Finance (No. 2) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 1, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent.

(4) The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45 per cent and at 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of—

(a) £150,000 per year; and

(b) £1,000,000 per year.”

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 1 stand part and clauses 2 to 5 stand part.

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Amendment 1 stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It calls on the Chancellor to produce within three months of the enactment of this Bill a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50%. The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45%—the current higher rate—and at 50% on the amount of income tax currently paid by people with a taxable income of £150,000 and £1 million a year.

As we all know, the 50p rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 was reduced to 45p by this Government in 2012. That was hotly debated at the time and it has been hotly debated ever since. The Minister refers to a debate on the additional rate of tax as an annual event whenever we discuss a Finance Bill. Government Members may groan that the debate is rearing its head again, but I am, if nothing else, an optimistic person and I continue to hope that Government Members will be swayed by my arguments and be persuaded to accept our eminently sensible and reasonable amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review, within six months of the passing of this Act, of the impact of a cut of one per cent to the main rate of Corporation Tax for financial year 2016, with particular reference to—

(a) the impact on businesses with fewer than 50 employees;

(b) the impact on investment by businesses with fewer than 50 employees; and

(c) alternative tax measures, including non-domestic rates, which would have a greater benefit for businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish the report of the review and lay the report before the House.”.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The review proposed in amendment 2 would give us a better understanding of the factors that are helping small businesses to grow and those that are limiting their expansion. Most small and medium-sized businesses with a smaller number of employees tend to be run from premises that have a rateable value of below £50,000. I should say at the outset—the Minister and I have had this debate before—that Labour does not oppose the recent changes to the rate of corporation tax that have so far come into effect. That is in keeping with our party’s policy over the past 15 years. When Labour left office, Britain had the most competitive rate of corporation tax in the G7. The rate has been cut several times over the past few years. The small business rate for companies whose profits are less than £300,000 now stands at 20%, and the rate for companies earning more than that will be 21% from April—in just a few days.

Wales Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams]

I beg to move amendment 36,  page 21, line 18, leave out ‘, with the approval of the Treasury,’.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, page 21, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—

‘(1) On receipt of notice of an appropriate resolution of the Assembly, the Secretary of State shall by order amend subsection (1A) so as to vary, in the manner indicated by the terms of such resolution, the means by which Welsh Ministers may borrow money.”.’.

These amendments would enable the National Assembly to change the way money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including the issuance of bonds, without the need for consent by the Treasury or Resolution of the House of Commons.

Amendment 35, page 21, line 31, at end insert—

‘(6) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for an independent report to be compiled on the issuance of bonds by Welsh Ministers.

(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report specified in subsection (6) before each House of Parliament within three months of this Act being passed.’.

The Scotland Act 2012 enables the Secretary of State, by order and consent of HM Treasury, to change how Scottish Ministers can borrow money for capital purposes, for example, allowing the issue of bonds. Clause 19(5) of the Wales Bill contains the same provisions. This amendment seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds.

Amendment 34, page 21, line 38, at end insert—

‘and if that amount is more than the amount for which it is substituted it shall not thereafter be reduced below that higher amount’.

This amendment would ensure that when the Secretary of State raises the borrowing for investment limit, it cannot subsequently be reduced.

Amendment 5, page 21, line 38, at end insert—

‘(3B) The figure mentioned in inserted subsection (3A) shall be recalculated on an annual basis to maintain its value in real terms against inflation.’.

Clause 19 stand part.

Clause 20 stand part.

[Hywel Williams]

Amendments 36 and 37 would enable the National Assembly to change the way that money for capital expenditure is borrowed, including the issuing of bonds, without the need for the consent of the Treasury or a resolution of the House of Commons. Amendment 35 seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds. Amendment 34 would ensure that when the Secretary of State raises the borrowing for investment limit, it cannot subsequently be reduced.

First, on the issuance of bonds, subsection 32(5) of the Scotland Act 2012 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to change the manner in which Scottish Ministers can borrow money for capital purposes—for example, to permit borrowing by the issue of bonds. Subsection (5) of the Wales Bill contains the same provisions. This amendment seeks clarification on the power to issue bonds.

Following the Scotland Act 2012, the legislation left the door open for the Secretary of State to enable the Scottish Government to issue bonds in future. The UK Government later launched a consultation on bond issuance and announced in February of this year that Scotland is to get the power to issue bonds. There is only one problem: it will have that power only in 2015. In the meantime, the small matter of the independence referendum in September might intrude.

Scotland aside, I refer Members to the cross-party Commission on Devolution in Wales. Recommendation 19 ends with the words:

“We also believe that the Welsh Government should be able to issue its own bonds.”

Given that local government throughout the British Isles can issue bonds, it is an anomaly that the devolved nation Governments cannot also do so.

The Silk Commission’s first report stated that

“while bonds may be more expensive at present, a possible future scenario where they may be cheaper or more attractive to the Welsh Government cannot be ruled out. We therefore see no reason in principle for preventing the Welsh Government from being able to issue its own bonds in addition to borrowing from the National Loans Fund and other sources such as commercial banks.”

Our amendment calls for greater clarification and seeks to expedite the ability of the Welsh Government to issue bonds. We need movement on this issue to enable the Government of Wales, should they choose to do so, to drive investment in infrastructure, and so improve our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, page 23, line 17, at end insert—

‘(d) the scrutiny of reductions of, and additions to, the block grant to reflect expenditure and income arising from the provision of certain services in England to people resident or otherwise eligible for such services in Wales and the provision of such services in Wales to people resident or otherwise eligible in England.’.

Amendment 14, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

‘(g) a Welsh Minister responsible for a service falling under section 13(d) (definition of budgetary procedures)’.

Government amendment 29.

Clause 21 stand part.

Amendment 17, in clause 22, page 24, line 46, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment 18, in clause 22, page 24, line 46, at end insert—

‘(ae) an estimate of the costs of providing services in Wales to people resident in England; an estimate of the monies received from HM Treasury to fund such provision; and an assessment of the effectiveness of any relevant agreements in place governing cross-border service provision, and’.

This amendment and amendment 17 to Clause 22 are intended to make the operation of agreements that govern cross-border services, such as the NHS protocol, more transparent to residents of both England and Wales.

Clause 22 stand part.

New clause 1—Review of options for Barnett formula reform—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for a review of options for reforming the Barnett formula in order to meet the objective of calculating the block grant funding for Wales on the basis of need.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report of the review mentioned in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’.

