Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

We have done precisely what the House required us to do in setting out the estimated impacts of the deal, of an average free trade agreement, of an EEA-style scenario and, indeed, of a no deal. As for the hon. Lady’s point about the legal advice, I know that the Attorney General will be making a statement to the House in due course.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Is not the truth that the range of economic forecasts published today show the importance of trying to secure the withdrawal agreement? When I look at my constituents, I see the small to medium-sized enterprise manufacturing base that employs so many people who feed into the supply chain to the big companies that export frictionlessly into the European Union. It is important that we honour the result of the referendum, but that we also do everything possible to ensure that we do not fall off the cliff edge. The figures published today show that that would be catastrophic. We can argue about the size of those figures, but one thing is clear: if we do not allow a proper withdrawal agreement to take place, there will be a catastrophic economic impact, and it is the responsibility of us in the House to make sure we do everything possible to avoid that.

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend’s assertions lie at the heart of what we are all considering: the future of our country and the expressed will of the British people at the time of the referendum. What this deal—as opposed to no deal—will do is safeguard our economy and the jobs that we have created as a Government, ensure that we deliver on our pledge to take control of our borders, our money and our laws in order to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom, and enable us to go out as a globally facing nation and do deals with other countries around the world.

Five-year Land Supply

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The simple truth is that our constituents, the public, have no faith left in the planning system. That is hardly a surprise when one is dealing with, to be frank, the rank incompetence of a council such as Leeds City Council. It has created a totally over-inflated housing target figure, which even the academics at Leeds University have claimed simply could not be built in the timeframe laid out, yet in the next couple of weeks we are to go into a public inquiry in which we assess whether Leeds City Council’s site allocations plan is sound. How can something be sound if it is based on fantasy figures?

Leeds City Council has lost almost every single Planning Advisory Service appeal; every time, the PAS says, “You don’t have a five-year land supply.” But the figure is being inflated to say that we need tens of thousands more houses than we actually need. It is, therefore, very difficult to come up with the land supply for houses that are never going to be built.

What are the consequences of that? Sites are being put forward to be built on that should never have been involved. They are the prime sites, where a developer will say, “I’m going to build on that site and get the housing numbers up.” They quite legitimately do not have to build on the brownfield sites, because the council has said, “This is a site you can build on.” The developer then starts to build on that green-belt and greenfield site, and they get far more revenue from that. There is no incentive for them to move elsewhere.

In the past five years, Leeds City Council has granted 25,148 planning permissions. Of those, 4,429 expired—they were not built within the specified timeframe—and only 3,680 were built. Therefore 17,039 remain unbuilt, yet Leeds says that we need to find planning and space for another 70,000 houses.

I realise that the Minister cannot respond to this, but his constituency neighbours mine, and the councils in his constituency, especially Harrogate Borough Council, are planning to build tens of thousands of houses on the border of my constituency. At the moment, Leeds City Council is not taking any notice of that, and it is saying that we need to expand. Councillor Alan Lamb from Wetherby, Councillor Ryan Stephenson from Harewood, and Councillor Matthew Robinson have been at the forefront of fighting back against Leeds City Council, but it is a Labour majority council by quite some margin. Even the independents—I pay tribute to Councillor Mark Dobson, who is an independent in Garforth in my constituency—have been fighting against the Labour council on those numbers, but they just get ridden roughshod over.

On 1 August, I will be at a site allocations plan inquiry arguing why a grade II listed parks and gardens site should not be built on. I will be doing that because Leeds City Council refuses to reassess the numbers it came up with on the basis of totally out-of-date migration figures from the early and mid-2000s, when numbers were much higher than they are now. Even now, demand is declining, although the council says that it is going up. The inspector has said, “It is not my job to assess the numbers. That was done in 2012. We are here to judge the soundness of the SAP.” How can we possibly judge the soundness of the plan when we are dealing with fantasy numbers?

We have lost every PAS site appeal in my constituency. The only one left is Scholes. The plan to try to save that PAS site and build somewhere else on the Parlington estate would increase the traffic flow through that village by 300%—that is Leeds City Council’s highways department’s own figure. Even the solutions that Leeds City Council comes up with to try to save a village actually destroy that village by shifting the problem elsewhere.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). It has to be about how many houses we build, not how many permissions we have. Quite simply, in my constituency alone, almost 75% of the planning permissions have gone unbuilt. How on earth can someone put forward a plan that says, “Actually, Elmet and Rothwell needs another 12,000 houses,” when 75% of the permissions granted have not yet been built? The whole thing needs to be reassessed.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to feed back to his Department that, unless the numbers are accurate, these processes are completely unsound. All we are doing is giving a licence to build on the green belt and greenfield land, rather than tackling brownfield land, which consequently means there is no affordable housing.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on securing the debate. The problem is countrywide and it affects North East Derbyshire. At times, this debate has seemed like a self-help group where we all put our concerns and difficulties on the table.

We are experiencing similar difficulties in my constituency, because a council has abjectly failed to discharge its responsibilities over several years—more than a decade. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) described, that will bring about a plan loaded with too high a number of houses to be built in my part of the world. At the same time, because the five-year housing land supply has only just been put in place, it has caused a significant number of speculative planning developments to be submitted in places that are inappropriate under the plan and objectively inappropriate for people who live in the area and know it best.

Over the past couple of years, North East Derbyshire has experienced 11 separate planning applications in areas that the local plan would not allow to be developed under any other circumstances. Those applications are for more than 1,300 homes. Given that our district has to build only 6,600 homes over a 15 to 20-year timeframe, 1,300 homes that should not have been applied for in the first place represent a significant increase in the number of houses that are needed. The area in the bottom half of my constituency is already slated to take 3,000 new houses that local residents have accepted and, in some ways, embraced, so this is not about nimbyism. It is about houses being built in the wrong place because councils are failing to put in place the right plans and failing to discharge their responsibilities. As a result, we are seeing the loss of greenfield sites and other places where houses would otherwise be considered completely inappropriate.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to two problems with the five-year housing land supply. The first is methodology. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell made the point about over-inflated numbers. In the same way, my district council did not get the target figure of 280 houses a year right in the first place, and it is now about to replace that with a figure of 332 houses a year, which will further undermine local residents’ confidence that our planning system knows what it is doing.

Despite not having the correct top-line figure, when the council assesses the deliverability of the planning permissions that have been put in place, it talks to the developers themselves, so the developers get a second opportunity to say whether they will build in places where they already have planning permission. That retards the overall five-year housing land supply and gives developers more opportunity to get housing planning permissions through. That methodology is a huge problem.

The second problem is competence. The political leadership in my local council has been thoroughly incompetent in ensuring that North East Derbyshire is protected from inappropriate and speculative housing developments. The authority monitoring report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) outlined to some extent, is a publication that appears and disappears at will. The 2014 version appeared a year late—a full year after the council decided it had a 2.15-year housing land supply. The 2015 version did not even appear, and was just amalgamated into a 2015 and 2016 report. Again, that appeared nine months after the number was calculated.

We did not know what our housing land supply was until a special report was taken to the council in October. I am pretty sure, because I spent some of last summer trying to calculate it, that the council knew many months beforehand that it had hit the five-year housing land supply, but it chose not to report or announce it until October. When some planning applications went through, including one on Fanny Avenue, Killamarsh, it was stated that the absence of a five-year housing land supply was at least partly why they were approved.

My council is clearly completely failing, not just on the plan as a whole, but on the five-year housing land supply, and as a result I have to go and talk to residents in Wingerworth, Old Tupton, Ashover, Killamarsh and North Wingfield, where another 250 houses have just been put on a site that should not be developed on, and never has been, because the plan is not in place. That is unacceptable. I support the Government’s localism angle, and I accept that it works in principle, but when councils do not discharge their responsibilities, we reach the point that North East Derbyshire has got to. A huge number of houses are being built, potentially in the wrong places, and the only way to stop them is a huge amount of heartache and angst and huge numbers of planning inquiries.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

On the point about councils’ incompetence, Leeds City Council has been heard to say that it simply cannot be bothered to reassess the numbers. It has now moved to a position of saying, “We will assess the numbers after the site allocations plan.” If it reduces the numbers, it makes it even easier to build on the green belt and greenfield land.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes a correct and important point.

The only way that we can have any semblance of control over the planning system is by extraordinary displays of public opposition to applications that should never have gone through in the first place. Hundreds of hours of residents’ time are lost on many meetings that should not have to happen. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are allocated to planning inquiries that should never have started. All of that retards confidence in a planning system that is quite rightly trying to deliver the houses we need in this country for the long term. I understand that this is a challenging area, and hon. Members from both sides of the House have outlined why, but when councils do not discharge their responsibilities, we get to the place that North East Derbyshire has got to, which totally undermines the trust and belief that councils and the planning system can deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on securing this important debate and on his thoughtful speech.

Let me take a step back. Why is it that the centre of Government in the UK has felt the need over successive generations—from the planning by appeal of the 1980s, to the regional spatial strategies of the 1990s, to the five-year land supply—to have some vehicle to ensure that councils come up with local plans and that they deliver housing? Why is it that so many people oppose new housing in our country and so many councils oppose what developers come up with?

I think that there are two underlying reasons why people oppose so much new development. First, we build in the wrong places. Too much development is tacked on to the end of existing villages and towns, without the proper infrastructure—the new roads, parking spaces, GP surgeries and school places—that is necessary to support it. There is a terrible example of that in my own constituency on the Gartree Road, where the local Lib Dem-run council has decided to put in its own local plan a proposal for a large site on a road that is already congested, with the proposed houses being pushed right up against existing residents’ homes, when there is no need for that to be the case.

Secondly, there is no benefit or compensation for existing residents who are affected by new development. On Farndon Fields in my constituency, residents have to put up with construction traffic coming past their new homes, as well as dust and noise from the construction site, and there is no pay-off or compensation of any kind for them for putting up with all that.

