benefit from the holiday. That is incoherent and wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made the pertinent point that the Bill was unfair in another respect, and one can only marvel at that unfairness coming from the Conservatives. The unfairness is that the Bill is anti-competitive. My hon. Friend presented the straightforward example of two companies alike in all that they do, except that one will get a £50,000 benefit in its first year of operation which is not available to the other—and that from the party which believes in free markets and in abolishing anti-competitive practices? How can those on the Treasury Bench put that forward as a coherent philosophy?

[Mel Stride]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the purpose of the holiday, as we are calling it, is to try to compensate for a reduction in the size of the public sector in certain parts of the country, rather than targeting it specifically, as he and other Opposition Members seem to be suggesting, at areas of higher unemployment?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that what the Government are seeking to do is compensate in some way for the decimation that they believe they will cause to employment in those areas. We share a belief that the Government’s cuts will have that decimating effect on employment in those areas. Where we differ is that the hon. Gentleman believes that the measures will in some way compensate for that, whereas I am pointing out that in other parts of the country, precisely in those areas where they are not to apply, they would have a greater effect in boosting the economy.

The hon. Gentleman may say that the measures will have a marginal effect in mitigating the increases in unemployment which he knows will come from his Government’s policies. I do not believe, and I am confident that he does not believe, that they will totally compensate for those. But the most important thing is to get our economy moving again; after all, that is why we are making those public sector cuts in the first place. If we are focused on economic regeneration, we must seek to make that investment where we know it will achieve the maximum return.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) referred to the regrettable consequences of Government policy in terms of unemployment. I believe that, in large part, the entire Bill is regrettable because it introduces rises in national insurance for employers and employees, on businesses, at a time when we look to them for growth, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out. But the reason for that is the policies pursued by the previous Government. Because of the hour, I do not intend to rehearse those this evening, save to point out that we have ended up in a situation where the interest alone on the money that we owe is £43 billion a year—more than we spend on education and defence. That is a national disgrace.

I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget of 22 June, particularly the balance that he struck between seeking reductions in expenditure and accepting that we have to raise certain taxes. He weighted it far more towards the former than the latter, which has to be the right policy. The hon. Member for Brent North is right: the Office for Budget Responsibility itself has said that 500,000 jobs will be shed as a consequence of the fiscal consolidation in the public sector, and PricewaterhouseCoopers has suggested that perhaps another half a million private sector jobs will go as a consequence of that. We need to create jobs in the private sector.

According to the Treasury, in the past six months 300,000 jobs have been created in the private sector, so the capacity is there. It was as inevitable as it was regrettable that national insurance would go up. Labour first started talking about increases in national insurance as far back as the latter part of 2008. Of the three major taxation streams going into the Treasury, national insurance is the second most significant. In fact, in 2009-10 £150 billion was raised from income tax, £96 billion from national insurance and £70 billion from VAT. National insurance is efficient to collect, and in 2011-12 we will raise £9 billion as a consequence of the increases. In my opinion and that of many economists, the rise was totally unavoidable.

I wholly welcome one aspect of the Bill—well, not so much the Bill but the secondary legislation that will be enacted later—and that is the increase in the threshold for employers’ national insurance to £21 per week above indexation. I welcome that because it will take some of the pressure off our employers.

National insurance, however, is not a good tax; as we know, it punishes those who employ people rather than taxing the earnings from straightforward investment, which does not employ people. I urge the Government’s Front Benchers to make sure that, when the recovery gathers pace and we start to get the deficit down, national insurance for employers and employees should be right at the top of the list of taxes that we seek to reduce.

I welcome the national insurance holiday, about which much has been said in this debate, and particularly its targeting of new businesses. It should reach about 400,000 new businesses and about 800,000 new employees. I say that as somebody who set up his own small business, starting from scratch 20-odd years ago, and built a company both here and in the United States. One of the most important and fragile moments of a company’s growth is that very starting point; that is when a company is most vulnerable. The help will be hugely welcome.

To my horror, I have found myself being slightly persuaded by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), as he started to open up the discussion about whether the holiday should apply across the entire country or whether, as I think he was suggesting, it might be applied in a different way, to pick up areas in the south-east, Greater London or the eastern region that might value the help more than other parts of the country. I would like to think that Government Front Benchers might think about that aspect a little further, although I suspect that when we start to try to cherry-pick small parts of the country, we will end up with a highly complex and potentially very expensive scheme. However, I would like to think that we might consider the matter in Committee.