New clause 3—Cross-border health care—

‘After section 1 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, insert—

“1A Duty to have regard to impact on services in certain areas

In exercising functions relating to the health service, the Welsh Ministers must have regard to the likely impact of those decisions on the provision of health services to persons who reside in an area of England that is close to the border with Wales.”.’.

This New Clause places a duty on Welsh Ministers to consider the impact of their decisions on the provision of health services to people who reside in England, analogous to a duty already placed on the NHS Commissioning Board in England to consider the impact of its decisions on people residing in Wales and Scotland.

New clause 10—Welsh Government Finance Department—

‘The Welsh Government may, by resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, rename its finance department and this shall be recognised as its official title in all dealings with the Treasury.’.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this amendment because I believe in the national health service. I know that I speak for all members of my political party in saying that we believe in having a truly national health service. The changes I am attempting to insert into the Bill would bring back the national health service that we once had but no longer have. At the moment, contrary to what people think, we have a regionalised health service with different systems in Wales, in Scotland, in England, and in Northern Ireland. It is a sad fact that in Wales, under the leadership of members of the Labour party, the Welsh national health service has been failing patients and letting people down. I care about that.

I also care about the patients who come to see in my surgery. They include Mariana Robinson, who has been speaking out in national newspapers over the past few weeks. I did not ask her to go the press; she came to see me to ask how she could tell the story of the scandalous treatment that she has been receiving. She was treated very well in a nearby hospital in England but then told that she could no longer have that treatment because funding was not available and she would have to be treated in Wales.

Only a few weeks ago, I spoke to a patient who had been suffering from cancer. She had been told that she was terminally ill and would not last more than a few months. She believes that she was, in effect, written off by the national health service in Wales. She found out about experimental treatment in England and accessed it. She is still alive. Her cancer appears to be in remission at the moment, and I wish her all the best. She obviously wants to continue to receive this experimental treatment in the same area, Newcastle, yet she too has been told that there will be no further funding for her.

There has always been a problem in getting cross-border funding, but it seems to have got a lot worse in the past 12 months, when a decision was taken somewhere along the line that meant that virtually anyone with an illness in Wales would have to be treated in Wales. I believe that this is part of the whole National Assembly mindset about doing everything in Wales because it feels that it can do it better.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 2, line 11, at end add—

‘(3) The Chancellor shall produce a report on subsection (1) which shall include an assessment of the impact of changes to taxation on the living standards of basic rate taxpayers which shall be placed in the House of Commons Library within three months of Royal Assent.’.

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box. Had amendment 4 been selected for debate, we could have engaged in further discussion about the mansion tax and the 10p income tax rate. However, I think that some of the broader issues that I shall raise in relation to clause 3 are relevant to that subject.

Clause 3 sets the 2013-14 basic rate limit for income tax at £32,010. In doing so, it overrides the indexed amount, which would otherwise have been set at £35,300 as announced in the 2012 autumn statement. The explanatory notes on the clause state that it is

“part of a package of measures”.

I shall say something further about the implications of that package of measures as we go on. Effectively, the rise in the personal allowance from £8,105 to £9,440 for this year and the rise to £10,000 from 2014, however welcome they are and regardless of the difficulties raised concerning those who will not necessarily benefit, will in part be clawed back by the measures implemented in this clause and a further reduction in the basic rate limit next year to £31,865.

Beer Duty Escalator

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that 95% of all Scotch whisky is exported. In the UK, 87% of all the beer that is drunk in this country is brewed in this country. Beer is a great British manufacturing success story, which is why we need to support it.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Shepherd Neame, a Kent family brewer, and Thorley Taverns in Margate are both major employers in one of the areas of highest social deprivation in the south-east. They are both under threat, paying huge amounts of their revenue in tax while companies such as Starbucks pay virtually nothing at all. Putting the beer duty escalator to one side, I remember going to see John Cope—now Lord Cope—when he was a Treasury Minister about 20 years ago, and our parliamentary delegation demonstrated then that the more we tax, the less revenue we take in the end. Is that not the nub of this argument—it is counter-productive?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The point about an escalator is that we stop when we get to the top. We have reached the top of the escalator and we are in danger of going off the edge of a cliff. That is why we must do something about the beer duty escalator.

Air Passenger Duty

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Most Members have made the point about the value of the aviation industry to the UK as a whole. It is of considerable value to all the UK’s major conurbations, and particularly to the south-east. Historically, Heathrow has been one of the major—if not the major—hub airports in the world. The interlining that has gone on through Heathrow over decades has been worth almost incalculable sums of money, not merely to the aviation industry but to business as a whole through the people who hold business meetings in airport meeting rooms and the people who come through London and spend money doing business in the City or as tourists. That is what is at stake and it is difficult and dangerous to ignore those facts.

At the moment, the United Kingdom is losing business. Not in 10, 15 or 20 years—it is happening now, today. Every day we lose business to Schiphol, to Frankfurt and to Charles de Gaulle. Would not the French, give or take Mr Hollande, like to create in Paris the financial centre of Europe, to replace London? It is not a pipe dream on their part; it could happen if we drive the business travellers away from the south-east of England. I am sorry that this is to some extent a south-east problem, but that happens to be where the City of London is and we cannot change that.

There are two issues: airport capacity and air passenger duty. My friend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) both made the point that people are now travelling short haul to interline and take long-haul flights from Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle. They pay APD on the short-haul flight and get a much cheaper and better deal on the long-haul flight to the far east, Brazil—a developing market—and, of course, the United States. It is happening now.

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend is making an articulate case about the impact on the economy of Great Britain, but there is also an impact on overseas economies. For example, the APD banding is so arbitrary and wrong that the APD for somewhere such as the Caribbean is more than for somewhere as far away as Hawaii. Surely that shows the illogicality of this blunt tax.

[Sir Roger Gale]

If I wanted to use one word to describe the banding, it would be chaotic. That is what it is. We are losing business now.

We have an opportunity—I have a constituency interest in this—in Manston, Kent’s international airport. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is aware, I think, of the opportunity Manston presents. It has one of the longest runways in the country and also one of the widest—three runways wide—because during the war it was used for landing planes one after the other. There is no suggestion that it should ever become a fourth, fifth or sixth London airport, but it could be developed at very modest cost to take the pressure immediately—not in 10 or 15 years’ time—off Gatwick, which in turn, with released capacity, could take the pressure off Heathrow. That would create the breathing space we need while the Government work out whether to have a third runway at Heathrow, a second runway at Gatwick, a second runway at Stansted or Boris island—that is not the purpose of this debate. If we are to develop Manston and use its capacity, we must give it a chance to breathe commercially, and air passenger duty is damaging that chance.

