Finance Bill

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the two previous speakers. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is just trying to escape the Chamber, gave a particularly thoughtful speech, understandably, given his background in taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) gave a rabble-rousing speech. By the end of it, I was absolutely gutted that he did not make it on to the Bill Committee. I am sure that Government Members do not share my sorrow. I fully expect him at least to ask the readers of the Worksop Guardian whether he should be on the GAAR board—a proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley).

Turning to new clause 12, I want to talk about my visit to Gala Bingo in Plymouth last week, at which I met the chief executive officer of the Bingo Association, Miles Baron. As hon. Members would expect, those present wanted to talk about tax—mainly VAT—and the lack of a level playing field, but we moved beyond the debate that we had on that in Committee, and they talked to me about the competition in gambling and bingo from offshore, tax-avoiding, multinational companies. Gala highlighted that it pays tax in the UK, but it feels that it loses out when it comes to VAT levels, and loses out significantly to offshore multinationals, which use innovative means to avoid paying tax in the UK. It feels that it is a smaller company trying to do the right thing.

Gala is not alone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made clear. If new clause 12 is taken forward, there could be a win-win situation for a number of companies in Britain and internationally, including in many third-world countries. British taxpayers are gambling away not only their income but our country’s tax revenues by using online offshore companies. If the UK is losing out, so too are many other countries; gambling is an international pastime, whether we like it or not.

Customers made clear their anger at corporation tax avoidance by Starbucks; I hope that they will continue to be discerning in a range of other fields, including gambling. To do that, they need a little more information about exactly who is doing the avoiding, and where and how avoidance happens. That is why new clause 12 is so important. The plea from my Front-Bench team for greater transparency is really welcome, because it empowers consumers.

At a time when we hear Members of the House, charities such as Christian Aid, non-governmental organisations involved in the third world as well as the general public express clearly the need to trade ethically, the need for more transparency, the need not to disadvantage developing and third-world countries, and the need for tax to be paid in the UK, we must ask whether the general anti-abuse rule in the Bill goes far enough. Does it have teeth? The Minister made all sorts of excuses and gave all sorts of reasons for not going any further, but he really needs to address the very sensible series of questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North on the GAAR’s lack of scope, and its failure to tackle the tax avoidance activity of multinationals.

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made about clarity of company ownership is one that virtually every MP in this House will have some sympathy with, because on a constituency level, we will have tried to track down directors of companies, and to get background information on companies, to solve relatively minor problems. Here, we are trying to ascertain exactly where they pay their tax.

To come back to bingo, a lot of people disapprove of gambling, but it is just one small part of the tax avoidance picture. It is the part of the issue that I have highlighted, simply because it is fresh in my mind following my visit. People may disapprove of gambling, but they probably disapprove more of tax avoidance. We have heard many examples of the type of companies that have been using the rules to avoid paying tax in the UK. It is worth repeating that the estimate for the tax that could be recouped by the GAAR is about £85 million, and that the current tax gap between the money that HMRC estimates could be collected and the actual amount collected is £4.5 billion. That is a significant difference.

I note that the Minister said that the GAAR was not a panacea. In fact, it is barely a sticking plaster. Although first aid is always welcome, the problem probably needs more major surgery, in the form of a strong commitment from the UK Government and the wider international community. Developing countries lose an estimated £160 billion per annum through tax dodging by multinational companies. That is much more than they receive in aid. Poor countries struggle to access the information that they need to counteract tax avoidance by foreign nationals and multinational companies. Our own tax rules need to make it easier for developing countries to identify and share vital information in order to avoid those losses. If an expert on the tax regime in a particular country were required, for example, that would be an appropriate course of action to take.

[Stella Creasy]

Is my hon. Friend surprised, as I am, that there is not more support for this proposal from some of those Members on the Government Benches who are less committed to the aid budget. After all, if we could tackle this problem—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was merely reflecting that if we could tackle the way in which tax avoidance is affecting the developing nations, we might not need to have an aid budget in the future.

[Alison Seabeck]

Indeed, but that is a whole separate debate. My hon. Friend makes a serious, sensible point.

In this recession, we really cannot afford to allow those billions to disappear. Nor should we allow those developing countries to lose out so substantially. We need to work closely with other Governments to bring consistency into the process and, in doing so, ensure that doing the right thing in taxation terms is given value. We need transparency so that the public can take more informed decisions about the products they buy and from whom they buy them. I hope that those Members on the Government Benches who have been toying with the idea of supporting new clause 12 will see the sense in getting justice into the taxation system, and that they will support the new clause.

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a thorough debate. I do not intend to reprise all my earlier arguments, but I want to pick up some of the points that hon. Members have raised. The issue of the yield for the loss-buying rule was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). It is around £200 million a year, but there is a more precise breakdown available in the tax information and impact note.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the general anti-abuse rule—the GAAR—which is expected to raise around £235 million over the next five years. It will also protect revenue that would otherwise be lost. We believe that it will change the avoidance landscape as its impact starts to be recognised. It will act as a deterrent to those tempted to engage in abusive avoidance schemes, and where those schemes persist, the GAAR will give HMRC the means to tackle them and to secure payment of the right amount of tax.

We have accepted the proposal from Graham Aaronson that a narrowly targeted GAAR is the right approach to tackling the persistent problem of abusive avoidance schemes. This has to be viewed in the context of the fact that the previous Government did not bring in a general anti-abuse rule. We believe that a broader rule would be likely to generate considerable uncertainty, which could lessen the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business, and generate significant cost for HMRC. We are not complacent, however, and we will continue vigorously to tackle all forms of tax avoidance. Indeed, the Bill will close 10 loopholes, and the Budget announced further reviews of tax law that is being exploited for avoidance.