How can we remedy these underlying reasons why so many of us oppose new development? The first thing we need to do is capture more of the benefits of development for the community. At the moment, only around a quarter of that huge uplift in value that we see when planning permission is granted is captured by the local community, with the overwhelming majority going to the lucky landowner and the developer. Other countries capture far more value from development for the community, which is then ploughed into decent landscaping, greater separation areas, more green space and better infrastructure for the community.

The second thing we need to do is give councils greater discretion over how they spend the revenues they get from the community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements. Although we capture more value than we did 10 years ago, once we take out the amount that is spent on social and affordable housing, less money is actually being spent now in real terms than 10 years ago on landscaping, community infrastructure and all the things that benefit existing residents. Therefore, let us give councils more discretion over the way they spend those revenues.

Finally, let us make sure that councils have the powers—be it through compulsory purchase order, or through their ability to buy and control land—to do what local councils in other countries in Europe, the US and Asia already do: provide a lead role in assembling and preparing land for development. That is the norm in most of the rest of the world; the UK is unusual in not having that arrangement. That is why a UK council cannot control the speed with which a developer builds out.

In fact, in the UK the one thing that is not up for negotiation is the price paid to the landowner. Everything else can go hang. The amount of social contributions can be pushed down by the developer, and the speed of build-out can be extended over many, many years in order to keep the price up. The only thing that is fixed in our system is the price paid to the landowner. Let us turn the system around and have a more European-style approach to the matter.

As well as doing all those things, let us have a different approach to the way we go about development. In more rural or suburban areas, such as mine, I would love to see more development happening in stand-alone developments, so that we can provide infrastructure and a whole planned approach to a new community, rather than tacking things on and overloading all of our existing villages and towns. Let us build new communities where we will disturb fewer people.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

On that point, I share my hon. Friend’s view that when there is the demand to build such huge numbers of homes, there should be a stand-alone community. However, the phrase “stand-alone” must mean stand-alone, and not a community that is dumped in a place, such as the Parlington estate in my constituency, which would have a massive effect on the villages around it? Development needs to be stand-alone.

[Neil O'Brien]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we are lucky to have with us here today one of the Members for Milton Keynes, because Milton Keynes shows us what proper, planned development can do; it can create nice places that lots of people want to live in.

I would like to see more of the development in this country happening in our cities. Changes such as the development of the modern knowledge-based economy mean that our cities are both where support for new development is highest and where the demand for new development is highest. Let us try to build more in our cities. Let us help inner-city councils build more, by liberalising building up, by giving them devolved powers over public transport, and by giving them the powers to assemble land, in order to unlock fragmented brownfield sites, so that we can actually get more built in our cities. That is how we can have a new approach.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk is right to raise the issue of the five-year land supply. At the moment we have three tests on local councils: the requirement to have a local plan, the five-year land supply and the new delivery test that will be coming in over the coming year. Effectively, we have a belt and two braces. Of those three tests, the most opaque is the five-year land supply. It is extremely difficult for a council to know whether it has a five-year land supply, and it is extremely easy for developers to game that process and keep councils deliberately below the five-year land supply to stop them getting control over development in their area. It is the weakest of the three existing tests.

I end by agreeing strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk. He said, “It is perfectly reasonable to expect our councils to have a local plan, but how can we impose these tests on them without giving them the tools to control developers, development and where things happen?” The heartbreaking thing in many constituencies is where a council wants to do good development and build a real new community with proper infrastructure and a real heart, or the community has worked for two years to come up with a neighbourhood plan that works for the specific circumstances in that area, and developers come along, game the system and cut off at the knees our local elected representatives and the people who have worked hard to build neighbourhood plans. That is the killer in those situations. There is nothing more corrosive for public support for our current planning system than when we see councils that want to be brave and do good new development have their good plans cut off at the knees by developers gaming the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Despite his sudden shyness, the man in the cream suit has an identical question, and I want to give him his opportunity. Mr Alec Shelbrooke.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

No. 17, sir.

[Mr Speaker]

No, spit it out now, man!

[Alec Shelbrooke]

17. Since 2010, my city of Leeds has seen hundreds of millions of pounds invested in its transport infrastructure. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can confirm that the billions of pounds that were to be put into the northern powerhouse to invest in transport infrastructure across the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber will still be delivered.

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

UK Economy

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, but I must press on for a while.

It is important to recognise that economic decline and regional inequality, and the deep-rooted alienation and despair that they have produced, contributed to the fact that so many people voted to leave the EU. Some fear that a shock to business investment spending would help to push the entire economy into another recession. Again, I call for a fresh programme of Government investment to produce shovel-ready projects, especially in the areas that have been hardest hit by long-term economic decline.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of the conversation that is taking place this afternoon, that there has been considerable investment in some northern cities, such as my city of Leeds? In the last month, Kirkstall Forge railway station opened in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and half a billion has been spent on other projects in the city. It is not all talk—I understand the politics of it—but I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that some of our great northern cities have benefited from real investment.

[John McDonnell]

We must not talk down some of the success that has been achieved so far, but, although it has dealt with regional economic problems, it has not been on a sufficient scale to rebalance the economy in the way that was promised. As a result, a disillusioned section of the electorate were willing to blame anyone, including migrants and including the EU, and accordingly voted to leave. People felt that communities had been left behind, and I believe that that is a consequence of the lack of investment in recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

We are now seeing the consequence of the lack of plan. The expectation that those who campaigned to stay in should be preparing the work for those who wanted to leave is preposterous in the extreme.

We back the motion also because the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. We have shown ourselves to be a modern, outward-looking and inclusive country, and I share the view of others. We look on in horror as community cohesion is under threat as the racists and the bigots think the result of the referendum is a green light to abuse anyone from any other background. It is not, and we unreservedly condemn that racism and that bigotry.

Let us understand what happened in Scotland on the day of the referendum. The people there made it clear that they see their future as part of the EU: 62% of the Scottish people—a nation—voted to stay in the EU, compared with 48.1% across the UK, and 51.9% across the UK voted to leave; only 38% in Scotland chose to do that. Over 1.5 million people voted remain. Each and every one of the 32 council areas voted to remain—the only nation in the UK with a clean sweep of local authorities voting to stay in. At a little more than 67%, the turnout was the second highest of any referendum held in Scotland, even higher than the 1997 referendum on devolution. So while I understand what the Chancellor said about respecting the will of the UK people, I hope that the same will apply to respecting the will of the Scottish nation, who have clearly said that they intend to stay in.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will give way one more time.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Given the clear decision that Scotland made, if it came to a vote on the Floor of the House on whether to implement article 50, would the SNP say no?

[Stewart Hosie]

The Government have made it clear that it will be for the next Government to bring forward such a vote. I think we have got until September or October at the earliest before we need to decide whether to do that.

We are disappointed that the UK voted to leave. That is not what we wanted. The priority must be, as others have said, to stabilise markets and to protect the economy. That is why our First Minister is in Brussels today, and it is why she has said that our Government are exploring each and every potential avenue to maintain Scotland’s EU status, because that is where the instability is coming from.

Let me say one more thing about the previous referendum, and then I will move on to the economic consequences. It is democratically unacceptable for Scotland to be removed from the EU against its will. The irony is that we were told time after time before our independence referendum that the threat to our position in the EU came from independence. Alistair Darling told us that in November 2012. Ruth Davidson told us that on 2 September 2014:

“It is disingenuous…to say that no means out and yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in,”

she said. Even the Better Together campaign tweeted the same day:

“What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes.”

How wrong, and how misleading that all was. Our place in the EU was never under threat from independence; it was, and it is now, very much in jeopardy only because of the UK decision to leave.

I will move on from that. Now is the time for calm, measured reflection, with our First Minister and Government doing everything they can, including talking directly to Brussels today, to secure our European status and to provide as much reassurance and certainty as we can over the next days and weeks. It is the time for being reassuring, as we all should and must, to individuals from the EU and further afield, because we believe—as most in this House believe—that they remain welcome and appreciated here.

We must also do all we can to help to restore financial stability, to reassure the business community and to emphasise that, of now, we remain members of the EU and we are firmly in the EU; that trade and business should continue; and that we should all do everything we can to say to those planning inward investment, “This remains a place where one should invest one’s capital with confidence.”

Why is this important? Because the FTSE 100 dropped by 8.4% on the morning of 24 June. On 27 June the downward trend continued; by late afternoon, the FTSE was down another 150 points, or 2.5%. Friday morning’s sudden drop meant that £137 billion was wiped off UK blue chip stocks within minutes of the markets opening. As the Chancellor said earlier, banks, house builders and others were the biggest fallers. Taylor Wimpey was down 42%, Persimmon 40% and RBS 34%. During Monday morning, trading in the shares of Barclays and RBS was briefly halted as the sharp losses exceeded 10% of their stock value. After trading was restarted, the share price of both companies continued to fall and move wildly because of the uncertainty. The FTSE 250 index, which has more businesses in it that are exposed to the domestic market, fell even further—by 7.2%, or 1,200 points. Those were extraordinary falls and changes in both markets. PageGroup led the fall; there was a 58% slump in the value of its stock.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As I have explained, HMRC received in April 2010 the disc that had all the information on individual bank accounts. It then set about investigating all those individuals and bringing those prosecutions. We have known—[Interruption.] The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that we have known this for five years. We have known for five years that there was egregious tax evasion 10 years ago under the Labour Government. We have put the resources into pursuing that, collecting the money and passing the international agreements to ensure that it never happens again in our country.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he believes to be the difference between tax avoidance and tax efficiency?