We need a modest investment in infrastructure, and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has responsibility for aviation, will visit us very soon. As long as the air passenger duty element of travel from the United Kingdom is as high as it is, regional airports such as Manston, and the many others that Members across the House have represented this afternoon, will suffer. Because Manston is in the south-east, it will presumably be banded at a south-east price, which in itself is nonsense. We must take into account the nature and capacity of each individual airport. I want air passenger duty to go completely, but I believe that in the interim, as a short-term measure, we have to look seriously at banding, which has been referred to, and at some kind of variation between regional and hub airports.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury might be new to his role, but he is very bright and he can do sums, which is why he got the job. It is very easy to say glibly that something is worth £2 billion, £5 billion or whatever to the Treasury without taking into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) referred to as the downside. The real cost must be calculated in terms not just of aviation lost, but of lost business, tourism and all the other things that flow from being a world-class, international centre, which is what London is, always has been and must be allowed to remain.

There is a Treasury mantra—I am looking to the civil servants’ box—which says that more tax equals more money. That card was played earlier this afternoon with regard to beer duty. It is wrong. A modest amount of tax might raise a modest amount of money, but there comes a point, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary must recognise this, when a tax kills the goose that lays the eggs, whether they are gold, silver, bronze or straightforward eggs. We cannot go on killing this industry, and that is what is happening. Of course, another huge concern has been voiced by holiday travellers. The impact on family holidays is dramatic and costly.

[Adam Afriyie]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. It strikes me that at the heart of the debate there is an absence of evidence; there is an evidence-shaped hole at its heart. All the points that have been made, including his points, could be dealt with cleanly and crisply if the review takes place.

[Sir Roger Gale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point leads me swiftly to a conclusion. The sums have not been properly analysed and so we need the review. There is no evidence to support the case that the Treasury is making. In the meantime, United Kingdom Ltd is being damaged. We need the review. I ask the Minister, please can we have it?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I beg to move amendment 7, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

‘(6A) In any agreement to give financial assistance in this section the Treasury or Secretary of State shall give reasonable consideration to clawback provisions which safeguard best value for the taxpayer.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

‘(f) the beneficial owners of any debt issued by a company receiving infrastructure assistance or one of their subsidiary companies,

(g) the beneficial owners of any company which has entered into an agreement to receive infrastructure assistance,

(h) for the purposes of this Act beneficial owner has the same meaning as that conferred by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.’.

New clause 3—Customer due diligence measures

‘(1) Before any infrastructure assistance is given the Treasury must apply customer due diligence measures on any business requesting infrastructure assistance.

(2) For the purposes of this Act customer due diligence measures will have the same meaning as that conferred by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.’.

[Chris Leslie]

Amendment 7, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to ensure that the Bill provides a safeguard for taxpayers’ money. After all, £50 billion of guarantees could be underwritten for the private sector on pretty much any kind of scheme, and we heard fuzzy logic from the Minister earlier, when he said that infrastructure is not quite as defined as it appears in the Bill, and that some projects could be national and some foreign.

In some circumstances, underwriting can be beneficial and welcome—it can make schemes viable that were not viable previously and unlock infrastructure developments that might not otherwise take place, but in other circumstances there are disadvantages to underwriting. Underwriting means that gains from a private endeavour are privatised, but that any losses are socialised. The entrepreneur, the shareholder and the owner of a private company or project that benefits from the safety net provided by the taxpayer could profit well for many years if a scheme bears fruit, but if the scheme goes wrong and if there are failures in it, the losses fall on you, Mr Gale, on me, on hon. Members and, most importantly, on our constituents.

I make no apologies for standing up for the taxpayer’s best interests. It is important that we ensure that Ministers consider introducing clawback provisions that safeguard best value for taxpayers. The amendment is so unobjectionable that I cannot understand why the Government would object to it. The Opposition are simply saying that, in any agreement to give financial assistance, the Chancellor or Secretary of State

“shall give reasonable consideration to clawback provisions which safeguard the taxpayer.”

What do I mean by “clawback provisions”? Hon. Members who have served on the Public Accounts Committee will know that from time to time Governments have entered into contracts and sold privatised parts of the public sector. The purchasers have then gone on to make millions of pounds when they have sold on some of those assets. In this case, the guarantor has ended up facilitating a project, but the beneficiary of the guarantee went on to make significant sums.

We are simply saying that the Treasury needs to make sure that there are clauses in the underwriting contracts—the offers—that ensure that if significant gains are made in the long term, the taxpayer can have a share in some of the future profits. It is a basic principle—if the taxpayer helps to create profitability for a person and bears the risk of loss, that person can reasonably be expected to share some of the excess profits with the taxpayer. It is a basic principle of prudent stewardship of taxpayers’ money. It would also ensure that we deal with the question of moral hazard. We know that in some circumstances underwriting can cause difficulties if a scheme that might be shaky goes ahead as a result, which is of course a distortion of the market environment.

If schemes go ahead and make significant gains and provide future returns that are in excess of what might be expected, the taxpayer could have some rights to those. For example, in a prime executive housing site in central London developed thanks in part to the Government underwriting property market risks, the units may sell at multiples of expected initial prices, with vast profits for the developer. In the current situation, what would the taxpayer get? Foreign-owned energy companies want a pipeline stretching from our shores across the continent, which could well be underwritten by the provisions in the Bill. If we fund part of that as taxpayers, but the company makes significant long-term returns on the oil and gas, what should be the taxpayers’ share in that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley]

On a point of order, Mr Gale. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. Surely, the point of a Committee stage is to allow a Bill to be considered at greater length and in greater detail than is possible on Second Reading. Owing to reasons beyond your control, Mr Gale, we have less than half the time for debate in Committee that we had on Second Reading. We have not yet finished clause 1. All the other clauses will go unconsidered in Committee. Would it be in order, Mr Gale, for you to make a report to the Chairman of Ways and Means about how this Committee stage went, so that he and the Panel of Chairs can consider whether it is appropriate for us to have such short Committee stages on the Floor of the whole House?

[Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

The Chairman of Ways and Means will undoubtedly read what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the proceedings are in order according to the programme motion agreed by the House.