Simply because a scheme is not caught by the GAAR will not mean that it is okay. The GAAR will not set the boundary for tax avoidance. It deliberately targets abusive avoidance schemes, but HMRC will continue to tackle all forms of tax avoidance using the full range of tools available. As for the argument that we will not need targeted anti-avoidance rules in future, we believe that it would be reckless to remove a central protection against avoidance without being fully confident that doing so would not create risks. Although we expect the proposed GAAR to be effective in tackling and deterring abusive tax avoidance schemes, it might take time for those who engage in persistent avoidance to accept that their schemes do not work, so there will still be a need to retain existing anti-avoidance provisions and amend other legislation that provides unintended tax planning opportunities that are not within the scope of the GAAR.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is precisely why we are challenging the legitimacy of the proposal. The enhanced co-operation procedure is available to member states provided it is legal and compliant with the treaty, and our view is that it is certainly not. In particular, the extra-territorial effects—exactly what my hon. Friend is concerned about—are contrary to article 327 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, as it fails to respect the competences, rights and obligations of the non-participating member states. Furthermore, the decision to proceed with the FTT has extra-territorial effects for which there is simply no justification in customary international law. The Select Committee has been prominent in its scrutiny of that, and no doubt its Chair will have something to say about it.

We should consider the economic effects of the tax as well as the legal issues. What we are discussing is obviously very important to the economy of the United Kingdom, where 2 million people are employed in financial and related professional services. That sector has created a trade surplus for the country at a time when I think all nations should be trying to increase their trade, and its activities are highly integrated with those in other EU countries. Our best estimate is that 30% of over-the-counter derivatives trading in London involves a counterparty in a proposed FTT zone country; similarly, about 30% of investors in UK gilts are located overseas, which means that the FTT is even likely to affect UK Government funding costs.

However, it is not only the financial sector that would be affected. The European Association of Corporate Treasurers, which represents those who manage companies' finances throughout Europe, has said, very explicitly, that the FTT

“will fall on companies in the real economy, and compound the negative effects of the financial crisis.”

In this country, the CBI agrees.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

What would be the implications of the UK’s rejection of the FTT? Would the Government raise the bank levy rate for what I believe would be the sixth or seventh time?

Public Service Pensions Bill

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Clearly, there is some difference in the roles they carry out, but I readily accept that the physical attributes required and the difficulty of the job are similar in each case. That is why I said at the outset that there is no point in trying to debate the difficulties, for example, of one job in the civil fire service in comparison with those in the MOD fire service, but significant differences have developed over time between the pay and conditions, including the pensions, of the civil and the MOD work forces. The hon. Gentleman will see, as I have outlined, that the MOD has committed to consider the issue. My main point is that this Bill deals with approximately 12 million employees and their pensions in the public sector, and that this is not the right occasion for looking at individual terms and conditions in each scheme for each particular work force. There is a time and a place for that—but it is not the debate on this Bill. I do not believe that it is the job of Members here or in the other place to look at the individual terms of each scheme. Rather, we should ensure that the Bill we pass has sufficient flexibilities to ensure that if the NPAs—normal pension ages—or other terms and conditions in the pensions for particular work forces need to be changed at some point in the future, that can be accommodated.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell us how many meetings he has had with Defence Ministers to discuss the implications for the MOD and how many he has held with the MOD police and fire service trade unions?

[Sajid Javid]

I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not the only Minister in the Treasury working on this issue, as there is a whole team of Ministers, including my noble Friend Lord Newby. Treasury Ministers have had meetings with representatives of the respective work forces and other stakeholders. I would like to plough on—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

That is a very pertinent question. We heard from the Minister that 12 million people were affected by the various public service and civil service pension schemes. We heard that even Lord Hutton, in his detailed inquiry, was not aware of the 350 or so affected individuals, because it was a new scheme that started in 2007, and only some MOD firefighters and police will come into the age bracket. Given the complexity of pensions, it is not surprising that some issues were not spotted; apparently even some employee representatives and others were not aware of the anomaly at the time.

These things happen. Mistakes can be made, but it is really important that when a mistake is pointed out, people assess whether they are big enough to accept that it needs to be corrected and justice is done, or whether their pride is such—whether or not this applies to the civil service—that they try to retrofit their arguments to justify a clearly unjustifiable anomaly. That is what the question boils down to.

The only reason I can see for different treatment for those groups is that one set happens to be employed by the Ministry of Defence and the other is in the public service at large. It is such an evident anomaly that the House of Lords, when made aware of the lacuna, correctly sought to repair the fault in the Bill, but incredibly we heard from the Economic Secretary—I am delighted that he has been joined by the Chief Secretary; perhaps he can be lent on by more enlightened colleagues—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) says he will have a go, but he does not have much time as the question will be put shortly. [Interruption.] Anyway, Ministers are not particularly interested in listening to the debate, so it might be useful if the hon. Gentleman could text the Economic Secretary to suggest that he pays attention.

In essence, the Economic Secretary said that the Government were too proud to admit that they had got it wrong. They are still defending the indefensible, but the arguments for admitting the error are overwhelming.

[Alison Seabeck]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if the Government do not accept some of the changes, some people—albeit a small number—who cannot carry out normal duties will be unable to do the job for which they are being paid? Therefore fewer people will be able to fight fires or to respond in the most physical of circumstances. How does my hon. Friend see the future for those employees?