I also welcome the fact that this is retrospective legislation that applies to companies set up since the emergency Budget in June, and that it is not prescriptive in the sense of requiring a certain type of employment in order for companies to qualify. There was a scheme in the 1990s to get the long-term unemployed back into work that was not nearly as successful as it might have been had it not been so prescriptive.

I am pleased that the Government, in recognising the importance of business, also set out in the Budget reductions in corporation tax in steps from 28% down to 24% over the period of the comprehensive spending review, with the small business rate falling to 20%. That will give us one of the lowest levels of corporation tax in the G20, and the fifth lowest in the G7.

I have some concerns about the national insurance holiday. We must ensure that we avoid so-called recycling whereby, for example, companies set themselves up as apparently a new business although they have been operating before, or come into the market as a new business and then close down and rebrand themselves. I note that clause 5 deals with that issue. My plea is that we do not make the whole operation unduly onerous and complicated for businesses that wish to take advantage of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) spoke in particular about the importance of keeping complexity down. The tax code in this country now runs to 11,000 pages. We have enough complexity—we do not need more.

The Bill also deals with EU regional funding constraints. Under articles 107 and 108 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU, companies are not permitted to receive more than €200,000 in state aid over a three-year period, given the regionality of the way the scheme works. Clause 8 seeks to handle that. Again, it is imperative that whatever information HMRC requires from those companies is kept to the minimum so that the system is not bogged down in red tape.

[Chris Leslie]

Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to look at the regulatory impact assessment describing the steps necessary to implement the NI holiday, which is estimated on the Treasury’s own figures to cost £22 million? A lot of companies will have to use manual processes instead of the software that they had used to pay their national insurance, and it will require 240 extra staff at HMRC to administer the scheme.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman adds to my point. Indeed, I believe that the cost to HMRC will be £12 million, and the cost imposed on business is estimated at £75 million. I accept that that is a large amount of money in the context of a scheme that is effectively injecting £940 million. It is therefore most important that we keep complexity and red tape to an absolute minimum.

It is important to ensure that this incentive is well advertised, given that it is permissive in allowing companies to apply for it but is not necessarily automatically granted. The HMRC material refers to advertising it on Business Link websites, and so on. If we are to get up to 400,000 businesses involved—1,000 are involved at the moment—we will have to advertise this nationally with a push to ensure that it is taken up. In particular, we need to ensure that we lower the proportion of so-called dead-weight businesses that are taking it up—in other words, those that would have employed additional people even in the absence of the scheme. It is really important that we give this a wholehearted push.

I welcome the national insurance holiday provisions in the Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) that it is important to consider other aspects such as encouraging lending and getting the Bank of England issuing credit condition surveys in which it talks about the banks lending again. We also need to cut back on red tape. This is a big opportunity to get back to a culture that is positive about new business. I should like us to have the kind of culture that we had in the 1980s, when we were open for business and companies were being set up. That is when I went out there and set up my business and created wealth and employment for people. That is the aspect of the Bill that I wholeheartedly welcome.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Mel Stride Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am absolutely delighted that new jobs are being created. My concern is that when the cuts start to feed through that will no longer be the case.

Although some of the children whom the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were talking to will have had improvements to their homes—new windows and doors to make them secure, or new boilers or better insulation to make them warm—their classmates will not all get the same opportunity. The Prime Minister did not tell them what will be happening to some of the schools that they will go to when they leave Welbeck primary, or to the schools that their brothers and sisters might go to. The projects to rebuild Trinity and Fernwood secondary schools in my constituency have been scrapped altogether. As for the projects to rebuild Nethergate, Farnborough and Bluecoat, a few months ago, the Secretary of State for Education said that they were unaffected, but they are now being told that there is a cut of 40% in the funding available. I am sure that if the Prime Minister had asked the kids at Welbeck they could have told him that “unaffected” means not affected. Sadly, that is another broken promise and it is not fair.