[Simon Hughes]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am beginning to find it a little difficult to relate this debate to amendment 5 or the related matters. Perhaps we could return to them.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to you, Sir Roger, although I found that debate terribly entertaining. [Interruption.] Oh no, I am more than happy to talk about tax avoidance all evening, especially about the Swiss deal, which is particularly disgraceful. No doubt we will do that upstairs in Committee.

I return to the question of the bank levy and the bank bonuses tax and which was the most effective measure. It is clear that, as the OBR said, the bank bonus tax raised £3.5 billion in 2010, which is almost twice what the levy raised in 2011. Those are not disputable facts; they are there in black and white in the Red Book and the OBR’s analysis. Choosing not to reinstate our bank bonus tax represents an effective tax cut for the banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Yes, I recognise that. I also recognise the Ernst and Young ITEM club, which uses precisely the same methodology and precisely the same numbers as the Treasury in calculating its growth projections. It said earlier this week that it did not expect to see 0.8% growth as the OBR anticipates, but 0.4% growth over the next year. It is not expecting 2% growth, but 1.5% growth in the following year. Very few credible commentators believe in the heroic suggestions of a bounce back next year, the year after and the year after that. Those suggestions are clearly a load of nonsense, just as it is a load of nonsense to assume that we will see 0.8%—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I assumed the Chair in anticipation and excitement at the prospect of listening to the debate on amendment 5 and the bank levy. We really are straying a long way from it. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has now been on his feet for more than 40 minutes, yet he has still not finished speaking to his amendment.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful, Sir Roger. I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion.

The amendment we have tabled is very simple. It simply requires the Government to look at the possibility of reintroducing a payroll tax on the banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

There are still 1 million unemployed young people in this country. That is the highest rate since records began. Long-term youth unemployment is growing as never before. In my constituency of Pontypridd, there has been a 333% increase in long-term youth unemployment in the last year alone. The point of the amendment is to highlight that problem in the real economy. We are trying to connect this out-of-touch Government to the reality of youth unemployment, and to get them to do something to tackle it and to get growth in our economy. I have not been persuaded to withdraw the amendment and we will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Review of VAT Exemption for small vehicles—

‘The Treasury shall, within two months of Royal Assent to this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the effect on the availability of transport services on the VAT exemptions for small vehicles.’.

New clause 3—VAT impact of changes—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fully reviewed the impact of those changes on jobs, living standards and businesses and placed the review in the Library of the House of Commons.’.

New clause 4—Definition of ‘hot food’—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which amends the current definition of “hot food” in the Act.’.

New clause 5—Value Added Tax: baked products—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which shall affect baked products when no attempt is made to keep the product hot for consumption.’.

New clause 6—VAT on caravans—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) or 31(2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which amends the Act to apply to holiday caravans that are currently zero rated.’.

New clause 7—VAT: protected buildings—

‘No new Order shall be made under section 30(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which amends the current definition of “protected building” in the Act.’.

New clause 8 has not been selected because it is outside the scope of the Bill. I indicate to the Committee that it will be for my successor in the Chair, the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, to determine, once she has heard more of the debate, whether to call any of the new clauses other than new clause 1.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to follow some excellent speeches. As we heard earlier, the harsh reality of the Budget is that it has done nothing to give Britain the jobs and growth we desperately need. We have heard how it has failed—[Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. Will Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? I wish to hear the debate.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you, Sir Roger. That gives me the opportunity to repeat, for those unable to hear because of the conversations, my point about the harsh reality of the Budget, which has done nothing to give Britain the jobs and growth we desperately need, and about how it fails the fairness test. It has done nothing to help support families and pensioners on modest and middle incomes. We will discuss that further tomorrow so I shall not dwell on it now. It would, of course, be outwith the scope of the new clauses. I shall only say that families are already finding out just what the Government’s decisions will mean for their household budgets. As we will hear, businesses are also now finding out that the botched Budget makes no economic sense for them either.

There was a time when people might have given the Chancellor some credit for his strategic brain. Some on middle incomes and small businesses might even have given him the benefit of the doubt on economic policy, notwithstanding our many warnings about cuts that go too far and too fast. They might have given him the benefit of the doubt even if they did not completely agree with everything he was doing. But how times change. The Chancellor has had several weeks of torrid headlines—The Mirror: “Half-baked Tory tax a mistake-and-bake from Osborne and co”; The Sun: “PM David Cameron is urged to show leadership over pasty-gate”; The Guardian: “‘Pasty tax’ is the last thing people need”; the Evening Standard: “Heston says pasty tax will stop artisan bakers earning a crust”; and even “Tax on beloved Cornish pasties sparks furore in Britain” in USA Today and “‘Pasty tax’ row heats up for British PM” on the al-Jazeera website.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I want to give plenty of opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to the debate. It is not just a debate about pasties; it is also about caravans. I know that many Members will wish to speak on that issue because of its importance for their local industries. [Interruption.] I would be happy to take an intervention from Ministers or from one of those senior Tory MPs quoted as having met the Chancellor today to lobby on the issue of caravans. Does anyone want to give us an update on that? No, I see no takers at the moment. Perhaps we will hear about it later. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again. The hon. Lady must be heard, and she really should not have to shout from the Dispatch Box to put her message across. Many Members on both sides of the Committee want to participate in the debate. Whether or not they are called will depend to some extent on their behaviour in the Chamber, and it will also depend on the amount of time available to us.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will do my best to bring my remarks to a speedy conclusion so that others can contribute.

Let me briefly mention other issues. I have already mentioned caravans, but building work on churches is also important, and I know that some colleagues will speak about it later. One other area, if I can be pardoned a very bad pun, not yet highlighted in the headlines is the whole issue of hairdressers’ chairs. I mention it simply because the Government’s proposal shows once again a lack of understanding of the operation of many small businesses.

People and women—and it is often young women—starting out on their hairdressing careers, perhaps on their first business opportunity, often rent a chair in a larger salon. I see some nods of agreement from Government Members. It is welcome if some of them understand the issue, but it does nothing at all to help those people setting out on their first business venture if they suddenly find that they are going to have to pay more costs. The National Hairdressers Federation has highlighted further anomalies. Conservative Members might not be aware of it, but it is common practice in hairdressers’ businesses to rent out space not only to other hairdressers, but to others in the beauty and therapy professions. The anomalies highlighted by the NHF are made worse by the Government’s proposals.