[Chris Leslie]

Quite a few of those employees already retire before the normal retirement age because of issues of physicality—the sheer effort involved in undertaking such physical tasks. It is entirely unreasonable and unfair that there is such a discrepancy between public service workers who carry out the same job. They are all called on to put their lives on the line. The burden of justifying the anomaly now rests with the Government, but other than some rather unconvincing arguments, which the Minister barely touched on, they have failed to discharge their burden and to illustrate why MOD firefighters and police are so different. The Minister took interventions from many colleagues and on a number of occasions he said, “Oh well, I’ll come to it in my speech,” but amazingly he never did.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

It is absolutely incumbent on Ministers, but this is a Government who just cannot think things through properly. They have set off down the road with a particular design. We have been asking questions for weeks and weeks. My hon. Friends will remember that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury astonished the House when he still could not rule out that the scheme would be used for supporting second home purchase, and there might be a number of reasons for that. For example, if the scheme is supporting remortgages, and a household decides to remortgage, how can the Government have a covenant on how any equity withdrawn from that remortgage process will be used by that home purchaser? That is presumably the obstacle that Ministers are banging their heads against now, and they probably have to look at various covenants and all sorts of legal arrangements for those participating in the schemes.

There are other anomalies in the process. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on this point: can foreign buyers be subsidised by the UK taxpayer for the purchase of second homes—not just other EU residents, but non-EU residents as well? What is the exclusion in the scheme? Will he clarify that?

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I declare an interest in the interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), as usual. Does my hon. Friend have concerns that although ostensibly the scheme may say that there can be no foreign investment, there will be means and mechanisms for foreign investors to set up companies in the UK in order to cover their tracks? Does he have any confidence that the Government are looking at whether there are potential loopholes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

We hoped that the Liberal Democrats’ plan relating to property values of £2 million was a well-worked-through basis on which we could build and develop a policy. We even tabled a suggestion that the OBR should have some options for how this mansion tax would work in detail. There are bound to be issues on the margins that need to be resolved, and I accept we should definitely be talking about those, but the principle could be established. The Bill has 50 or 60 clauses relating to what are known as enveloped dwellings. The Government do not dare call it a mansion tax because Conservatives do not like it, but they have introduced a scheme to enforce a certain number of stamp duty requirements where an annual charge can be placed on properties worth more than £2 million, but only if they are owned by a company in a corporate tax wrapper. It is therefore entirely feasible and plausible to consider whether that scheme could be extended into a mansion tax proper, and the Government have well-worked-through plans on the books, on which they have been consulting, which could be the basis for a mansion tax. This is not something that has not been thought through by the Government.

The Opposition believe that any revenues from this need to be given back to lower and middle-income households through a 10p starting rate of tax. When the economy is flatlining and tax rates are rising in so many other ways, particularly VAT, we must do more to help those 25 million basic rate taxpayers. It is incredibly important that we do that, and we will be giving this Liberal Democrat, and any others who happen to be in the building, the opportunity to express their views on it when we finish this debate. I commend new clauses 1 and 5 to the Committee.

[Alison Seabeck]

In speaking to new clause 1, I wish to pursue issues that have been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and other Opposition Members and to highlight my concern that the Help to Buy scheme might well become a second home subsidy, rather than a scheme, as was intended, to help many first and second-time buyers on to the housing ladder.

In housing, as in so many other areas of policy, the Government have been found badly wanting. I remember the chutzpah the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) displayed on entering government, saying repeatedly that he would outperform the previous Labour Government when it came to house building and getting first-time buyers into the market. As Housing Minister, he failed rather magnificently. He seemed to ignore the fact that Labour built 210,000 new homes before the market crashed. We started to see an increase in the number of homes being built in the run-up to the 2010 general election as a direct result of measures taken by the Labour Government. Indeed, some of the homes that this Government have taken credit for building in 2011 are in fact the hangover from Labour’s new-build programme. We are now seeing a slump in house building.

[Jack Dromey]

The former Housing Minister claimed that the Government would build 170,000 affordable homes. The National Audit Office then produced a report stating that 70,000 of those homes had been commissioned and paid for by the previous Labour Government.

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is right. I think we have to take the figures offered by the Government with a huge pinch of salt. Although I support any measure, as I am sure he would, to kick-start the housing market and enable young people, such as my daughter, to get on the housing ladder, I, like my Front-Bench colleagues, have serious concerns about the scheme.

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend makes the point that we need to kick-start the housing market, and I think that all Labour Members agree. She talked about the chutzpah of the Government’s first Housing Minister, whom she challenged at the time, when she led for the Opposition. Is there not a contrast between the urgency of the measures that were rushed through Parliament when the coalition Government took office and the delay in the measures that they now say will make some kind of difference, which will take us through to January?

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a significant gap that will lead to a further trough in house building. It will certainly not lead to the boost that the Government expect as a result of introducing the scheme. Frankly, the scheme looks like another idea drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet, and we have seen too many of those. I think that this one, like others, whether in welfare, education or health, will have a number of unforeseen consequences.

Following the Budget, we now know that the Government’s mortgage scheme will not exclude people buying second homes. Although it might get some movement into the market, it will not solve the underlying problem and could well be abused. In areas such as the south-west, where we have a glut of second homes and where affordable homes are a rarity in some areas, introducing measures that could increase the opportunity for people to purchase second homes, as well as risking pushing up prices, is extremely dangerous. That could create severe price volatility in those areas and lead to the exact opposite of the intended outcome.

In Plymouth and the South Hams, we have the prospect of around 5,000 new homes in Sherford, all close to some of the most beautiful countryside and coast in the country. Many people will want to buy those homes, which opens the door to second home ownership. How many of those purchasers will want to buy to let? The Government say that they do not plan on the scheme being used by people who want to buy to let, but by using subterfuge it will be entirely possible for them to do exactly that. Will the Minister explain exactly what type of bureaucracy will need to be set up fully to ensure that the scheme is not abused by people who want to buy to let?