[Mr Osborne]

As I said earlier, tax evasion is illegal. Aggressive tax avoidance is something that we are taking enormous steps to prevent. We have passed laws and introduced the general anti-abuse rule to ensure that we are collecting a fair amount of taxation from our population.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

If we want wages to increase, which we do, we need to improve our education system, ensure that we have a welfare system that makes work pay, improve our infrastructure and have competitive tax systems. In brief, we need a long-term economic plan. That is what we have got with this Government, and it is not what we would have with the Labour party.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will recognise that getting the deficit under control is vital if we want a strong economy. For all the posturing that we have seen today from the Labour party about the NHS, does he recognise that Greece, which had a smaller deficit to the one we had in this country when we came to power, had to cut spending on health services by 14%? Does he agree that only a strong economy can deliver a strong health service?

[Mr Gauke]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who puts it well. We want a strong NHS, but a strong NHS requires a strong economy, and that requires the Government’s policies to continue.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

You cannot trust the Labour party with people’s money. Every Labour Government leads this country into bankruptcy. Every Labour Government left office with unemployment higher than when it came to office. That is what Labour does when it gets into office. People remember that and they will not trust them with the public finances again. We remember what Labour said was going to happen to jobs: they said that 1 million jobs would be lost. Instead, we have 1.7 million more people in work. Unemployment is falling. Youth unemployment is down by more than half. Full employment is in sight. They said that public services would be decimated and crime would rise. Crime has fallen and satisfaction with local government services is up. They said that the north of England would suffer the most, just as it had suffered the most in their great recession. Now, the fastest growing part of our economy is the north of England and we are building that northern powerhouse.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I wonder if my right hon. Friend, during his busy schedule, was able to notice the comment of the Labour leader of Leeds city council, who said that he has to hand it to George Osborne because he is doing more in the north of England than a Labour Government ever did.

[Mr Osborne]

There has been a constructive alliance between Labour civic leaders in the north of England and Conservatives to bring an elected mayor to Greater Manchester and deliver High Speed 2. We have done so in the face of the opposition of the Labour shadow Chancellor, who has tried to frustrate all these things all along. Thankfully, Labour civic leaders are not listening to those on their own Front Bench anymore.

Although the deficit has been halved, at 5% of our national income, it is too high. Our national debt, at 80% of our national income, is too high.

amendment of the law

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am very proud of the record of the previous Labour Government: 2 million new homes, including 500,000 affordable homes, and a huge number of social homes that were brought up to decency standard. One thing that the previous Conservative Government bequeathed the previous Labour Government was a lot of council houses that were in poor condition because they had not invested any money in improving them. When the Secretary of State is next having a conversation with the Prime Minister, he might point out that the next time he walks down that famous staircase in No. 10 past the photographs of his predecessors, he will have to get all the way to Stanley Baldwin to find a Prime Minister with a worse record of building houses than the current occupant of that office.

In his 2011 Budget speech, the Chancellor told us that he would deliver an economy

“carried aloft by the march of the makers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]

Although, as the Secretary of State says, housing starts are now finally up, what has happened to construction output overall? It has fallen by 4.2%. I do not know how many marches the Chancellor has been on, but the general idea of a march is that one goes forwards rather than backwards.

Although the Government’s record of building houses has been poor, they have intervened in the mortgage market through Help to Buy, and last Wednesday the Chancellor made an announcement about extending the equity loan scheme to 2020. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, we support help for people, especially first-time buyers, to realise their dream of home ownership, but if the Government simply increase demand and do not do enough to increase supply, all that will happen is that house prices will rise further out of reach of the very people we are seeking to help. That is why the Treasury Committee and the International Monetary Fund express concerns about Help to Buy. I presume that the Chancellor has now finally acknowledged that, as he told the House last week that he has asked the Bank of England

“to be particularly vigilant against the emergence of potential risks in the housing market.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 783-84.]

That is progress, but could the Minister tell us when he replies exactly what that means in practice and how we and the public will be kept informed of how that vigilance is operating?

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

First, I offer my condolences to the right hon. Gentleman, as a fellow Leeds MP, for the loss his family has suffered. As a fellow Leeds MP, he will know some of the pressures of development in Leeds, with some 70,000 units to be built in the city, despite talk in the Leeds core strategy. Does he agree that we must be careful about where these large-scale developments are built? If we are massively to change the shape of the village of Scholes in my constituency, say, that would have the unfortunate effect of lowering house prices and putting people into—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows the area so well, has the message.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am very strongly in favour of affordable housing—I was not aware that we had any county councils in west London, but I think that the hon. Lady was referring to something else. We need more private housing, more housing for rent and more social housing at a price that people can afford.

We also need new towns and garden cities, so what about what I would refer to as the great mystery of the highly reclusive new towns and garden cities prospectus? Just to remind the House, two years ago, the Prime Minister announced that he would be publishing a consultation by the end of the year on garden cities—does everyone remember that?—but 2012 came to an end and it did not appear, and 2013 happened and it still did not materialise. We then read reports in the newspapers that the Prime Minister was suppressing a document and had gone cold on the whole idea. Then, in January, the Housing Minister said that he was not aware of a report that was supposed to have been published, but the Deputy Prime Minister said that there was a prospectus and that the Government should be honest about their intentions. Then the Secretary of State contradicted his Housing Minister and said that he had been told by his Department that there was a report, but not a report from the Department for Communities and Local Government—I do hope the House is keeping up.

Then, last week, the Chancellor announced that there would be a new garden city at Ebbsfleet with 15,000 homes. The only trouble is that that is 5,000 fewer homes than the 20,000-home development announced for Ebbsfleet in December 2012. Only this Chancellor could proclaim a smaller development as a triumph—backwards not forwards. We look forward to the publication of that prospectus, hopefully before Easter, and if the Secretary of State has not already seen a copy, I trust he will ask for it. After such a lengthy gestation, I hope that it does not disappoint him or the rest of us.

That episode shows that there has clearly been fighting within the Government—within the Cabinet—about what should be in it. We now know, thanks to the Yorkshire Post and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), that the same thing is happening inside the Department for Communities and Local Government.

I feel very sorry for the Under-Secretary, whom I notice is not in his place today, because he does not always look entirely happy and that may be why he decided to unburden himself at the Lib Dem conference recently. He said that being compared to the Secretary of State—I think it was a joke—was

“the most grievous possible insult”

that anyone could deliver. I think that is unfair and unkind to his boss. He was complimentary about the Planning Minister but said that he was

“hated by many Tory MPs”.

That is possibly true, but I think it is also unfair, and since then, the hon. Gentleman seems to have been given all the pretty unpleasant jobs in the Department, defending the indefensible. I hope the fact that he is not here today does not mean that he is being held hostage in the Department by the Secretary of State and I hope that he retains his independent streak.

The most damning comments from the Under-Secretary were about a flagship policy of his own Department:

“The new homes bonus… I’m not a fan of. I don’t think it’s an incentive, necessarily, for local authorities to give planning permission. I don’t think it’s actually driving decision-making on the ground.”

He is in good company, because the National Audit Office agrees. As we are already aware, the Housing Minister does not seem to know what it is meant for either, because he has told the House:

“I am afraid the new homes bonus is not about encouraging people to build homes.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 11.]

We have now had it from two Ministers—it is not effective.

The new homes bonus is also profoundly unfair. It is given to councils according to the number of homes that happen to be built in their area and it is top-sliced from formula grant, which is distributed according to need. Therefore—surprise, surprise—the areas that are getting most of the money are those where the homes will probably be built anyway, which tend to be better off, while the areas that are losing funding are those where there is less demand for housing, which tend to be worse off. It is yet another example of this Government, in tough times, taking most from those who have least, and in so doing they fail that basic test of fairness.

The Government just do not get it. At a time when real wages are falling, as was confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility document published last week, they think that the most important thing to do is give millionaires a tax cut. They think that councils in the most deprived areas with the greatest need should face the biggest reductions, while some of the wealthiest councils get an increase in the money they have to spend.

There are 10 Members of Parliament lucky enough to have councils in their constituencies that will be better off in terms of spending power per household—the Secretary of State’s preferred measure—by 2015-16 than they were in 2010-11. Four of them are in the Cabinet. Two of them are Government Whips. Under this Secretary of State, the 25 most deprived local authorities in England will lose 10 times as much spending power per household as the 25 least deprived.

Not only are we seeing the biggest reductions in spending power in the areas with the highest need while there are increases in spending power in the wealthiest areas, but before long, the funding difference between those areas, having eroded, will in some cases be reversed. Within four years, under this Government, local spending power per household will be higher in Wokingham—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is no longer in his place—than it will be in Leeds, Sheffield or Newcastle, even though those cities face far greater pressures.

Most people would say that that is extraordinary. Most people would regard it as unfair and impossible to justify. So why does the Secretary of State think that areas in greater need should actually receive less? We know what he thinks already, because in tough times for councils some services are becoming unviable, with entitlement to social care disappearing in some cases, and libraries, the arts, Sure Start centres and women’s refuges going. What does he say to councils? He says, “What’s your problem? These cuts are really quite modest. What are you complaining about?”

It is not just communities that are being hit; it is the people in the greatest need in those communities. What has the Secretary of State done? He has forced up council tax bills for people in work on the lowest incomes: carers, the disabled, injured veterans and war widows. Summonses have been issued and bailiffs are knocking on doors, because people are poor. That is why they are being affected.

The Government are forcing people to pay the hated and immoral bedroom tax, undermining community, neighbourliness and a sense of place. Once again, that hits people on the lowest incomes, most of whom are disabled. Let us consider for a moment a family receiving housing benefit, a mother and father with two children living in a three-bedroom council house. If one of the children leaves home to get a job, the Government are telling that family, “Move.” Two years later, the second child leaves home and gets a job elsewhere. What do the Government say to that family? They say, “Just move again”, leaving mum and dad in a one-bedroom property. Then, three years later, the father’s mother becomes ill and needs to come and live with them so that they can care for her. What do the Government say? “Oh, just move again.” I cannot think of a policy more calculated to undermine family life, and you know what? That family will not even have a spare bedroom so that their grandchildren can come and stay. That is why people are so angry about the bedroom tax and why, if we win in 2015, we will abolish it.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman has had a go. I am going to bring my remarks to an end, because many people want to speak.