Budget (North-East)

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I need to make it plain before we start that I have applied to the office of the Chairman of Ways and Means for a time limit on speeches. A significant number of Members have written to the Speaker indicating that they wish to participate, and even more Members are present. Given that we will need to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.35 am at the latest, I suspect that we will be down to four minutes per person, but that rather depends on Mr Mearns.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I thank the Speaker’s Office for allowing me to initiate this debate, and also the many Members who have come along. The debate has created significant interest, particularly in our north-east region.

In the Chancellor’s millionaires’ Budget, which will hand back tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds to some of the richest people in our society, including some of his Cabinet colleagues, it is clear who will suffer the most. It will be the poorest, those looking for work when few new jobs are available, pensioners, families, the hard-working, the squeezed middle and the working poor.

Following the Chancellor’s Budget speech, the Treasury produced a briefing highlighting the measures that will benefit the north-east of England. The region has borne the brunt of this Government’s policies. February 2012 figures show that unemployment in my constituency has risen from 8.3% to 10.5% since the coalition took office, and in the latest Office for National Statistics survey, up to January 2012, the figure for the north-east as a whole has risen to 10.8%, yet the Treasury’s briefing runs to a grand total of three measures that it claims will specifically benefit the region.

Although the first measure—the increase in personal allowances—is welcome, it can hardly be regarded as specific to the north-east. The second measure is that Newcastle will receive the princely sum of £6 million, and become a super-connected city. Perhaps the Chancellor and the Treasury do not realise that Newcastle, as important as it is to the entire region, is not the entire region—in fact, it has about a tenth of the region’s population. Finally, in the month when the north-east is losing its regional development agency, its local enterprise partnerships will receive a paltry £10 million from the Growing Places fund.

In the Budget statement, the Chancellor notably consigned to the dustbin of history the phrase, “We’re all in this together.” The imbalance in this Budget means that most of us are in this together, but the few at the top of society will be exempt from it all. The regional disparity is all too plain to see. In the three south-east regions— London, the south-east and the eastern region—nearly 195,000 taxpayers will reap the benefit of the Chancellor’s higher-end tax giveaway, but in the north-east the figure will be fewer than 5,000, and about 4,000 in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. In view of the large number of Members who wish to participate in the debate, I will exercise the power granted to me by the Chairman of Ways and Means and limit speeches to four minutes. I intend to commence the winding-up speeches at about 10.40 am. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has kindly indicated that he is willing to curtail his remarks to about five minutes. It would not be reasonable to impose any such limit on the Minister, because of the large number of Members who want to participate and who will expect answers to the debate. Members will notice, if they do the math, that I have built in a five-minute leeway, so one way or another we hope that we will get to where we want to be. The same rules apply as to the main Chamber. We will add a minute to the four-minute time limit for up to two interventions, but Members will appreciate that if that happens, someone will fall off the end of the list.

This is an exception—we do not normally do this—but it might help Members if I indicate now the order in which I intend to call them, because a significant number have written to Mr Speaker requesting the opportunity to speak. Those who are not on the list will appreciate that I have to give priority to those who have taken the trouble to write to Mr Speaker. They may, therefore, choose to exercise their right to intervene, although that, of course, is not in my gift, but in that of the person speaking. The order for Opposition Members is Grahame Morris, Phil Wilson, Pat Glass, David Anderson, Ian Lavery, Iain Wright, Sharon Hodgson and Stephen Hepburn; and that for Government Members is James Wharton and Mr Swales.

Westminster Hall does not have the countdown clock system of the main Chamber, but we do have the high-tech alternative of a bell, which will be sounded at one minute prior to a speech’s conclusion. Without further ado, I call James Wharton.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton]

I was, of course, referring to private sector investment. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but we have to look at the figures realistically. A lot of the spending that has been announced is for specific large projects, some of which are in London, such as Crossrail, and some of which will potentially benefit the north-east, such as High Speed 2. Although it is not yet coming to our region, the benefits are real.

The RDA has been mentioned. I have my differences with Opposition Members on that issue. I always felt that the RDA was too focused on Newcastle and as the hon. Member for Gateshead said, we must remember and acknowledge that Newcastle is not the entire region. I welcome the new local enterprise partnerships because they are more localised and more focused on the areas where the growth that we want to see needs to be delivered. From the growth that we are seeing and the investment that is being announced, the signs are that LEPs are already doing a good job. The LEP in Teesside is certainly doing an excellent job. It hit the ground running and is making a difference to securing the growth that we need in that part of our region.

There were, of course, a number of announcements in the Budget that will both directly and indirectly benefit our region. One of the most significant is the increase in the personal allowance. In total, across all the Budgets we have had so far from the Government, 82,000 people have been lifted out of income tax altogether in the north-east region. That significant and welcome benefit will make a real difference to the lives of tens of thousands of families across the north-east who are on the lowest incomes and who most need that support.

The increase in the personal allowance will also, of course, deliver improvements for our regional economy because that money is not being taken in tax and spirited away to London to be redistributed in accordance with the diktat of the Government—whoever they are. That money is staying in the pockets of families in the north-east, so that they can spend it in our local economy, provide a welcome economic boost and create jobs and growth, which is what we all want to see.

In the north-east, the income tax bills of nearly 1 million people will decrease, although some of them will not be entirely lifted out of income tax just yet. The child benefit tapering changes are a welcome mitigation of the impact of the need to control the child benefit bill because of the financial situation in which the Government find themselves. That will benefit 14,000 families across the north-east and is another welcome measure in the Budget that will leave more money in our regional economies and in the pockets of the people who live and work in the north-east and elsewhere. That policy will make a difference to our regional economy and the lives of those who live in the regions.

Negatives in the Budget do exist. Stamp duty land tax is increasing. However, we are lucky in the north-east because only 1% of the properties affected—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Mr Grahame Morris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend is right. That proves how much we have to celebrate what the previous Labour Government did for the north-east of England. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been frozen for people under the age of 21. It has gone up by only 11p this year as a consequence of the decisions made by this Government. At the same time, 4,000 to 5,000 taxpayers on the 50p tax rate in the region will on average receive a tax cut of £10,000 each. If that does not show that we are not all in this together, I do not know what does. The Government put VAT on pasties, but they did not put VAT on caviar.