[Jack Dromey]

Is my hon. Friend aware of anything in the Bill that would prevent Russian billionaires, Greek tax exiles or dubious Australian spin doctors from buying homes on the back of the scheme?

[Alison Seabeck]

That was wonderfully well put, as usual. No, I am aware of no such thing, and that bothers me hugely. It ought to worry Ministers; it will be interesting to hear what they have to say on the matter.

My constituents are struggling under the pressure of the spare room subsidy. They rightly want to know why it is fair for the Government potentially to offer a spare house subsidy of up to £600,000 to people who already have a home. That sum would buy a mansion in Plymouth.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Startlingly, the previous scheme had a limit of £280,000. Why have the Government increased the ceiling to £600,000? Surely homes of £600,000 are not affordable.

[Alison Seabeck]

No, indeed. Someone looking at the issue from the outside, rather than from the Government Benches, could cynically suggest that the Government are seeking to build houses and support house building in the south-east rather than in the rest of the country. The figure has far more resonance in terms of trying to get people into the market in the south-east. The issue is not clear.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The figure might be more consistent with house prices in the south-east, but even there someone still has to have a very substantial income to afford a mortgage, even if it is discounted by a shared equity or mortgage guarantee scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is right and has flagged up yet another unfairness about what is proposed.

We have an example of the Government bearing down on the less well-off—those who are suffering because of the bedroom tax. Those people could probably never afford a mortgage, however desirable an ideal that might be. The Government are effectively expecting those people on low incomes to fund and support other people to buy new homes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being gracious enough to give way to everyone who has wanted to intervene. Does she feel that there should be an incentive for parents or grandparents who either have savings or could remortgage their homes to provide a deposit for their children or grandchildren? Could that not enable first-time buyers to get on to the ladder in their 20s rather than at 37, as was mentioned earlier?

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I will briefly touch on it later. I suspect that it could be possible for parents to buy for children.

People struggling to get a mortgage and those who want to own their first home must be a priority for help, not the small number of people who can afford to buy a second home. What checks will be introduced to prevent abuse of the scheme, so that people are prevented from applying in the names of their sons and daughters, cats and dogs?

The key fact is that not enough homes are being built. The Government must focus on that issue and on listening to the voices of those who understand the market. They should not simply dismiss out of hand the Opposition’s new clause, which would enable the public to have a better understanding of who benefits from the scheme. Is it foreign investors, parents buying second homes for their children or people seeking to rent the property in the long term?

What checks will be put in place if somebody applies to the scheme saying that they are not going to let the property, then sits on it for a time and subsequently opts to rent it out? Perhaps people could use the scheme for a straightforward holiday home purchase, as I mentioned in relation to Plymouth and the South Hams. Where are first-time buyers in the process? For me, they are singularly missing.

[Mr Love]

I am listening carefully to the case my hon. Friend is making. If we simply take measures to stimulate demand, without equivalent supply-based measures, are we not likely to end up with house price inflation, which will affect first-time buyers?

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is right. He reinforces a point I made about not only the potential for price volatility but the inability of certain people to access the housing that is so desperately needed, and the clear need to build more homes, which this Government are singularly failing to do.

[Jack Dromey]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who said in a recent interview, commenting on the Government’s proposed scheme, that

“giving mortgages without increasing the supply will lead to asset price inflation”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

That is a very interesting comment, is it not? In quoting it, my hon. Friend makes the point very clearly.

House building is falling, rents are rising, home ownership is becoming a harder goal for young families to achieve, and homelessness has risen. That, frankly, is not a record to write home about. This Budget measure, first, needs to be fully explained; secondly, needs to be fully scrutinised, which is why the new clause is important; and thirdly, shows that the Government have got their priorities wrong, because they need to be building more homes.

[Stephen Williams]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Hoyle. I am being called rather sooner than I imagined; indeed, I did not even necessarily imagine that I would be making a speech in full detail, but making use of my House of Commons Library notes I have hastily prepared something, particularly on new clause 5, which is a welcome innovation in many ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

That is the other crucial part. We are often criticised by the Government, who ask, “Where are your policies? What are you proposing to do about the economic situation?” but here is a pretty good suggestion for them. Let us learn from their mistake of scrapping the new deal and the future jobs fund, which my hon. Friends will remember, and do something to help to get young people in particular back to work. There is a separate issue with the long-term unemployed. We have talked separately about changes to the highest rate of pension relief, which could help to fund something for the long-term unemployed, but we could use the bank bonus tax to help to get young people back into work. It is essential that we get people back into the habit of working and paying taxes, and if they turn down those job opportunities, they should forfeit benefits as a result. The proposal has to be part of a tough policy, to ensure that we always focus on work as the best antidote to an inflated welfare budget, but to get our economy moving again too.

[Alison Seabeck]

Picking up on the point made from the Government Benches about some of our measures taking money out of the economy, is my hon. Friend concerned that the local economy in Plymouth, for example, is losing £16 million because of the Government’s benefit changes? Does he not see some contradiction in that?

[Chris Leslie]

The study commissioned by the Financial Times which showed the massive impact of the extreme austerity being pursued by the Government will bring home to many communities where some of the poorest people live the fact that that money and those resources are being taken out of their local economies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I do not want to be drawn into talking about football, because there is a rivalry between Swansea and Cardiff, and Cardiff, to be fair to them, have just been promoted. I feel that people who earn more should pay more towards the public good. Whether or not the cut-off point is £250,000, we all have a contribution to make and those with the widest shoulders should pay more and at a greater rate. There is a debate about what that rate should be, but certainly those people who advocate a poll tax that would mean the poor paying the same as the richest for local services are at the far extreme of reasonableness. Most of us, I would like to think, want the rich to pay more.