Only last week, when the Chancellor had the nerve to get up in the House and say, “Oh, well, we are all in this together”, and the OBR confirmed that real wages were falling, what did we discover? That some Cabinet Ministers had been giving hefty pay rises—to whom? Their special advisers. The architect of and chief apologist for the bedroom tax, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, gave his special adviser a 36% pay increase in one year alone. If that is not proof that this Government stand up for the wrong people, I do not know what is.

This is a Budget that provides too little, too late to deal with either the chronic shortage of houses or the cost of living crisis, and the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have shown once again that they do not really understand, and are not prepared to take the action that we need to make life better for the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

According to the Conservatives, we should have wrapped the banks in red tape and nailed them to the floor. Would they have done that? Of course not. They would have done exactly what we did.

I want to get to the meat of the problem, so I will start with pensions. I am not a believer in a nanny state and never have been. If Members look at my record, they will see that I have voted against many such proposals. I looked at the pensions proposal carefully. I know a lot of pensioners who are not getting what they should be getting out of their pensions after they have bought an annuity.

The proposal reminds me of when I was a coal miner. When all the coal mines were closing, the Government decided that the miners could pull their pension out of the National Union of Mineworkers pension fund and put it into something else if they got a better deal. Of course, all the Scrooges came around, knocking at the doors of the miners. They said, “Will you organise a meeting?” Would I hell! They were there to grab the miners’ money. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Transport is here, because he knows what I am talking about.

A lot of the men were bought. They pulled their money out of the miners’ pension scheme and put it into all sorts of finance companies that offered them a better deal. That did not last two years. Before long, they were all trying to get back into the scheme. The other schemes were a disaster. There was mis-selling on a big scale. The miners’ pension scheme had to be opened again so that the men could put their pensions back into it. They were given two years to do it. If they did not do it in that time, they were left with the company that they had gone with.

We have to be careful that that sort of mis-selling does not happen. I understand the problem. It is good that people can have control of their own money. I have no problem with that, but we might be stirring up a hornets’ nest. I do not trust the institutions one little bit.

On wages, we all know—it is a fact that is on record—that people who are working have lost out by £1,600 a year. People in two or three industries—especially those who work in local government, which we are talking about tonight—have not had a rise for three or four years. According to the latest figures that I have, £39 billion has been taken out of the economy since the austerity programme started because people have not got wage rises. It is no wonder that the economy is sluggish. If money is taken out of the economy, it will be sluggish. All that some workers have to look forward to is zero-hours contracts and food banks.

People do not realise what the welfare cap means or what it includes. Child benefit is capped. Incapacity benefit is capped. Winter fuel allowance is capped. Income support is capped. People do not realise what the cap means. There is a big figure, but people do not realise what is under it and what it means for them.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Campbell]

No, I do not have time.

I got hold of a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions. It says that before the austerity measures were brought in, an average of 12,530 people on jobseeker’s allowance were sanctioned each month in north-east England. Under the new arrangements brought in by this Government, that has gone up to an average of 29,000 people a month. People are being sanctioned and do not have any money. That is why the food banks are increasing. People have no money and do not know where they will get their next meal, so they have to be sent to the food bank.

Some people are sanctioned fairly and some are rightly sanctioned. Like other Members, I have had many people come to my office who have never looked for a job. I tell them that they have to go out and look for a job—that even if it is a job as a brain surgeon, they should apply for it. A lot of people are not doing that, but a lot of people are and they are being sanctioned unfairly.

The borrowing requirements are a bit of a joke. In this year alone, the Government will borrow £50 billion. Perhaps that is where all the money is going. That will leave us £111 billion in debt. That is the situation that this country is in. If that is the economy getting better and if that is the country reducing the deficit, I will eat my hat. Quite honestly, I think that we are heading for the rocks or for a car crash—one or the other.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell). I was not going to make some of these points, but I cannot resist.

In 1997, some 17 years ago, many of us were not yet Members of Parliament. I remember the Labour party coming into office to the theme tune “Things Can Only Get Better”. The electorate will judge that claim in times to come. Labour likes to talk about the Conservatives’ 26 tax rises, but the inconvenient truth is that under all Labour Governments the burden of taxation increases dramatically. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west; Labour will always raise taxes and spend our money. Those are the truisms of life, and they always will be.

An increase from 10% to 11% in employees’ national insurance may not sound like much, but it amounts to an increase of 10%; in the case of the employer, the rise was a shocking 28%. No wonder Conservatives recognise national insurance contributions as a tax on jobs. Labour can talk all it wants about tax rises, but the people of Britain have long memories and will remember 13 years of a Labour Government during which the Treasury regularly raided people’s pay packets, and created a system in which businesses faced increased pressures and costs when creating jobs.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Can my hon. Friend explain why some people think the banks caused all the borrowing, when Labour borrowed £80 billion in 2006?

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Labour took its eye off the ball when it came to borrowing, and no one can deny that.

Thankfully, today things are different. Taxes on business were too high under Labour and corporation tax was 28% when this Government came to power. As the new tax year approaches, businesses will feel the impact of several important tax cuts. Corporation tax will fall to 21%, help on business rates will come in, and the landmark employment allowance will take up to £2,000 off employers’ national insurance bills.

Politics is always about being local, and in my constituency the Government’s changes are translating into new jobs and opportunities for my city. I have spoken regularly in the House about the positive impact that the arrival of Jaguar Land Rover will have on the city, but I have not so far spoken about the impact of the new Sainsbury’s store on Raglan street, which will create nearly 200 jobs. The sprawling Raglan street site stood empty for 10 years; it was a blight on the city and a sad symbol of our lack of progress. One of my first priorities was for that to change and, thankfully, ground was finally broken at the site last October.

This morning, it was a pleasure to welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Marston’s, a valued employer and brewery in my constituency. The company, which employs around 1,000 people at its brewery and headquarters, invests in opening dozens of new pub-restaurants every year, creating hundreds of jobs nationwide. I met the chief executives of three breweries, all of whom concurred with the view that the Budget was good news for jobs and growth.

The third and final piece of good news for the city came two weeks ago, when I visited the Woodthorne development by David Wilson Homes on Wergs road in Wolverhampton. Local jobs have been created to provide new homes in the city. The Woodthorne development will provide 58 new homes over the coming months, underpinning nearly 120 jobs for local people. It is great news that new homes are being built in the city and that a local work force is being used to build them. Support for small and medium-sized developers to access development finance through the builders finance fund will provide more than £500 million for two years from 2015-16 to deliver up to 15,000 homes.

The Help to Buy loan scheme has already helped 25,000 people to buy their own homes when they could not previously afford the deposit, and it has helped to build more houses. Owning one’s own home should always be one of life’s biggest aspirations, and the Government will help even more people to achieve that dream.

People who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives will now be trusted with their own finances. The Government will completely change the tax treatment of defined contribution pensions to bring it into line with the modern world. From March 2017, the Government will cut the income requirement for flexible draw-down from £20,000 to £12,000, raise the capped draw-down limit from 120% to 150%, and almost double the total pension savings people can take as a lump sum to £30,000. I am really heartened by that initiative because it constitutes a clear blue line and political divide: we trust people with their own money.

I have been poor in my life—to be honest, I have been dirt poor. What got me and my family out of poverty was taking responsibility for myself, making my own choices and taking my own risks—not a Government body or quango. The Government will empower people by trusting them with their own money, and the changes on annuities encapsulate that sentiment.

The Budget also shows that we are on the side of manufacturers, creating a Britain that makes things again. We are cutting the cost of manufacturing by cutting the cost of energy bills for manufacturers. We are doubling the annual investment allowance to £500,000 and delivering the most competitive export finance in Europe by doubling the Government lending available to exporters to £3 billion, and cutting the typical interest rate on it by more than a third.

Boosting savings, putting the public finances on a stable footing and making it easier for companies to invest were the key themes of this year’s Budget, and I support wholeheartedly the Government’s efforts to continue to rebuild our once broken economy. It is interesting to reflect on those key themes and what we remember from 1997 onwards—golden economic rules, prudence and, more recently, “cutting too far, too fast”. We do not hear those words any more. At least this Budget will build an economic inheritance that we can pass on to our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Newmark]

That is a fine example of exactly why raising the allowance from £25,000 to £250,000 was an important decision that created jobs. As my hon. Friend has indicated, doubling it again will create even more jobs.

This is a Budget for hard-working people, with petrol duty frozen; a penny off a pint of beer, again; and, most importantly, the personal allowance raised to £10,500, cutting taxation for over 25 million people and lifting 3.2 million people out of tax altogether.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Mr Newmark]

I can give way only twice; I am sorry about that.

A typical taxpayer in my constituency of Braintree will pay £805 less in tax than they would have done before.

This Budget continues the drive to reform local public services and get value for money for local people. Braintree district council, under the leadership of Councillor Graham Butland, has reduced council taxes by 1% this year and 1% again next year, yet the council continues to invest in our town centres with initiatives such as the new jewellery village, supporting 12 new traders in Braintree town, and the pop-up shops generating four new retailers such as Chic Décor, started by Emma Jane Jarvis.

Essex county council, under the leadership of Councillor David Finch, is also to be congratulated. It has frozen its council tax for four years in a row, yet at the same time invested £3 million in flood prevention, £1 million in youth facilities, and £1.4 million to support vulnerable older people. Of course, the extra £2.7 million of funding in this Budget to address the blight of potholes on our roads throughout Essex, but especially in our rural areas, is also more than welcome.

This is indeed a Budget for hard-working people: for the makers, the doers, and the savers. Our long-term economic plan is slowly but surely beginning to pay dividends. I am delighted to support the 2014 Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I rise in support of a Budget that really gets down to doing the job.