The 40p tax rate has been ignored by many people. The threshold has been reduced from £42,475 to £41,450, so that 300,000 people will be brought into the 40p tax rate. How many more people will lose a proportion of their child benefit because of the reduction in that threshold? Will the Minister indicate whether she knows that figure? By reducing the threshold, the number of people paying the 40p tax rate in the region has gone up by 8%. There are now nearly 110,000 people paying the 40p tax rate. Little by little, the Government’s fairness agenda is being found out—actually, we are not all in this together.

I am very concerned about regional pay. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) mentioned the flexibility in local pay in the court system, but we reduced the number of bands from 40-odd to five; we did not increase the number of bands. The latest survey by the TUC states that 68%—more than two thirds—of Conservative voters do not believe that regional pay in the public sector will boost jobs in the private sector.

The Budget is divisive. It is also complacent. It does nothing for growth, not just in the north-east of England, but in the rest of the country.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend in full flow, but it is important to place on the record that, although we welcome the additional jobs and the announcement about Nissan, it must be put in context. Does he agree that although 250 jobs are welcome, they do not go anywhere near even offsetting the private sector job losses in my constituency alone? Reckitt Benckiser has lost 500 jobs; Fortress Doors has lost 100; Carillion, Cumbrian Foods and, most recently—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is beginning to make another speech. This must be an intervention. I remind hon. Members that each of the first two interventions adds a minute to the time that the speaker is allowed. Hon. Members are in danger of pushing one of their colleagues off the end of the list, if they are not careful.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.

We in the south-east of Northumberland are a million miles away from Nissan. The perceived jobs bonanza at Nissan is two bus journeys, a Metro journey and a further bus journey away. We wish that we had the same opportunities as there are at Nissan. We hope that they will come. We have not even got a rail service in my area: there is a railway line but no trains to run on it. We cannot even get to Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough city centre from where we live, because there are not the transport links and the much-needed transfer links.

I want to focus on a strong appeal to the Minister to hear the case of the people in south-east Northumberland. If we in Wansbeck are to have an opportunity for growth, a Northumberland extension of the North Eastern local enterprise partnership enterprise zone—the port of Blyth and the estuary—needs to benefit from capital allowances and rate relief at the same time. It is not enough to extend the enterprise zone without the provision of the additional allowances and incentives necessary to attract businesses and jobs. We need those guarantees. In addition, with the appropriate allowances and incentives, further extension to the enterprise zone is desperately needed, so that it stretches through Wansbeck as far up the coast as the Alcan site. A failure to do so will place Wansbeck and south-east Northumberland at a distinct disadvantage, by further damaging employment opportunities for our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. Hon. Members have participated in the debate and should do the Minister the courtesy of listening to her response.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Sir Roger. The new right-to-buy discount introduced by this Government is more than three times the current limit in the north-east of £22,000.

In his opening comments, the hon. Member for Gateshead used words such as “outdated”, and various other words have been bandied around today. I think that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, need to look around and see the threat to today’s economy, which in one word is debt. Debt is a problem both in the UK and globally, and this Government are determined to sort it out. Fiscal consolidation is necessary. Those in the Labour party seek to spend more, borrow more and owe more, and therefore to pile more debt on their children, and indeed my children. The hon. Gentleman, and those on the Opposition Front Bench, still believe that child benefit should be claimed by millionaires. We do not; we believe that there should be consolidation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid that I do not have time because I must respond to concerns about local government funding and the claim that local authorities in the north-east have taken disproportionate cuts. As I have made clear, the previous Government left an appalling economic and financial mess, and we have a moral obligation to pay back our debts as quickly as possible. Therefore, tough decisions are necessary. The hon. Member for Gateshead will know that the formula grant in his area will be nearly £555 per person in 2011-12, compared with an average of £372 across England. That reflects the higher level of need in Gateshead, and I expect him to welcome that. In the light of issues raised by hon. Members, the Government’s key priority is returning the UK economy to sustainable, economic growth.

Before time runs out, I want to talk about local enterprise partnerships. Such partnerships have radically reshaped the way businesses and the Government interact at local level, and they mark a sharp break from the top-down, politically driven regional policy of the previous Government. The winners of the first two rounds of the regional growth fund are expected to create over 13,500 direct jobs and 25,000 indirect jobs in the north-east, including at Gateshead college in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The Government are taking forward an ambitious work programme that will assist with city deals for core regions, and I encourage all hon. Members present to engage with that.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Will hon. Gentlemen and Ladies who participated in the last debate and are leaving please do so quietly? As they are doing so, I thank everyone for their courtesy and patience this morning, which has allowed every hon. Member to have at least some say.

Women in the Church of England

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I start with an apology: I am due to chair the Committee that is considering the Civil Aviation Bill very shortly. That may take me 50,000 feet closer to God, but it will not allow me to hear the winding-up speeches in this debate, and for that I apologise to colleagues.

I am a fully paid-up reactionary. This is not part of the debate, but it has been raised, so I will make my own comment. I happen to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and anything else is a partnership and should remain as such.

On the issue that we are debating this morning, I have a very strong view indeed. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and others have referred to equality. However, this is about not equality, but the right person for the job. As with the House of Commons, so with the Church of England and others; we need the best people in the job. Simply, ladies who have been ordained have proved that they are very good. There may be some bad women vicars, but I can think of one or two bad male vicars as well. In whatever walk of life—whether in the House of Commons, the Church of England, industry, medicine or education—we need the best people in the job. Some of those best people will be men and some will be women. If there are more best women than there are best men, there should be more women bishops than there are male bishops. If that is a counter-reactionary point of view, I apologise to my hon. Friends who might expect me to take an alternative view.

To conclude, in the final line of “Saint Joan”—I know this because as a schoolboy I was required to utter the words—George Bernard Shaw said:

“How long, Oh Lord, how long?”

This has been going on for far too long. The moment is not with us; it is way past and the decision should have been taken by now. The bishops will be doing the Church, of which I am proud to be a member, no service whatever if they duck this issue. It is time to move forward, and I hope very much indeed that we in the House of Commons and our colleagues in the upper House will be given the opportunity to vote for this Measure and to see women enjoying the episcopacy as soon as possible.

Economic Regeneration (Glasgow)

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Gale. I am very pleased to speak here this morning. This is my first Westminster Hall debate since I was elected as a Member of Parliament at the last election, and I am pleased that the subject is my own city of Glasgow—the great city of Glasgow. I am sure that you will hear much of that this morning, Mr Gale.