Finally, let us nail the myth that this is all Labour’s fault. When he spoke in the Chamber last week, the Chancellor did not mention the word “recession” once. We have just come through the biggest economic crisis in generations—a global recession. If he does not understand why the deficit is high how can he possibly understand how to fix it? The deficit went up because we had a huge fall in output and tax receipts plummeted. Spending went up so that we could protect people’s homes and jobs, protect businesses and prevent the recession from becoming a depression. Labour took the right decisions and the Conservatives would have made the wrong choice every time. They are gambling with people’s jobs and homes and they have no plan for growth.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

If the previous Government took the right decisions, why were we the first of the G7 countries into recession, the longest in it and the last out?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We suffered most during the recession because we had a high reliance on financial services. It was because our tax receipts were hit so badly that we needed to take action to protect people’s jobs and homes. The Conservatives would have done nothing and they have no plan for growth. I am afraid that the next time the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister come to Nottingham, they might not get such a warm welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I have sat through most of this debate with a sense of growing incredulity at the collective amnesia and denial of Opposition Members who, quite simply, are unprepared to face up to the reality of the fiscal disaster they have bequeathed to us to attempt to clear up. Let me just remind them of some of the figures. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see that they find this so amusing: £270,000 per minute in debt interest, £120 million a day, £43 billion per year—which is more than we spend on education. That is a disgrace.

Let me put this in historical context. In 1976, when another Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, went cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund because this country was busted, our deficit represented about 7% of GDP. Today, it stands at 11.4%. Our house is well and truly economically out of order. This will not only affect our children, who will have to pick up the strain in repaying the debt. It has also affected our standing in the world, because this country has the worst deficit in the G20. Our deficit is worse than that of many Latin American countries; Brazil has a nominal annual deficit, as of April 2010, of a little over 3%, compared with ours of 11.4%, so we are 300% behind Brazil. It has come to something when we have to look enviously at Latin America’s fiscal position.

Much has been said about how quickly the Government have determined to reduce the structural deficit over the lifetime of this Parliament, but many are on our side, including the OECD, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility. Let us not forget that Labour’s plan and proposal, as far as there is one, is to halve our structural deficit over the period of the review. That would leave us with £100 billion in additional debt and an additional £5 billion in interest to pay on it. I see Labour Members sighing, but perhaps they could tell us what they are going to cut to find that extra £5 billion or what extra taxes they are going to raise to meet that requirement.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the International Monetary Fund’s statement was clear about the fact that what the Government are doing is right and proper, and will lead to growth in the long term?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and there is no doubt that if the Government had not taken prompt action as we did in the emergency Budget in June, we would have been that close to a Greek-style economic meltdown.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how our debt was similar to that of Greece, given that the Debt Management Office in this country has been far better and we have far better terms? The question of whether the debt is sustainable is what leads to crises, not the amount of deficit, given the size of our economy.

[Mel Stride]

The answer to that is that we came that close because the credit rating agencies, such as Standard & Poor’s, came that close to downgrading our triple A status. The consequence would have been that the Government, in funding their debt through their bonds and gilts, would have had trouble getting those debt requirements away, interest rates would have risen, mortgages would have gone up through the roof and the businesses on which we are counting to pull us out of the malaise that we are in would have been crippled by higher interest rates. That is the basic economics that Labour Members fail to understand—

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

I will not give way because I have limited time available. [Interruption.] In the great tradition of not giving way, I will not give way after taking two interventions. One very important point is that we must look to the private sector to create the jobs. It is true that the OBR has said that 490,000 jobs will be lost in the public sector, and there is no getting away from it. It is also true that PricewaterhouseCoopers has suggested that 500,000 jobs in the private sector might go as a consequence of the slimming down of the public sector. So we must look to growth from the private sector.

I am therefore very pleased that this Government have had such a firm and positive focus on private sector growth. We have removed national insurance for new business start-ups outside London and the south-east; we will bring corporation tax down, in steps, over the next four years from 28 to 24%; and we have cut red tape. We have also created the regional growth fund, which we heard about in the Business Secretary’s statement earlier today. It involves some £1.4 billion, much of which is to be channelled into the very areas of the country where the private sector is weakest and the public sector has been strongest, and I welcome that as positive action.

I also welcome the fact that the Government are listening to business in a way that their predecessors never did. The Conservative party is a party that understands business; we understand how difficult it is to create the wealth that is needed to supply the public services that all in this House want.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mel Stride]

I will not give way now, because I have very little time left.