Let me start with a constant bugbear of my constituents: the state of the roads. The additional funding to repair the potholes and road damage that came about over the winter is hugely welcome to my constituents. The funding for my city of Leeds is £949,426—almost £1 million of extra money. Altogether, the Government will have spent £4.5 billion on road repairs in this Parliament, which is £800 million more than the last Labour Government spent in their final term in office.

We need to keep a close eye on where the Labour party on Leeds city council spends that money. It has almost revelled in making cuts to front-line services in our city, purely for politically motivated reasons. That is the only explanation for why, when cutting front-line services, it has spent £1.8 million on a website, £600,000 on furniture and hundreds of thousands of pounds on union time and facilities. We must ensure that the £1 million that goes into Leeds is spent as extra money on the roads, and is not the only money that is spent on the roads. Unfortunately, we have a Labour council in Leeds which governs in its own political interests, not in the interests of those who rely on its services. Even outside the financial issues, the council is too slow to get anything sorted out, such as housing and land supply.

It is massively welcome to cities such as Leeds and constituencies such as mine that a £500 million pot is now available for SME developers. With the inclusion of windfall—and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and I lobbied very hard for Leeds to be included in the land supply—it means that we should be able to relieve the pressure that villages in my constituency feel to take some of the 12,500 houses that Leeds city council has designated for the area. The time taken to identify major areas of sustainable development, such as Headley Fields in the north of my constituency and Makins Farm in Garforth, is ridiculously slow, but the proactive stance that we are taking in the city is much better than the Labour policy of building 200,000 new homes and seizing the land to build them on—a frankly Stalinist policy. Labour leaflets talk proudly of that policy, but fail to tell local communities that they would effectively lose any say in the location of that development.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to hear a few other gems from Labour’s latest newsletter on economic policy. Top of the list is a pension triple lock, so that any increase would never be lower than 2.5% and would also be in line with the higher of earnings or inflation. One can only guess how Labour thought that policy up—it sounds like a winner. I would suggest that we adopt it if we had not already done so three years ago. It certainly beats the 75p rise of a few years ago. Labour also voted against our triple lock when we introduced it.

Labour also says that it will cut taxes for 24 million people by introducing a 10p rate, but in office it doubled tax on the lowest earners. We did not double that tax: we abolished it. Effectively, that is a watering down of the policy of abolishing tax for the lowest paid. Labour says that it will back small businesses by—wait for this—cutting the rates in 2015 and then freezing them. We gave £1,000 back to businesses with under £50,000 of rateable value, which had a huge impact on the SMEs and small shop owners in my villages of Wetherby, Garforth and Rothwell—a real investment after years of non-investment.

Labour also says it will strengthen the minimum wage: we are doing that. What we are not doing is chasing easy headlines on the living wage, which has already risen by 40p since the argument started a few months ago. We cannot chase wages with an inflation-led policy: we have to make sure that we cut taxes on businesses so that the money goes into the pockets of hard-working people such as my constituents. That approach is sustainable in the long run and that is what we are doing. I want to see the minimum wage reach at least £7, when we are able to afford it by cutting taxes and making sure that what businesses are not giving to the Government goes directly into the pockets of the people who are doing the work.

Compare our approach to Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee scheme, which no firms have signed up to. It would subsidise public sector jobs and create non-jobs. There is nothing more demoralising than being sent to a workplace with nothing to do. Do not patronise my constituents: do what the Government are doing and ensure that we have strong economic growth, leading to real jobs for people. Apprenticeships in my constituency are up 63% since the election, and that is making a real difference. I have had enough Labour shadow Ministers coming to my constituency recently to hear that from people on the doorstep. Clearly they have their ears closed to them, as they seem to listen only to the Labour candidate with all her ideas from Tooting, where she lives. Perhaps those ideas work well around the dinner tables in London, but in my constituency they would not work at all. My hon. Friend the Minister should take heart from the fact that the Opposition’s economic policies have either already been put in place by the Government or have no traction outside the north London kitchen tables in the multi-million pound houses of Labour Front Benchers.

We froze council tax: that is why hard-working people have seen their taxes cut. But this year Labour has raised it by 1.99%—a disgraceful attempt to hoodwink the electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am much obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this late hour to speak about what I consider to be an extremely effective Budget. I think that it is a Budget about business, about aspiration, and about savings. I also think that it recognises what everyone else has recognised in the last six months: that the country is back on its feet after a very poor period of stagnating growth, and that we have stuck to the plan and put Britain back on track.

It is particularly paradoxical to hear Opposition Members say that the recovery is unbalanced. A year ago, they complained that there was no recovery. A year ago, they were talking about triple dip. A year ago, they were talking about trying to go back to plan B and ditching the original plan. Today, when we have the strongest growth in the OECD and the strongest growth among our European partners, they complain about the nature of the growth. It is true that the growth could be more balanced, but I certainly prefer some growth to no growth whatsoever.

I want to talk about the general fiscal position of this country. We have heard a lot of arguments today, especially from the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), suggesting that Labour had nothing to do with the debt crisis and the deficit this Government inherited in 2010. Nothing could be more absurd. If we look at the fiscal position in 2001, we will see that the Budget was balanced. In fact I think the first Labour Administration were pretty good in terms of the fiscal position—I have said that publicly before, although I was not endorsed by the Whips for doing so. For those four years the Budget was either in balance or in surplus and it was a very good fiscal record.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

During the first four years of that Labour Government, which were fiscally very good, they were following the plans adopted by the previous Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely, but I think we should, in this very partisan place, give credit where credit is due. That Labour Government ran a very good, tight ship for four years, but then of course the demons of their worst nature took over and they reverted to type, and from 2002 right through to the crisis we ran deficit after deficit after deficit. That was the inexcusable part of that Government. It was bad Gordon as opposed to good Gordon—prudent Gordon—that took over after 2001, and the previous Prime Minister himself, the then Member for Sedgefield, has suggested that they spent too much money. He has admitted that while he was Prime Minister the Government spent too much money, and that is clearly the case. In the Budgets from 2002 right up to 2007, before the banking crisis was even an issue and before Lehman Brothers went broke, the Government were continually running deficits.

National Minimum Wage

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I think hon. Members have had a chance to debate that already. I am a great advocate of the new model developed by Handelsbanken of relationship banking and no bonuses—that is what we ought to have—but I suspect that even their branch managers are paid above the minimum wage.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share the incredulity of Government Members that for all the talk of bankers not having been affected, not one person has condemned the fact that trade union leaders have been getting double-digit pay rises in the same period?

[Vince Cable]

I suspect that that is also true, but I am trying to get away from the tribal debate that the shadow Secretary of State was so keen to launch.

To return to the thread of the argument, we have had a major shock, and it has reduced real earnings and the real minimum wage. I fully acknowledge that; it is a matter of fact. The question is: what is being done to mitigate the effects? Two major changes have taken place. First, the Government have recognised that earnings are not the same as take-home pay and disposable income, and we have therefore concentrated our tax policy on lifting low earners out of tax. As a result, 2.7 million low earners now pay no income tax. Those working 28 hours a week on the minimum wage pay no income tax, while those on 35 hours pay only one third of the income tax they paid at the beginning of this Government. We have therefore considerably reduced the impact of the squeeze on real incomes by using tax policy.

The second highly relevant issue is the level of unemployment. After the great crash in 1929, unemployment rose to 20%. In the recent financial crisis, countries less affected than the UK have had considerably higher unemployment—I am talking about France and Sweden, among others. We reached a peak of 8.5%; it has now gone down to 7% and is falling. We have record numbers of people in work, while the number of jobs has increased by 1.3 million, in the wake of this enormous economic crisis. Now, why has that happened? It has happened because millions of individual workers, realising that there is a choice to be made between jobs and pay, have wisely decided that it is much more important to keep the employment.

The Low Pay Commission, speaking for the country as a whole, rather than for individuals, has reinforced that assessment. In its 2012 report, it explained its analysis in the following terms—let us remember this is not the Government, but an independent commission representing unions, employers and independent assessors. It said its aim was a minimum wage that helped

“as many low-paid workers as possible without any significant adverse impact on employment or the economy.”

That became the mandate—the remit—that I have used, and it is virtually identical to the remit used by my Labour predecessor. I simply ask Labour Members what they object to in that remit. Do they seriously think that the Low Pay Commission and the Secretary of State should ignore the state of the economy or the level of employment? What do they think is fundamentally wrong with the remit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it is an argument to which the trade unions on the Low Pay Commission fully subscribe. This is the first time that I have heard Members seriously question the competence of the Low Pay Commission and challenge the whole principle of its remit. I am appalled and alarmed that they should want to tear up and politicise a basically good system which has worked well under the last Government and under this one, in different circumstances. That really is very dangerous.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

What I find strange—I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees with me—is that the subject of the living wage keeps popping up on the Opposition Benches. Today’s debate is about the minimum wage, and the Labour motion does not call for the Low Pay Commission even to consider the issue of the living wage.

[Vince Cable]

Indeed. Admittedly the issue of the living wage is now part of the public debate, and of course I believe that if employers are profitable they should adopt it—particularly if they are taking advantage of their work forces—but we must be clear about the fact that making the living wage mandatory, either directly or indirectly, would have enormous implications for jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who opened this debate, is right about one thing: it was a mistake for my party to have opposed the minimum wage. I am glad that we support it now. If we are honest about our mistakes, the Opposition need to be honest about what went on: that it was a mistake to abolish the 10p income tax rate; that median real wages stopped rising from 2003; and that the value of the minimum wage did not decrease from 2010 but from 2008. All of us have made mistakes in these areas, and the Opposition should have welcomed the fact that we have taken 2 million lower earners out of tax altogether.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was also a mistake to put in petrol price rises year after year—Labour would have added the equivalent of 64p a gallon by this time—which dig directly into hard-working people’s pockets?