Sadly, what we saw in the Budget was the poorest paying most to pay for the bankers’ recklessness, so that a certain amount of money could be thrown to the squeezed middle in order to buy votes. That is not the way forward. We need a unity of purpose to grow in prosperity for a future that cares and a future that works. On that point, I must sit down, because I know that colleagues and others want to speak. Thank you, Mr Amess, for indulging me.

[Alison Seabeck]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who gave an absolute tour de force. I rise to support amendment 2. We have heard it said repeatedly, both in interventions and in my hon. Friend’s speech, that bankers who earn large sums of money in this country continue to receive huge bonuses, irrespective of whether the institutions they work for have improved their performance, and meanwhile unemployment persists and the Government attempt to create full-time jobs. It has failed.

Indeed, in a week when we saw low-paid working families affected by the bedroom tax—or spare room subsidy—we also saw large numbers of top bankers awarded obscenely large bonus payments and, in some cases, benefiting from the tax cut for millionaires. Some have deferred paying income tax until this financial year to avoid paying at the 50% rate, thereby making additional gains on the back of the poor, a point that was terribly well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West.

That is yet another Government economic plan that has been poorly evidenced. It is part of an endless package of ill-thought-through policies. The Government had 13 years to work up those policies. We expected them to have worked up deliverable policies, but clearly they have failed miserably. They do not even have a plan B for the economy—the one that the International Monetary Fund now suggests they switch to—which is shocking.

In the financial year 2010-11, the bankers’ bonus tax introduced by the Labour Government raised around £3.5 billion. It was a sensible tax on the country’s top earners. It was scrapped within weeks of the coalition Government taking office and replaced by a bank levy, which the Prime Minister has consistently claimed would raise £2.5 billion a year. The simple truth is that it has not done that, so one could say that the Prime Minister’s accuracy at the Dispatch Box has been found wanting. Members should not take my word for it—the Office for Budget Responsibility evidence, published alongside the Budget, confirmed the figures. The OBR has said that the coalition’s bank levy will bring in just £1.6 billion from the last financial year—almost £1 billion less than the Prime Minister said it would, and less than half that raised under Labour’s bank bonus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the differences between the Prime Minister’s statements and reality. May I give her a third example: the cut to corporation tax. We were told by the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer that the banks would not benefit from that cut and that there would be some offsetting arrangements. Yet we now learn from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that the banks have benefited to the tune of £200 million.

[Alison Seabeck]

I thank my hon. Friend for flagging up what is factually correct and can be substantiated, rather than something resulting from living in some fantasy land of figures, as Government Members seem to do.

The amendment seeks simply to have a review in six months’ time on whether a bank bonus tax within the bank levy would raise significant additional income that could then be reinvested in creating jobs—especially among young people, who have been so hard hit by the Government’s economic failure.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady will have heard the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), her colleague, refer at the end of his very long speech to his belief that people in his constituency are paying more tax as a result of the recent Budget. First, does the hon. Lady believe that her constituents are paying more tax? Secondly, does she know how many people in her constituency are now paying less tax as a result of the changes made in Budgets since 2010? The figure for my constituency is 43,969; I am sure that she knows the figure for hers. Thirdly, how many people in her constituency have been taken out of income tax altogether as a result of the Budget? The figure for Gloucester is 5,000 people; the one for Plymouth will be similar.

[Alison Seabeck]

That is an interesting question and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so well informed about his constituents. However, he seems conveniently to forget that my constituents, like his, are also being hit by increases to VAT, which takes a significant chunk out of their incomes. Furthermore, particularly if they are low-paid workers, they are being hit by a flat-rate pay freeze and in turn by housing benefit changes. I am talking about working members of my constituency. If someone was to knock on the doors of Plymouth, Moor View, that person would find that people said they were significantly worse off and finding life very hard indeed.

[Geraint Davies]

I had better intervene, because the rendition given by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) of what I was meant to have said was completely inaccurate. I did not say that tax had increased for people but that the working families tax credit had been massively cut, as well as other opportunities.

The average person would lose £14 a week under the bedroom tax because their children had grown up and they had an empty bedroom. That is the same as the £13.50 that somebody might get from the raising of the tax threshold to £10,000. There are swings and roundabouts. Only £400 million will be saved from crushing the poor but it will cost £12 billion to put up the tax threshold. The judgments are difficult, but the Tory instinct is to crush the poor and help the squeezed middle, while ours is to help everybody. However, I made no insinuation that tax was being increased.

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend has put his position on the record, so I will not take further interventions on that point.

I come back to the amendment and its call for a review.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the disparity between the £2.5 billion that the Prime Minister said on repeated occasions would be raised by the bank levy and the nearly £1 billion that is now missing. Does she share my hope that when he responds the Minister will identify where that £1 billion a year is? If we could find it, it could go towards the job creation schemes that we are talking about. Some £1 billion is being nicked from the Treasury every year.

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in suggesting that if there is a £1 billion gap, it should be explained. I am sure that the Prime Minister would like to know, given that he has repeatedly stood at the Dispatch Box using that figure, which seems to have been plucked from the sky.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It would be completely remiss of anybody in the House even to suggest that the Prime Minister was in any way misleading the House when on repeated occasions he cited the figure of £2.5 billion a year. But could it be possible that he has been misled inadvertently by Treasury officials or other Ministers?