I am also pleased that the OBR, an independent body, has stated that employment will grow in every year across this plan. I know that one swallow does not make a summer, but it is encouraging that in the last quarter—the one up to the end of September—growth was double that anticipated, at 0.8% as opposed to 0.4%. That is an encouraging sign. The Opposition should cheer at that. They should stand up for our country. They should feel good about the fact that we are improving where we are going and that we are beginning to make a difference—a difference that they never achieved.

I want to talk briefly about fairness, which is at the heart of the CSR. I want to challenge the IFS’s point that somehow the CSR is regressive. It is to an extent, if one considers taxation and benefits, but if one includes the use of public services, it is not regressive. It is a progressive move.

I welcome the fact that we are going to keep 50% as the higher rate of tax, with 800,000 people coming out of taxation altogether, and child benefit being means-tested. The £2.5 billion that will be saved is exactly the amount that will go into the pupil premium to help the poorest children in our land. Those are all aspects of fairness, and we cannot build a society based on social justice on a mountain of debt. I commend the review to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng).

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Mel Stride Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed, and it was the work of my hon. Friend, who was characteristically modest in his intervention, that found a way in which the ombudsman could publish her second report into Equitable Life. Had he not found the way through, we would not be in this position today, so the House and policyholders owe him a debt of gratitude for getting us to this position.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the previous Government did everything they could to avoid a second ombudsman’s inquiry into Equitable Life. The Penrose report, published in 2004, demonstrated that there had been regulatory failure at Equitable Life over a decade covering both Governments—I have no problem accepting that. However, the previous Government could have acted in 2004, but instead they dug their heels in—and here we are in 2010 with policyholders still waiting for justice.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend was talking about the delays in the response to the ombudsman’s report in April 2008. Does he not also recognise, as we all do, I think, on the Government Benches, that the response of the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury was to start talking about those disproportionately affected by the saga but still without setting any time scale for compensation?

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed, and we have tried to bring to this matter a time scale and a sense of purpose and pace in resolving it. Of course, had it been resolved earlier, the compensation bill would have been cheaper and the pain suffered by Equitable Life policyholders far less. The previous Government dragged their feet, and we have to pay the price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on making her maiden speech. As a fellow north-west MP, I am sure that we will work well in future for the betterment of the north-west region.

Mindful of what you said earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will keep my speech short. I shall not go into the history of Equitable Life, because everyone in the Chamber is aware of the history, nor shall I go into the merits or demerits of Sir John Chadwick’s report or the ombudsman’s report. I want to talk about my constituent, Mr Barri Sharrat, who was made redundant by his company and whose pension was moved to an Equitable Life policy, which was to be his main source of income on retiring. Mr Sharrat put his trust and faith, along with years of savings, into the hands of Equitable Life to build a secure retirement. I want Mr Sharrat and millions like him to be compensated.

I agree with the ombudsman’s view that people should be put in a position similar to that which they would have been in had Equitable Life not collapsed. I welcome the Bill and would urge the Government not to short-change the people on a promise that they made before the general election. However, I am afraid that the argument about money just does not carry any weight, because before the general election there were many debates about the country’s finances. Therefore, the level of debt was well known to everyone. Knowing that information, Members who are now in government made a promise that they would honour the ombudsman’s recommendation. I would ask them to continue to honour that promise, and then all those present who have taken a sanctimonious approach to the issue can be properly sanctimonious about it.

I urge the Government to make the Bill fair and effective. To make the legislation effective, they should put the independence of the compensation scheme on a statutory basis. There should be an independent appeal process, and a timetable—a short one—for making payments should be set out. The criteria by which compensation is to be paid should be made clear and simple. Again, I urge the Government to accept the ombudsman’s recommendation that people should be put into the position that they would have been in had Equitable Life not gone bust.

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I have actually finished, but the hon. Gentleman may intervene.

[Mel Stride]

I just wanted to say that it is my understanding that the ombudsman’s report contains the recommendation that the public finances should be taken into account when coming up with the final compensation to be paid.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The public finances may be taken into account, but it is my understanding that the Bill proposes to go along with Sir John Chadwick’s proposal, which was not a very good one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) said, the compensation does not have paid in the next few months or even the next year; it can be spaced out over five years or perhaps even 10 years, so that people can be given the compensation that they deserve. As has been said, the ombudsman has made a recommendation, but it is for us here in Parliament to do right by our constituents, and that means going back and giving the appropriate level of compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Like many other Members who have spoken this evening, I welcome the Bill. It is timely—it has certainly not come before time—and I congratulate the Financial Secretary on introducing it so early in the life of this Government.