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is right; our party has a relentless focus on helping the lower paid. We should support the minimum wage because we are the party of aspiration and working people, and increasing the minimum wage eliminates the poverty trap, cuts the benefits bill and encourages more people to get back into work. If we do just one thing, it should be to increase the minimum wage at least to reflect the increase in inflation over the past few years.

I also urge the Government to institute a regional minimum wage—in addition to the national minimum wage, not as a substitute for it—because of the different costs of living in different parts of the country. I am talking about the differing costs not just from north to south, but within regions. That has been done in other countries, such as Canada and the United States, where individual states can set minimum wage rates above the federal minimum. We need to consider such an approach seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

As I recently outlined, I am not in favour of a statutory living wage, but I am in favour of raising the minimum wage.

A rise in the minimum wage, as national wage growth returns, fundamentally leads to a smaller state, as has been outlined by Labour Members. Now that the Government have reduced business taxes—national insurance, corporation taxes and small business taxes—and brought in last year’s rebate, the time is right to look at how we can create a sustainable growth in the wages of the lowest-paid by giving the taxation that the Government were taking back to the people who are creating the wealth in companies. That means that the potentially inflationary pressures will not occur because the Government are not taking tax from a company just to give it back to a worker.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend talks about the Government cutting business taxes. Does he agree that they have also raised taxes for the rich by increasing capital gains tax from 18% to 28% and increasing to 45p the 40p rate that existed in the 13 years under Labour?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend puts it most eloquently, as always.

This is an uncomfortable truth for Labour Members. [Interruption.] They have been yelling and shouting this afternoon, and they are at it again now as soon as they do not want to hear an inconvenient truth. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) put forward the false premise that Government Members are saying we should increase wages for the people at the top and cut them for those at the bottom—no Government Member has ever made such a comment; it was a disgraceful thing to say—but failed to mention that under his party’s Government, the noble Lord Mandelson said that he was perfectly comfortable with people getting “filthy rich”.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not this debate about the division of the spoils of productivity? We are looking for a division that is more like that of the 1950s, when those at the bottom were given a larger percentage than they get at the moment and those at the top got a smaller percentage. We now have a share-out of the spoils that is creating a level of inequality between sectors of society that we have not seen since the 1920s.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that extra minute. I will come to my own history lesson in a moment. He will of course welcome the fact that under this Government the gap between the poorest and the richest in society is the smallest it has been for 30 years, having grown under the previous Labour Government.

Let us talk about the problems of falsely increasing wages and go back to the 1970s. In 1975, my parents, who were young teachers, were given a 25% pay rise under Harold Wilson and were delighted with it. Twelve months later they suffered a 3% pay cut, because inflation had gone up to 28%. We also remember the then Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, demanding wage restraint at the Labour party conference, only to be booed by the floor. Having listened to this afternoon’s speeches, I am sure that some Members present would boo him now, too.

Wage inflation creates a real problem for people on fixed incomes who have worked hard their entire lives and paid into private pension funds, only to then see them eroded by inflation running out of control. For example, in 1965 my great uncle retired at the age of 65 on what was then a very reasonable pension of £15 a week. By the mid-1970s it was absolutely worthless.

If we go ahead with wage inflation in the way suggested by the Labour party without linking it to cutting taxes for business and making sure that it is sustainable, we will end up, as Neil Kinnock said, with a Labour council running around the city in taxis, giving out redundancy notices.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The problem for people on the minimum wage, though, is that it simply has not kept pace with inflation. Those people would each have been £675 better off had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, even over the past five years.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I entirely agree with everything the hon. Lady has just said. She is absolutely right. The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, but neither has anybody else’s wage, because of the devastation that the Labour party caused to the economy. It is going to take decades to get this country back on track, but what we are seeing now is a long-term, credible economic plan that is leading to real growth in business and GDP.

It is fundamentally evil to introduce policies that create inflation which people who are on fixed incomes and who have worked hard all their lives are unable to keep up with. Such policies must sound very good to the Islington elite as they sit around their dinner tables and say, “Let’s talk about a living wage. We must have a living wage.” It is notable, however, that Labour’s motion does not encourage the Low Pay Commission to look at a living wage.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I have already given way quite a lot, so I am afraid that I will not use up any more time. Having listened to the contributions of Labour Members, it seems to me that every single one of them has a different idea of what to do with a living wage.

Conservative Members accept the lessons of the past. Our party accepts that it was wrong to oppose the minimum wage. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and many Conservative Members have made that clear. Indeed, we are a party of young people from normal backgrounds these days. As the previous Member for South Shields said, the trouble is that the Conservative party is the party with working-class people in it and the Labour party is full of failed polytechnic lecturers. The fact is that their philosophising and great ideas that sound good around the table have a real impact on the lives of people at the bottom of society.

Those who cannot afford to keep up with inflation because their income may not rise with it need proper, sustainable policies. One such policy is the opportunity we have taken in this economic climate to cut taxes on business and cut the national insurance contributions of business leaders and employers, followed by making sure that those tax cuts go back to the people who create the wealth in the first place. That is a sustainable and sensible policy and a long-term economic plan. For all those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Cost of Living

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so interested in tax, because he will be sure to welcome the news that 38,000 people in his constituency have had an income tax cut and 4,500 have been taken out of income tax altogether.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for pointing out earlier that before the election the Minister worked for a bank that the British Government did not need to bail out, whereas the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury ran the campaign of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear at the Dispatch Box only last Wednesday that he did not agree with putting VAT on children’s clothes and food?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] The Prime Minister answered it. The Government have absolutely no plans to increase VAT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. We have had such debates on a number of occasions, but it is important that we have this one now, when the economy is growing. All the indicators from the IMF, the OECD and other estimable bodies suggest that the worst is over in the British economy and that we are encountering some sort of recovery.

More important than recovery in itself is understanding how we got into this position in the first place. The economy will be a very important issue in the next election. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) criticise the Chancellor and the Government for not reducing the deficit fast enough. When I asked what his solution was to this conundrum—whether he wanted to borrow more—he failed to answer. I still do not know what his answer is; perhaps he will care to enlighten us in the course of my speech.

It is true that the UK economy has faced a difficult few years given our reliance on financial services and, more importantly, the appalling fiscal legacy of the previous Labour Government. It was insane for them to borrow money in every fiscal year from 2001, even when the economy was growing. I have never heard of an economy growing at 3% while running a deficit of 3% of GDP. Not even Lord Keynes would have advocated such a policy. Yet we lived through a period in which we had year after year of deficit even when the economy was growing.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern that the most shocking thing that has emerged during this debate is that the shadow Chief Secretary does not appear to know the difference between deficit and debt?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is absolutely right. I was as shocked and appalled as my hon. Friend that, when I asked the shadow Chief Secretary what the absolute level of the British deficit is—it was a very simple, general knowledge-type question—he did not seem to know. I then asked him whether he knew what the deficit-to-GDP ratio is, but he flannelled away that supplementary question and did not even pay me the courtesy of answering it.

We have to look very carefully at the legacy of the previous Labour Government, because it has a direct impact on living costs and this cost of living debate. People in Britain—people in my constituency and, I am sure, in other constituencies across the country—intuitively understand that after a period of excessive spending in which, to borrow a metaphor, the national credit card went way beyond its limit, it is necessary to have a period in which spending is reduced. Nearly everyone understands that and, as a consequence, any poll that Members may care to look at shows that the Government and coalition parties have a considerably better rating on the issue than that of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and to speak in this debate. It gives me an opportunity to relate to the House the good news happening in Tamworth, which is not some leafy suburb but a no-nonsense, hard-working, gritty, midlands town. In Tamworth in the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen by 31%, youth unemployment by 35%, and long-term unemployment by nearly 40%.

Last month I held a jobs fair at which there were more jobs than jobseekers. There were some 400 jobs, including apprenticeships at Jaguar Land Rover and Spline Gauges, 50 jobs at Marston’s brewery, and jobs at Toys R Us. That demonstrates in a small but significant way how we have turned a corner and are creating real, sustainable jobs and growth for our constituents. It is our job to do that, and a story that Labour Members do not like to tell, just as they do not like to be reminded of their last miserable years in government, when in my town jobs were lost across the board. One could walk down the Glascote road and see repossession notices in window after window, as banks foreclosed on people’s homes. People were not just losing their jobs under Labour, they were losing their homes as well. We will not listen to lectures from Opposition Members when we remember the grisly legacy of Labour’s years, and we will not let them forget it either.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to receive a lecture, someone actually has to have some information given to them?

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, apposite in his point, and we look forward to hearing Labour’s plan—plan A, plan B, plan Z? One day perhaps we will hear what it might be.

We have heard something from the Leader of the Opposition, whose latest stunt is to announce an energy price freeze. We should beware geeks bearing gifts, because that announcement is pretty hollow for three reasons. First, if a price freeze is imposed, companies will simply hike their prices before the freeze and afterwards, and people will be paying artificially high energy prices. That is what Professor Dieter Helm says, as well as Adam Scorer from Consumer Focus. Even the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has raised that concern. He is a Labour member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee and says that Labour’s plans for an energy freeze are somewhat sketchy.

The second reason a freeze will not work is that rather than break up the big six oligopoly, it will entrench it. Stephen Fitzpatrick of Ovo and the First Utility company—the company of choice for the Leader of the Opposition—say that a price freeze will make it more difficult for them to break into the market and operate, and that it will entrench the position of the big six, rather than break it up. The third reason the freeze will not work is that it will jeopardise £125 billion-worth of investment that we must make in short order in our energy infrastructure—£25 billion of that in the pipes and pylons that keep our lights switched on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Meacher]

That may well have had something to do with it, but it happened also because the Tories decided to blank out the bankers’ bail-out and put the whole blame on the Labour party. For any objective economist or objective observer of any kind, that is obviously absurd.