Of course Glasgow is vital to the current economy of Scotland, and over the years it has also contributed a great deal to Scotland and the United Kingdom. Although Glasgow has suffered many setbacks and difficulties along the way, I argue that the city has fought to overcome them with significant success. It is important that we understand the key ingredients of that success and that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Instead, we must deepen and enhance the processes of regeneration, so that we can benefit from them in the future.

The second city of the empire, Glasgow inspires great pride and loyalty in its people: pride in the skills and contribution made by working people to the economy, and loyalty to a city famed for its humour and resilience. By 1870, Glasgow was producing more than half of Britain’s tonnage of shipping and a quarter of all the locomotives being built in the world. Of course, our interest in shipbuilding continues to this day, as I am sure Ministers know. In my constituency, Glasgow East, we had Parkhead forge, which was a powerhouse of the steel industry. It was one of the biggest steel employers in the world—at one point, it employed 30,000 people—and it made an enormous contribution to the war effort. The plant finally closed its doors in the 1980s.

I argue, with some regret, that that great contribution to Scotland’s economy has not been properly recognised or rewarded over the years. There is a real sense among Glaswegians that our work and contribution were used when times were good, but that we were abandoned when change was under way, and we cannot let that happen again. As a result of that abandonment, we were left with a legacy of ill health, high poverty and mass unemployment. That situation was particularly bad during the 1980s, when unemployment soared. There was a sharp decline in public services, urban decay set in and a cycle of worklessness and hopelessness became embedded in too many communities and too many families. The next generation worked hard to tackle that legacy through economic and social regeneration. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there were many successes along the way. As a result of economic diversification and increased investment in infrastructure, health and education, Glasgow achieved a great deal.

More than 53,000 jobs were created in the city between 2000 and 2005, which was a growth rate of 32%. Between 1998 and 2001, the city’s financial services sector increased by 30%, and it is now one of Europe’s largest financial centres. In 2005, more than 17,000 new jobs were created. In 2006, private sector investment in the city reached £42 billion, which represented a 22% increase in such investment within a single year. That shift in Glasgow’s fortunes marked very significant progress and played a vital part in helping to change Glasgow’s image of economic decline and worklessness. In doing so, it inspired confidence in the people of Glasgow, and it inspired investors to have confidence in the city. Of course, it also demonstrated that the famous Glasgow resilience pays off.

A debate about regeneration is about not only the physical aspects of a place but its people. Glasgow has had a strong sense that the process of economic regeneration and the accompanying process of cultural renaissance that it experienced in the 1980s and 1990s should benefit all its citizens and not only those who were skilled and able to make the most of those opportunities. Too often, Glasgow was characterised as a city of two halves, and there was a real push to ensure that all the people of the city benefited from any regeneration process. Glasgow’s problems of ill health, poverty and deprivation were so deep-rooted that there needed to be a step change in how we tackled them. A vital ingredient was the regeneration of some of the most disadvantaged communities, a number of which are in the east end of Glasgow in my constituency. Long before the big society was ever heard of, Glasgow pioneered community development.

We are all aware of the mistakes that were made in the past when things were “done to” communities rather than “with them”, particularly in relation to housing. Economic regeneration is at its best when we work with people who have experienced the problems and have a vested interest in finding the solutions, rather than when we impose top-down reforms. That is best illustrated in the housing sector. Through housing stock transfer, the city has been able to bring additional major spend into housing investment. That process not only involved tenants in a completely new way but delivered a programme of sustainable housing in Glasgow. In my previous role as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I was the Minister with responsibility for housing in different ministerial capacities, and I was substantially involved in housing stock transfer. If anyone wants to hear me talk for half an hour about housing stock transfer, I am very willing to oblige, but such talks are obviously not in great demand at the moment.

Given the challenges facing Glasgow, it is important to understand how we made progress. Glasgow city council was instrumental in building a lasting partnership with the private sector, a partnership which continues to this day. That partnership with the private sector will be the theme of my contribution to the debate, including how it is possible to get the public and private sectors to work together. My real fear is that that partnership is being jeopardised at the moment. The experience that we had in Glasgow of the partnership between public and private is relevant to the discussions of today and the priorities that we set.

In Glasgow, the private sector understood the need to invest in education and the benefits that it accrues from that investment. The private sector benefited enormously from the developments in housing and in particular from housing stock transfer. For example, the £1 billion investment by Glasgow Housing Association has seen unparalleled improvements in housing throughout the city. Perhaps the employment opportunities that arise from such housing investment are not properly understood, but in fact 4,000 people were directly employed between 2006 and 2010 as a result of the investment in housing in Glasgow. Nearly half those people were employed through community benefit clauses, which shows that public intervention works by creating sustainable employment. Of the 2,000 people who were employed through community benefit clauses, half of them were trainees or apprentices. Once again, that employment has had a real impact in the communities in which those people lived and worked.

We have experienced a bit of a jolt to the process of regeneration in Glasgow in recent years, since the Scottish National party came to power. I would argue that during that time the partnership approach to regeneration has been undermined. That is exemplified through the development of the Scottish Futures Trust. That trust was set up by the SNP Administration, and it was meant to be part of a new approach to raising private finance, allegedly for investment. However, it has failed to commission the building of a single new school, and funding for capital investment projects has fallen by £1 billion at the cost of 37,000 jobs in the construction industry.

The SNP Government have refused point blank to listen to the pleas of the business community in Glasgow, and as a result of that cut in capital investment and other cuts, the construction of school buildings has been scrapped and thousands of teachers and nurses have lost their jobs. The “Salmond slump”, as it is now termed in Scotland, has also seen the cancellation of vital capital infrastructure projects such as the Glasgow airport rail link. The cancellation of GARL has meant the loss of 1,300 jobs. For the first time in a long time, Glasgow unemployment figures have begun to fall behind those of England.

There is no doubt that the decline in investment under the SNP Administration has hit Glasgow hard. In my own constituency, the number of new or refurbished schools between 1999 and 2007 was 14, so we had 14 brand new or refurbished schools in the east end of Glasgow in that time. Since the SNP came to power, not one school in my constituency has been built or refurbished—there has been no investment at all in schools. Recently Glasgow city council has had more than its fair share of budget cuts, as the council itself will confirm. There has been a 3.6% budget cut, which is the highest cut for many years and above the national average.