[Alison Seabeck]

That is exactly my point. Has the Prime Minister been given duff information? If he has, that is pretty shocking. Ministers should take responsibility if that is the case.

I come back again to my point. The amendment is calling for a review, which is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who spoke in the previous debate, is not in his place, but I hope that this time the Liberal Democrats will not pursue the line taken by the hon. Gentleman, which was that it is unreasonable for the Treasury to carry out a review—of a mansion tax, in the context of the previous debate. He seemed to have forgotten that the Government are carrying out a review, at taxpayers’ expense, into the future of Trident. Obviously, that is basically a review for future Lib Dem policy. As I said, it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not here, because there was a bit of a contradiction between the two positions from the Liberal Democrats.

In Plymouth and the rest of the south-west, we are still lagging behind the rest of the country when it comes to finding the full-time jobs that young people desperately need. The number of unemployed is still higher than in 2010 and the number of long-term unemployed is growing. Although the Government keep telling us that more people are employed—the mantra has come from them again today—their figures hide the simple fact of the contrast with the position in 2008.

Then, when people were asked whether they felt they were working excessive hours, the answer came back as a resounding yes; people felt that they were working more hours than was reasonable. Now that figure is different—in large numbers, people are seeking more hours to work. It is estimated that there is a shortfall of 20 million working hours, which equates to a real unemployment figure that runs closer to 3 million. Questions have also been asked of people who work part-time and want to work full-time. The number who want to switch from part-time to full-time is 1.5 million—that is just in the three months running up to February.

There is clearly a problem. People are working part-time; indeed, some are trying to hold down two or three part-time jobs, as was evidenced during a street surgery that I held in Whitleigh a couple of weeks ago. Some people have used their redundancy money to set up as self-employed, and those figures are slightly skewing the evidence on what is happening on the ground. Some people have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector, often on reduced hours. That shift partly explains the rise in the number of jobs in the private sector; they are not new jobs but simply transferred jobs.

The tax proposal in the new clause would fund a job for every young person who had been out of work for a year or more. That number is up, year on year, by 37%. They would have to take up that job or risk losing their benefits. This is no soft touch but a serious attempt to give hope to young people and to help them get a foot on the ladder and contribute to society. Unemployment among young people is higher in this country under this coalition Government than it was at any time under Labour. The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in my constituency remains above the national and regional average. Reinstating Labour’s bank bonus is therefore the right thing to do.

[Mike Thornton]

The hon. Lady seems to be saying that one of the problems is that there are no jobs in the economy while at the same time proposing a policy to find jobs for people—jobs that are presumably not there. How does she reconcile talking about finding a job for somebody with saying there are no jobs?

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman has completely misconstrued my remarks.

We need to invest to grow jobs. We need to grow our economy, and as we do that, there will be more jobs. People want to work, but the evidence is that the jobs are not there. People are having to work part-time, even to have multiple part-time jobs, in order to keep body and soul together. We need an economy that is growing, and we are not getting that from this Government. We need Labour’s bank bonus to invest in jobs, to tackle unemployment across the country, and to help young people.

[Sammy Wilson]

Although we have not heard many speeches by Government Members, I am a bit surprised by the attitude they have adopted to this proposal in view of one of the Government’s declared objectives in the Budget book. Under the heading, “Fairness”, it states:

“The Government’s economic and fiscal strategy is underpinned by its commitment to fairness”.

I would have thought that anyone looking at the proposal would find it very difficult to say that it does not have a core of fairness within it. It is directed towards an industry, the banking industry, which was partly responsible for the economic crisis we face, the impetus for which was people in that industry being given incentives to behave in a reckless way that led to the kind of borrowing and lending that created our current difficulties. They were bailed out by the taxpayer, with bonuses then being paid out of that bail-out. I would have thought that on the grounds of fairness alone, Government Members would see at least some merit in the arguments for the proposal which have been advanced.

I have often heard it said, not only by Labour Members, but particularly by Government Members who are close to small businesses—perhaps many of their supporters are small business owners—that the banking industry has strangled those businesses in the middle of the recession, refusing to lend to them even when there are good, viable propositions and putting the squeeze on them when they most needed liquidity. I would have thought that Government Members would have some sympathy for a proposal that said to them, “We cannot reward people at the top of an industry who are destroying, squeezing and making it difficult for the businesses that many of you would regard as your supporters”, yet they seem to be opposed to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Yet the situation continues. Despite all that, we do not see any change.

Some of the arguments advanced by Government Members, mainly through interventions, as to why the proposal is a bad idea, have become increasingly desperate as the debate has progressed. I believe that this should be done, first, on the basis of fairness, and secondly, because it has some potential for changing behaviour, and that ought to be given serious consideration.

The first argument was to say, “If we do this, we will be taking money out of the economy.” What do these people who get the bonuses do with them? Are they generating additional expenditure in the economy? If someone gets a bonus of £1 million, are they likely to spend it? We all know, and it is well evidenced in economic theory, that the more money we get, the higher the proportion of that additional income we tend to save—it does not contribute to the economy. During the Budget, the Chancellor said that the poor performance in the economy was because consumer spending had been suppressed and was not what had been anticipated. When I hear the argument that discouraging these bonuses, or taking them back in the form of tax, removes spending power from the economy, I find it rather bizarre.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing a point that I touched on earlier. In Plymouth, we are losing £16 million a year in benefits, and the people who usually get those benefits are poor and would spend the money in their local areas, not on foreign holidays or by putting it into bank accounts.