Secondly, there was another and much better way to deal with the budget deficit than through semi-permanent austerity. It is costing the country £19 billion a year to keep 2.5 million people unemployed. I simply say that it would have been far better to get these people off benefit and into work through public investment, so that they could earn and contribute to the Exchequer through taxes and national insurance contributions. I well know that the question will come, “How do we pay for that?”, so I shall answer it. This can still be done—and it could have been done three years ago—without any increase in public borrowing at all, despite the Chancellor’s continuous jibes to the contrary, by a further tranche of quantitative easing targeted not on the banks but directly on industry, or by instructing the publicly owned banks RBS and Lloyds to prioritise lending to industry, or by taxing the ultra-rich.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that it was his Government who did the deals with RBS, yet they did absolutely nothing in those deals to force the banks to do things that they had decided they did not want to do.

[Mr Meacher]

There has been a great deal of partisanship in this debate, and I am prepared to recognise that the problems did not start with the present Government. I agree that we should have taken a much tougher line with the banks before 2010, but let us concentrate on where we are now, because the country is in a very serious position.

That brings me to the third point. We never were “all in it together”—quite the opposite, and to a stunning degree. In The Sunday Times rich list, the richest 1,000 of the UK’s citizens—a tiny 0.003% of the population—have increased their wealth in the five years since the crash by a staggering £190 billion, while 90% of the population over exactly the same period have had to take a real-terms cut of about 9%, and their wages are still falling. So much for social solidarity! If that £190 billion were charged to capital gains tax, it could technically raise £53 billion. I do not think it would for a moment, but it could realistically raise roughly £30 billion to £35 billion—quite enough to generate 1 million to 1.5 million jobs within two or three years. That would be a far quicker way of reducing the budget deficit—which is supposed to be the aim of the exercise—than spending cuts could ever be.

The Government’s fourth point is that we have a recovery. Well, we do have a recovery of sorts, but one that has been generated in exactly the wrong way. It has been generated by consumer borrowing and an incipient bubble, and it is not—I repeat, not—a real, sustainable recovery. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed out, such a recovery can come about only as a result of rising investment, increasing productivity, growing wages and healthy exports, and none of those is present now.

Over the last five years, Britain’s business investment has dropped in real terms by a devastating 25%, well below the global average. UK productivity is now almost the lowest among the OECD countries. As we were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), UK wages are undergoing the biggest fall since the 1870s, and are still falling. As for exports, Britain’s deficit on traded goods is still running at a mountainous rate of over £100 billion a year. If that is a recovery, God help us if we ever experience a downturn.

So has the Government’s economic policy failed? Not necessarily. It all depends on what we think the Government’s objectives really were. If the objective was to cut the budget deficit, as they claim, then yes: I think that the last three years of unending misery and austerity have involved a momentous waste of resources in return for almost nothing. According to the Government’s own figures, the budget deficit was £118 billion in 2011 and £115 billion in 2012. Like those who engaged in trench warfare during the first world war, we have advanced a few dozen yards, and have taken enormous casualties in order to do so. No sane person would continue with such a policy at such expense in blood and treasure, yet here we have a Government who are determined to slog on with exactly the same policies, and—as with the generals in the first world war—the cost is not to them, but only to the poor squaddies who are sent over the top.

My last point relates to a recent speech by the Prime Minister, which I am amazed he gave, and which I think will come back to haunt him. He said that even when the deficit was paid off—and I think that that time could be nearer to 2030 than 2020, given the direction in which we are going—there would be no restoration of spending that had been cut. The Tories, he proclaimed, believed in

“a leaner, more efficient state”.

What he really meant, of course, was a fully privatised state in which you had better succeed in the market, because otherwise there will be precious little help from public sources when you need it.

As for “efficient”, was that G4S at the Olympics? Was it Serco charging for tagging prisoners who had already died or left prison? Was it the big six energy companies ruthlessly profiteering at customers’ expense? Was it the water companies indulging in a profit bonanza for top executives and shareholders, but trying still to charge taxpayers? Was it outsourcing in the NHS, which has led to longer waiting lists and an inability to cope? Was it the free schools that have been set up in areas where there is an abundance of places, while areas where there is a shortage of places are abandoned? Lean and efficient? Come on!

I really do not believe that the Tory leadership sees the prolonged austerity and the economic disaster that have been visited on the country over the last five years as a failure at all. The Tories see that as merely the price to be paid—although not, of course, by them—for attaining the real objective, which is a permanent squeezing of the public sector and a shrinking of the state. That is what they want to do if they win the next election, and that is why I believe they will not win it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

This is indeed a very important debate. We can hear stories from any part of the House about the struggles that our constituents are going through. Indeed, constituents who one might deem to be on very good salaries are struggling, too. Whether someone is on a good salary or unemployed, if they are on a fixed income—including even those on good salaries who have had them frozen—a rise in the cost of living has a direct impact on their lives.

We must recognise the things we have to try to do to change the situation for the long term. Unemployment in my constituency has reduced by 32% since the Government came to power. We should welcome not only that reduction but the transfer of jobs from the public to the private sector, as quite a few small industrial bases in my constituency are supplying those jobs. As the economy is now turning a corner, growth in the economy and in the productivity of companies will allow wages to go up in line. What I do not support is a false rise in wages.

The minimum wage is very important; it ensures that people are not exploited, and as the Prime Minister outlined earlier today, if companies are found to have broken the minimum wage legislation, they will be fined a huge amount of money. We hope that will crack down on some of the more ruthless employers. We talk about a living wage—we would all hope to achieve a living wage—but it should not be specified in statute. By increasing wages falsely—in London, by 40%—we ensure that a living wage is always just out of reach.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman remembers that exactly the same arguments were advanced, mainly by members of his party, before the minimum wage was introduced. We were told that jobs would be lost—that it would be a terrible thing—but those predictions did not come true, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating his case.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention because she makes the point that I wanted to make. I did not say that the living wage would cost jobs; I said that it would inflate wages. Many would argue that a lot of people already earn the living wage, and that a statutory living wage would benefit all those underneath. But we are all well aware how many people, especially our friends in the unions, would demand a 40% pay rise if it was to go through.

Ultimately, there is nothing to be gained by inflating wages artificially, as we did in the 1970s. I remember my parents telling me that when they were teachers in the 1970s, they got a 25% pay rise when Harold Wilson came to power in 1975 but it was worthless the following year. The goal is always slightly out of reach. We must tackle the cost of living, and ensure that people’s real wages and real net income can advance to meet it.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman’s Government have said that work must always pay, but we still have people who are in work living in severe poverty. More important than just having a job is the level of income, and that is why wages are so important, and that is why the living wage is so important. Does he not recognise that point?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I could not agree more. What I am saying is that we need to grow an economy to ensure that we can get to a living wage, and that at the same time we should be looking at how we reduce the cost of living.

Why is the cost of living so high today? That is the fundamental question. Fundamentally, the cost of living comes down to one very important point—energy. We have had a lot of debate in the House this afternoon about whether to have an energy freeze, but if we freeze energy prices for a fixed period, prices will get ramped up before and after the freeze, as happened with the beer price freeze in the 1960s. We must take a more long-term view.

How did we end up where we are? It is my personal view—I support what was in our manifesto, and I wish we had moved further on it—that we need to start replacing our power stations, and at the moment nuclear power stations are by far the best way forward. It has taken a lot of effort and lengthy negotiations to get to one nuclear power station; we should be building five or six. But at the same time the world oil price is rising, and will not go down despite what anyone thinks. To put it in context, in 1998 a barrel of oil was $5 a barrel, and yesterday Brent crude was $100 a barrel—I am sure the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) will correct me if I am wrong. I believe that if oil reaches $140 a barrel, there is more economically recoverable oil in the North sea than has already been extracted. That is the reality of the situation.

Energy prices will not come down, so it is no good having a freeze for a period, because energy prices permeate every aspect of the cost of living—the price of food in the shops, the price of getting to work. We always talk about the petrol price, which has a big impact on getting to work, but we must do everything that we can to reduce the cost of getting goods to the shops, because that hits people’s wages. Since the start of this recession we have been on a wage freeze, if not a wage reduction, to prevent the runaway unemployment that we saw in the past.

What frustrates me in debates such as the one we are having today is not just the barrage of criticism from the Opposition of the way in which the Government have implemented their policies. That is fine; that is what we are in the House for. We are here to say that we have a route, we are sticking to it, and we think that it is working, and the Opposition are here to say, “We don’t agree.” But I have not heard any real alternative in the Chamber today. The closest we got—one of the more sensible speeches today—was the contribution by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who is no longer in his seat. He actually came up with some suggestions. I did not agree with them—I thought they were pie-in-the-sky thinking—but at least he stood there and put forward some policies.

Sadly, proposals were completely lacking in the shadow Chief Secretary’s speech. There was a constant barrage on what the Government had, he thought, got wrong, but no recognition of the fact that if we are going to tackle the cost of living crisis, we must tackle its root causes. The cost of living is going up because energy prices are high, and that has nothing to do with the six energy companies—there were 14 when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, but there were only six by the time he left that office, so it is a bit rich of him to come across saying that it is terrible. The inescapable truth is that the price of oil is not going to come down.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. He talks about having more oil and it being economically extractable, but he will accept that part of the equation is tax? Does he not regret the massive hike in the North sea supplementary charge that resulted in project after project being cancelled, and made certain fields less viable?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman will agree that the hundreds of millions of pounds of tax credits that the Government have made available to the oil and gas industry will help make that resource more exploitable in future and keep the supplies on. It comes down to a fundamental issue: what do we need to do to tackle the cost of living crisis? What we do not need, and what my constituents do not want to hear, is “It’s your fault for going down the austerity route” or “The collapse of the banks is your fault.” They want to say, “Look, we know all that—we know what’s going on.” That is why in most opinion polls, a majority of people still blame the Labour Government for the economic mess we are in. [Interruption.] It is all very well the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) shaking his head—that is what my constituents tell me, and I am out on the doorstep all the time.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I have given way enough. I am sorry—I am running out of time.