Glasgow is battling on, and there are still regeneration projects that matter enormously. I want to refer to two of those projects that are of great importance—first, the Commonwealth games, and secondly the Clyde Gateway. The 2014 games will be an exciting occasion, and there was great celebration in Glasgow when we won them. It is an occasion to celebrate sport in a city famed for its sporting achievements. As the Member of Parliament for the great football team of Glasgow Celtic, I expect everyone to be aware of our great expertise on the football field, and I am sure that we will inspire interest in other sports when the Commonwealth games are held. It is, however, also an opportunity to foster economic regeneration, most particularly in areas of the city that still need rejuvenation. More than 9,000 businesses entered the bidding process for affiliated contracts and subcontracts, and it is expected that the games will create 1,000 jobs and stimulate £1 billion of infrastructure investment in Glasgow, most particularly addressing our urge to ensure that the most deprived areas benefit. In the east end of Glasgow the games are of great significance, so will the Minister, in his response, focus on the games? We could perhaps learn things from the UK’s experience with the Olympic games, and the UK Government could perhaps play a part in ensuring that the Commonwealth games are an important success.

The Clyde Gateway is another important development in the east end of Glasgow. It has been identified in the national planning framework as Scotland’s top regeneration project. It has the target of creating 21,000 jobs and 10,000 homes over two decades. It is vital to the success of Glasgow, but recently there have been some problems with its funding. The SNP Government have taken some action to address the concerns, but the role of Scottish Enterprise has, I think, been controversial in its support of the gateway. We cannot afford to let the project slip, and some of my hon. Friends will perhaps want to make more detailed reference in their contributions to the progress, or lack thereof. Hopefully, we can particularly focus on that in the coming months, as it is key to the regeneration of Glasgow. Both the Clyde Gateway and the Commonwealth games are important to regeneration, particularly as they have a focus on and locus in addressing the issue of deprived communities, as well as having a stake in Glasgow’s future.

Glasgow is, of course, facing the double whammy of a Tory-led Government—hon. Members will have expected me to move on to this topic. In debates such as this, I always want to be polite, so I will say this in the most generous personal terms, but I cannot resist making political criticisms and I hope that the Minister will take what I say in the tenor in which it is meant. We have seen some difficulties and challenges since the election of the new Government, including the cancellation of the future jobs fund, which was doing so much to tackle problems of unemployment and particularly of youth unemployment, where we were just beginning to grapple with some of the more deep-seated issues. We have seen the cuts in public expenditure, and we have heard from the Government that when cuts are made in public expenditure, the private sector will step in to fill that gap. I say assertively to the Government that that did not happen when the SNP cut expenditure. In fact, the business community put quite a different case in Glasgow, where it said that when public expenditure is used wisely, it can assist private sector development, and we have seen the details of that in Glasgow and the real success of the model.

We have also seen a raft of cuts in housing benefit, which has undermined that twin process of economic and social regeneration. I would be the first at the barricades saying that welfare reform is important, particularly because of the constituency that I represent. I was a great supporter of the welfare reforms introduced by the previous Labour Government, but how reform is done is critical. The number of people on incapacity benefit tripled under the previous Tory Government, but fell during the previous Labour one. It is concerning that this Government’s welfare reforms are perhaps undermining regeneration. A particular example is the Government’s decision to take away 10% of housing benefit from someone who has been on jobseeker’s allowance for a year. Even if that person is doing all that is required of them and is desperately looking for work, they will still lose their benefit. That not only has a harsh impact on the family but undermines housing-led regeneration, because it affects funding for housing associations in Glasgow, which would be a desperate setback for our city. In all honesty, such a punitive, nasty cut reminds Glaswegians of the bad old days. We have had the higher education cuts that have come through the block grant, and investment in education, particularly at university level, matters so much for a skilled work force, because it enables growth in key sectors such as life sciences and finance.

Centre stage in this discussion has to be unemployment. The numbers have been creeping back up in Glasgow, particularly with the real concerns about the retraction in the economy shown in the recent growth figures. In Glasgow in December, 15 claimants were chasing every vacancy—in my constituency, the figure was 25. That is deeply worrying for those individuals, families and communities, and it has an enormous impact in the city as a whole. It is all very well telling people that they must go back to work, but there are no jobs to go to, which cuts the feet from under the policy. We cannot have welfare to work if there is no work, and it is employment and the lack of it that lies at the heart of the regeneration debate.

For generation after generation, Glasgow has experienced surges in unemployment through profound economic shifts without the right action to protect its people and to get its economy back on its feet, and it looks as though we are experiencing that yet again. I have no doubt that the Government will respond by saying that it is all the fault of the previous Government, and that there is nothing else that has to be done apart from tightening our belts. That has been said to Glaswegians before, and it is has been proved very wrong indeed, many times. I argue very strongly that the people of Glasgow understand that the banking crisis was the fundamental cause of the recent economic experiences, and there is great resentment that that sector is not being made to contribute more to the solutions. Britain’s debt was among the lowest in the G7, and the Tories actually argued that we should perhaps have gone further in our plans for public expenditure. In reality, as Glasgow has shown, it is not “public sector investment bad,” as if that were somehow a drag on the economy that stifles private sector development; it is both the public and private sectors working together in partnership that is good and that matters.

I will draw my remarks to a close, and I thank hon. Members for attending the debate. One of the first demands that I had when I became a Member of Parliament came from Glasgow’s Evening Times, that other significant element of Glasgow life, which my hon. Friends know. The paper contacted me and insisted that my job here is to stand up for Glasgow and that I should make that one of my central claims, which is what I agreed to do—we always agree, I am sure, with the Evening Times. I will continue to do that, because it is our job here to highlight the city’s strength and potential.

People have many images and stereotypes of the city of Glasgow, and I never deny the problems that we face. I have hopefully done some work to try to deal with some of our city’s great difficulties, but it is also a city of great strength, promise and resource, and we have to learn from not only its problems but its great successes. I hope that the Minister will listen and will take back Glasgow’s message to the Government. That message is that they should think again about cuts in housing benefit in particular and that they should support our fight for jobs, particularly as we have seen the job crisis increase. They should recognise Glasgow’s contributions and work with us to support economic and social regeneration.

[Mr Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Four hon. Members on the Back Benches wish to participate in the debate. The Chair chooses to give preference, when possible, to Members who have written to Mr Speaker to indicate that they wish to take part, so I propose to call Mr Greatrex next. It might be for the convenience of Members if I also indicate that I shall then call Ms Swinson, Mr Bain and Mr Sarwar, in that order. If hon. Members would be good enough to confine their remarks to 10 minutes, that will enable me to call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 10.30 am.