The Economy

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

It is transparent from the figures presented by the Office for Budget Responsibility that borrowing is higher than it forecast in 2010. If the hon. Gentleman was being fair-minded, he would also draw the House’s attention to the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggests that if we had continued with the path of spending set out by the previous Chancellor, we would be borrowing a further £200 billion —something that the country can ill afford.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The OBR, which is independent and gives interesting forecasts, has said that the unemployment count is likely to rise in each of the next four years. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why that is?

[Danny Alexander]

The OBR has forecast that unemployment will be slightly higher next year and then fall in subsequent years. It also forecasts a rise in employment over that period. If the hon. Lady is looking for variances between reality and the OBR’s previous forecasts, it is fair to say that unemployment is now considerably lower than the OBR forecast a year ago. I hope that she welcomes that fact.

It is true that the OBR has lowered its growth forecasts and that the recovery is slower than we would have liked, but we are on the right road and the announcements that we made last week will help the country to make further progress along it. I should add that the OBR does not attribute the slower growth to the Government’s fiscal policy, but to external pressures from the eurozone and other parts of the world, and to the long-term impact of the financial crisis, especially on our banking system. If the Labour party wants to accept the OBR’s figures, it also needs to accept its analysis.

As the House knows, savings had to be found and we have decided to reduce departmental resource budgets by 1% next year and 2% the year after. We are confident that that will not impact heavily on front-line services. For example, according to the recently published “Digital Efficiency Report”, if all Departments continued to move their transactional services online and became digital by default, we could save £1.2 billion over the next two years. If all Departments moved to the property occupation benchmark of 10 square metres per person, they could save a further £300 million each year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the top 10% make up the part of the population that is contributing most to dealing with the financial problems caused by the Labour party—the mess that we are trying to clean up—both in cash terms and in terms of a share of their incomes. He should welcome the fact that this Government are doing more than any previous Government to ensure that the wealthiest in society contribute most to sorting out the financial problems that he and his colleagues created.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

In the interests of transparency, will the Chief Secretary and his colleagues make public an impact assessment relating to child poverty before the welfare uprating Bill is laid before Parliament, not least because it would help us to understand the impacts of the cost of living and benefit freezes on low-paid working families?

[Danny Alexander]

The Department for Work and Pensions will, of course, publish an impact assessment in the normal way when the Bill is published.

Fuel Duty

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has shown the merit of consistency over many years, but that is not a quality shared by the first two signatories to the Opposition motion—the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)—who, in proposing the motion, have shown that they are a very long way from being ready to form a Government. As my hon. Friend the Minister has shown so eloquently, the motion is riddled with contradictions and hypocritical, and shows that the Opposition do not understand in any way the appalling legacy with which the coalition Government have been charged with dealing by the British people.

I hope Opposition Members, and especially Opposition Front Benchers, have read the motion—at least one of them will be a little embarrassed by it—which states:

“That this House believes that, at a time when the cost of living is rising and our economic recovery is fragile”.

At least we have a begrudging admission from them that there is an economic recovery. That there is a recovery has taken a while to come out.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the Opposition motion openly states that there is a fragile economic recovery. Will he do likewise and acknowledge that there was a fragile economic recovery in June 2010?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, I remind hon. Members that, if they intervene, and if they drop down the speaking list, they will understand why—they keep adding minutes to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

We have heard many high-quality speeches tonight, including a powerful argument from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and from the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who made a genuine plea—I think—to the Chancellor at the end of his speech, urging him to listen carefully.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the social issues around the fuel price increase, but it is not just the fuel increase that is causing problems. The cost of living has risen across the country, and these higher costs are taking particular hold in the south-west and my constituency. Average wages are rising nowhere close to inflation, and hard-working families are finding it harder to make ends meet—and this at a time when the south-west has been dealt another blow from this out-of-touch Government, who have allowed 20 NHS trusts to create a pay cartel in order to slash wages for NHS workers in Plymouth and across the region.

Wages in the south-west are already among the lowest in the country, with more than one in five employees—430,000 working people—earning less than the living wage. With prices for almost all commodities rising, in a recent survey more than 40% of workers in the region said that their finances were worse off now than just a month ago—and fuel has clearly been a major part of both the increase in the cost of living and their perception of how hard things are getting.

Families in the south-west have experienced a double burden in terms of wages and the cost of utilities. Water charges in the south-west are among the highest in the country, with customers paying £150 more than the national average on their yearly water bills, while energy bills and fuel prices are increasingly unaffordable across whole swathes of the country, as we have heard. Figures given in a written answer on 7 November showed that 16.4% of families living in England in 2010 were in fuel poverty, but that number is expected to rise significantly.

The south-west has a large rural population. My constituency is not rural, but Plymouth depends on its hinterland. The wider economic benefits to the region and Plymouth come from people in our travel-to-work area, which is largely rural. In addition to the high water costs and low wages, people in the rural hinterland are paying about £10 a week more on petrol, diesel and motor oil than the average UK household. Rural populations are struggling with the cost of living in general—on average about £2,000 per year for a rural household over and above that of urban inner-city town dwellers such as my constituents. Of course, some of the people in the south-west will have chosen to live in a rural area. Some might well have a second home there and be quite well off, but there are huge swathes of the population across Cornwall and Devon who are agriculture workers or who are working in small food processing factories, and they are not on very high incomes at all.

Bus services in rural areas are infrequent, so elderly people often need to drive to Derriford hospital. That can be a long journey for a lot of people. They might need to be driven to the hospital. This all costs money. Young people can feel isolated in rural areas. Unless their parents can afford to drive them into town, they can be stuck and feel very much out of the loop. That is not good for social cohesion. We know that many families are having to curtail the number of journeys they make. Travelling to and from rural areas for work can also be extortionately expensive. I recently met a Plymouth man who travelled out to Liskeard to work. He had been unemployed, and he was delighted to have got a job in Liskeard, but the petrol was costing him between £60 and £70 a week and the situation was becoming unsustainable. He was really keen to work, and he was willing to travel long distances, but it was becoming impossible.