We have to tackle the core issue, and we have to do two things at the same time. The Government are achieving the first one. We have put the economy on the road to recovery following the deepest recession in the history of the nation caused by lack of fiscal control of the banking system—a tripartite system that allowed the banking industry to run wild. Even today, as we see with the Co-op bank, the Labour party is unwilling to take tough decisions with regard to banking. The only public inquiry that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to call for is into the Co-op—I wonder why, but we will find out when it takes place.

We have to grow the economy, which will lead to wage rises, but we must also have a much longer strategic look at how we supply energy in this country. I agree with the Prime Minister—whether or not what was reported in the newspapers was true, green taxes are regressive, and it is amazing that the Labour party, which has always opposed regressive taxation, says that we should keep a regressive tax and not push it into a progressive tax. At the end of the day, energy prices have gone up. [Interruption.] These are luxuries from the boom time that people can ill afford. It is a disgrace that, despite the fact that we are doing everything that we can to grow the economy, and create real jobs that will last and, I hope, be better proofed against the ups and downs of Government spending in future, people are struggling to deal with the cost of heating and the cost of food. The fundamental cause is the high price of energy. It is absolutely vital that the energy reforms and fiscal reforms introduced by the Government carry on and should only be changed as we move forward with energy policies for the long term, not short-term gimmicks. That is what people need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he needs to look at the bigger picture, which is what I will go on to talk about—the cost of everyday living in general.

Water costs a further £30 per month to my constituents. Rent makes another significant impact. A single bedroom property costs £395 a month in the private rented sector. Social properties are, of course, cheaper, but as my hon. Friends have explained on numerous occasions, there are few such properties to go around. Council tax starts at £80, so we need to take that off the overall budget. We are talking about working people who, if they have children, will also need to cover the cost of child care. As Labour highlighted in last week’s debate, the cost of child care is rising five times faster than pay and now amounts to more than £100 per child per week for 25 hours. That is around £460 per month.

All this leaves the average individual in my constituency with just £244 to live on per month. That needs to cover food, transport, other bills as well as a multitude of other costs that are part of daily life. I admit that this is rather a crude calculation, but the fact is that people in South Shields living on this meagre income are the lucky ones. Despite everything, they have managed to hang on to their homes and provide for their families through sheer tenacity and the hard work ethic that permeates my constituency. But what about those who fall below the average? What about those on zero-hours contracts, the 3,592 unemployed, the elderly and frail, the homeless and the rough sleepers? And there are those who are affected by the Government’s bedroom tax, who will lose an extra £450 a year.

Five thousand children in my constituency live in poverty, and many of them live in households with a parent in work. Some 4,260 of my constituents live in fuel poverty, and 1,440 of them are affected by the bedroom tax. We have a rise in homelessness and a rise in rough sleepers, yet still this Government fail them. This is a Government led by a Prime Minister who said prior to the 2010 elections that the Conservatives

“are best placed to fight poverty in our country.”

This is an astonishing claim when we know that over a million people have fallen into poverty on his watch, including 300,000 children.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I do not have time. I am sorry.

My local citizens advice bureau, despite taking on extra staff, is struggling to cope with the volume of inquiries it has had about debt. The once monthly requests for emergency food aid are now almost a daily occurrence. My local food bank and soup kitchen have seen demand for their service rise to unprecedented levels. Increasingly, the people coming to these agencies, I am told, are in work. This is no surprise, as we now have 1.4 million more people being paid below the living wage than in 2009.

When I was unemployed, when members of my family and I fell on hard times, I was proud to live in a country where I and they would be able to get help. This is no longer the case. I am still proud of my country, just not of the people who are running it.

People are turning to payday loans to deal with the hardship they face. Last year in my constituency the average borrowing constituent had debt to the tune of £1,610. We all know how quickly this debt can become unmanageable, with dire consequences for those who owe. But these are not people after easy money. They are working people who no longer have the ability to save for a rainy day.

As bad as things are for working people, they are worse for the unemployed. In my constituency more than 3,500 people are out of work. The Chancellor said that

“every job lost in the public sector has been offset by three new jobs in the private sector.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 305.]

This has not happened in South Shields. I recently held a jobs fair in my constituency, and had great co-operation from local employers, but the total number of jobs that these organisations were able to offer was just over 1,000, well short of filling our employment gap.

The situation is worse for our young. A constituent of mine told me how his daughter was offered a job interview and forced to travel to Leeds at short notice. She did not have the money to pay for the train ticket. When she asked the DWP for help, she was refused it. She is now on a zero-hours contract, and some weeks her pay is lower than when she was claiming benefit—but I suppose this Government do not mind about that, as long as she is no longer contributing to the unemployment statistics.

In my constituency people come together every day to help those who are struggling, but they find their task harder and harder as levels of need are rising to an unprecedented degree. Organisations such as Citizens Advice, the Key project, Hospitality and Hope, St Aidan’s, Supported Living and St Hilda’s church are all making a difference, but without the Government taking action their task will continue to be a heavy one.

To sum up, my constituents are great, hard-working, big-hearted people who show every day the ethos of hard work and social responsibility, despite the onslaught of misery caused by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am answering the question. I know it is hard for the hon. Gentleman to follow the argument, but I will put it in bite-sized pieces so that he can keep up. It is important for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at not just the indebtedness of the Government, but at the way in which the entire economy is accumulating debt, which is one of the things that the previous Labour Government signally failed to understand.

If we look at the United Kingdom’s debt in the mid-1990s and take into consideration Government debt, household debt and corporate debt, we will see that that total indebtedness was, like that of many other OECD countries, two times the size of our national economy. Over the intervening 15 years—which in this country were spent mostly under a Labour Government—other OECD countries saw their total debt go from about two times to about three times the size of their economy, and that includes all of the impact of the financial crisis. One country in the G8—and only one—increased its total debt from two times to five times the size of its economy, and that was the United Kingdom under the previous Labour Government. It is the consequence of that pervasive debt in the economy that is the real cost of living crisis in this country.

Every family knows that when they have significant debts that they cannot avoid and that they have to pay, their monthly income will be less because they will have to pay back the debt of the past. They are paying the consequences of the Labour party’s failure when in office.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, against that backdrop, it is commendable that under this Government and this Chancellor of the Exchequer, the gap between the richest and the poorest in society is the smallest it has been for 30 years? [Interruption.]

[Richard Fuller]

I see that the shadow Chief Secretary has left for more education on economics. My hon. Friend raises a point about income levels. There is an issue about how we increase the incomes of people at the low end of our economy. How do we make sure that work pays for those people who go out and work very hard?

Over the past 10 years, the United Kingdom has created a massive level of state intervention to support wages at the low end of the income spectrum. In order to try to improve living standards for people at the low end, we have to encourage employers to somehow pay higher wages. References have been made to the living wage. One of the issues about changing people’s income from the minimum wage to the living wage is that the change to their take-home pay, including any benefits they receive, becomes a very small change in their net income level, because the tapering of benefits takes away nearly all the impact of the increase in wage rates. A change to the living wage is therefore a transaction involving additional cost to the employer and additional benefit for the Exchequer; it does not result in additional pay to the employee.

We have to be clear about what we are truly promising people as we seek certain changes. It would be good to hear from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who I presume will wind up the debate, what answer the Government can give people about their income and about making work pay. What are we doing about their tax and their benefits? For people in work who wish to take on additional hours or to increase their responsibilities and get more pay per hour, what are we doing to ensure that their benefits are not taken away so rapidly? If we do that, in the next period of Conservative Government we can continue the battle to make sure that work pays, which is the true answer to any cost of living crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I can only apologise, Mr Speaker. I have spent a long time in the Whips Office.

While the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) is victoriously proclaiming that his plan is working, people in my constituency are really struggling. They are struggling to pay bills, to eat and to provide for their family. This Government have shamelessly failed to offer any support to hard-working people in this country, but have provided tax breaks for their friends and let ordinary families bear the brunt of their policies.

Instead of ensuring that our economy recovered, we have had three years of flatlining. This Government have borrowed more in three years than the previous one did in 13 years, and for what? Was it to help hard-working people and to protect the vulnerable, or to oversee the slowest recovery for more than 100 years and to instigate a cost of living crisis?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Mr Newmark]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady, because she did not give way to anyone during her speech.

My hon. Friends the Members for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) talked about work being the key to recovery, the need to create more jobs and making work pay, which is a critical part of our welfare reforms.

We heard from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who talked about breaking the stranglehold of the big six. It was the last Labour Government who left us with the big six; we started with more and ended up with six.

I listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), of the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), and of the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). What struck me most—I have referred to it before in this place—was the collective amnesia and total lack of understanding among Labour Members of how we ended up with the largest deficit since the second world war, which this Government have tackled by taking tough and difficult decisions.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I may be able to help out the Treasury team by suggesting that if the Minister were to visit a scrap metal dealer, she might be able to solve the deficit with all the brass neck from Labour Members this afternoon.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically colourful intervention and speaks wonderfully, as always.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made a point about child care and called for action from this Government. This Government are taking action on that matter, with tax-free child care, increased provision for two-year-olds and increased provision for three and four-year-olds. I would have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed that. I noted her welcome of this week’s announcement on payday lenders by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

I noted the confession from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton when he said that the problems did not start with this Government. He is absolutely right about that, but that was the only thing with which I could agree in his speech.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) talked about being on the side of Welsh people. In that case, I am sure he would welcome the 4,560 people in his constituency who have been taken out of income tax entirely since this Government’s changes.

The only way to deliver sustained improvement in living standards is to take the difficult decisions that this Government have taken to tackle the economy’s problems head-on, delivering a sustainable, long-term recovery for all. The Labour party has demonstrated comprehensively today that it is not up to taking those decisions. I therefore ask the House to reject this motion.

Question put.