I too signed the EMAG pledge to stand up for fair and appropriate compensation, and like many other Members, I too have had many individuals in my constituency come to me in a terrible state because of what has happened to their pensions and their future as a consequence of maladministration and regulatory failure. For each one of those individuals that is a tragedy, but when we consider that 1 million policyholders and 1.5 million policies are involved, we see that it is not a tragedy; it is a national catastrophe, because it hits saving. We have now come out of one of the worst recessions in modern times—one of the worst since the second world war—and one of the things we must now do as a nation is get back into the habit of saving. Nothing in the previous Government’s approach to the Equitable Life saga has done anything to encourage that habit.

I have sat through most of today’s debate and I have been disappointed and slightly irritated by the synthetic anger from Labour Members—I felt that particularly at the beginning of the debate. They have suggested that in some way we have been responsible for the delays and for the fact that these payouts are not happening more quickly, but we know of the previous Government’s attitude and approach to Penrose, of how they obfuscated on the second parliamentary ombudsman’s report and of the, in my opinion, cynical way in which they set up Chadwick to report after the general election so that it would be us who would be standing in this Chamber addressing these issues as we are today.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful points that he is making. May I reinforce the fact that this is about the message we send to all those who are saving for their old age in order to give themselves a good quality of life? If we do not sort out the Equitable Life situation, it will send exactly the wrong message to hard-working people. I congratulate the coalition Government on having the political will to sort it out, given that the previous Labour Government had no such will. In fact, they used taxpayers’ money to fight policyholders. I urge our Front-Bench team to get this sorted.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a very important point, with which I entirely agree. I welcome the coalition’s commitments on several important matters, and they must not be overlooked in all the discussion about what the final payout is. The first is that there will be no means-testing. As we know, means-testing, when applied appropriately, can often provide resources to those who are most needy, but in this instance it will do nothing other than to punish those who have acted responsibly and have saved, putting something away for their future.

I too am very pleased that the Financial Secretary has stated that the estates of the 30,000 people who have died since this saga began will benefit through this scheme. I also welcome the transparency that has been proposed and the independent commission, which is so important in terms of designing and administering the scheme. I am happy that it will report so early in 2011, in time to make payments for the middle of next year. I am also particularly pleased that Brian Pomeroy has been appointed to that independent commission and that that was acceptable to EMAG.

I do not believe that interim payments should be made, because I accept what the Financial Secretary has said—I think he talked about this in his statement to this House on 22 July—about how that would overly complicate matters. What hon. Members must now concentrate on is making sure that we hit the end date—a final point at which justice is done in this matter.

Many hon. Members have also rightly recognised the complexity of the task facing the independent commission in deciding on the payments and administering them. We are talking about 30 million pension transactions over the period that we are considering. I urge the Financial Secretary to ensure that he does everything possible to ensure that no delay now occurs as a result of that task.

As we know, the Bill is enabling legislation—it is not designed to determine the final payout. That is part of the comprehensive spending review, and the report back to this House will be made on 20 October. EMAG suggests that £5 billion should be the amount. Chadwick’s remit was distinctly different from that of the parliamentary ombudsman, and because of the assumptions that he made about the proportion of people who were likely to have invested in Equitable Life, irrespective of the maladministration—in other words, if they had known of it at the time—he is perhaps looking at 10% of that figure.

We should not dismiss the Chadwick report’s methodology and much of the hard work that was done, which took more than a year to put together in that report. However, I agree with this statement made by the Financial Secretary:

“I am aware that some of his findings will be contentious”.—[Official Report, 22 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 577.]

Furthermore, I contend that they will be more than that if they result in 10% payouts; they will be wholly unacceptable.

I have been impressed by one aspect of today’s debate, which is that members of EMAG have sat patiently watching our debate; I recognise one of the gentlemen in the Public Gallery at the moment. We owe it to them—we owe it to the individual policyholders—to do the right thing. We have a moral duty to them and we have a national imperative in terms of re-establishing the trust between government and people, which hangs on the decision that the Financial Secretary will take later this year.