[David Simpson]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that we have a land border in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) seemed to have inside knowledge that the price of fuel might not go up, but if it were to do so the amount of fuel smuggling from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland would increase, and the Exchequer would lose a lot of revenue.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman speaks from the experience of his own constituency, and the Chancellor will need to consider that very serious point when he sets out his Budget later this year.

There has also been a huge increase in housing costs. Average house prices are now 11.5 times higher than the median income, and private rents are set to rise by an estimated 65% over the next 10 years. That will create huge cost of living issues for people in my constituency. Road fuel prices are higher by about 2.1p a litre in rural areas and, on average, people who live in rural areas travel 53% further than those who live in urban areas. They are also less able to access public transport alternatives. In my area, there are poor rail services down to Plymouth and we have no airport. All those factors push people into cars, and rises in the price of fuel make it extremely difficult for our economy and the economies of individual families to thrive.

I shall finish my speech early because you pulled me up for intervening, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Chancellor will have listened to his colleagues on the Government Benches, and that he will also take seriously those on the Opposition Benches as we go through the Lobby tonight to make it absolutely clear that we need a temporary halt to the increase.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I should just like to point out to the hon. Lady that she has not given me back a minute, because she has taken an intervention. So we ended up with nothing!

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who, as always, spelt his argument out cogently and with great clarity. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said, very precisely, that the Bill is a small but necessary step. He is right, but so is my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who said that the legislation is an inadequate response to the economic crisis. How right she is.

The Government inherited an economy that was growing, and they now preside over one that is shrinking. We have the third quarter of negative growth, a double-dip recession made in Downing street, and we are one of only two G20 countries in such a parlous position. Part-time working is at its highest level since 1992, and unemployment among women and young people is at an all-time high. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made clear the waste and loss that can follow if young people do not get work when they leave the education system—a waste not only now but into the future.

Due to a lack of growth, the Government are on target to borrow more in five years than the Labour Government borrowed in 13 years. The economy badly needs growth now, and that requires demand. When I asked small businesses in my constituency what they needed, I was surprised by their response—a cut in VAT to stimulate retail sales. Labour’s policy to reverse last year’s damaging VAT rise for a temporary period would give spending an immediate boost and put cash in people’s pockets—£450 for a couple with children. People would spend that money in the high street, boosting businesses at the same time as helping struggling families and pensioners. Labour’s other policy of a one-year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements, repairs and maintenance would also boost home owners and small businesses, and stimulate demand in the economy.

Large businesses and companies in my constituency say that infrastructure projects need to be brought forward as that would stimulate demand in the economy. They include Clugston Construction, which this year celebrates 75 years of business, and Tata Steel, which sadly had to lose 1,200 jobs this year owing to a collapse in demand for construction steel in this country, as well as in the rest of the world.

The problem is not new; it has been around for a long time. The other day, I was reading Hilary Mantel’s “Bring up the Bodies”, which has been shortlisted for the Man Booker prize. I was struck by Thomas Cromwell, musing on the situation:

“England needs roads, forts, harbours, bridges. Men need work...honest labour could keep the realm secure. Can we not put them together, the hands and the task?”

Thomas Cromwell’s fictional words, through the voice of Mantel, grasp the issue. [Interruption.] We may not need forts now, but we need all those other things. Having listened to what hon. Members have said, there are many projects across our constituencies where we could put hands to work and make things happen.

Local people who work in the construction industry tell me that work is drying up. It has been tough in the real world in the past two years, but as Building Schools for the Future projects are completed and run out, and even supermarkets slow down their investment in new projects, the order books are emptying. Sadly, many construction companies have gone out of business. That is what is happening in the real world owing to the lack of demand.

As a leading local industrialist said to me at the weekend, it is time to get on with things. He is a practical man. He said, “It’s time to get the diggers in the ground and cranes on the skyline. What we need is work. We need jobs now.” Bringing infrastructure projects forward and getting jobs done that need to be done will put cash in the pockets of construction workers, who will spend that money in the real economy and therefore provide jobs for other workers. As Thomas Cromwell said:

“Can we not put them together, the hands and the task?”

Putting the hands and task together is a win-win.

The Government’s record on infrastructure is not yet a pretty one. I hope the Bill helps bring projects forward and that it is not just another re-announcement. Let us look at the record. None of the road building projects announced in the autumn statement package have begun construction. The value of orders for infrastructure investment made by the private sector fell by a fifth—from £7.3 billion to £5.9 billion—from 2010 to 2011. Output in the construction industry fell by 3.9% in the second quarter of 2012. The number of house building starts is down since the start of 2011.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend have a sense that the Bill, although utterly laudable, promises jam tomorrow? We do not have the clarity that the construction industry needs for planning and getting new jobs into the industry.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend echoes my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who said that the Bill is a laudable measure, but insufficiently urgent in responding to the crisis with which we are confronted.

We need action now to create growth. We need deeds, not words. We need action, not dither. Indeed, the CBI said recently that 2012 should be the year to deliver on infrastructure to “translate ambition into action” and to ensure we get people working on infrastructure projects

“that will help deliver a long-term return for the UK economy in the decades to come.”

Many things need doing. We have heard about the houses that need to be built, and transport projects in all hon. Members’ constituencies would transform their localities. The A160 in north Lincolnshire badly needs upgrading. It will be upgraded, but why not bring it forward so it happens now, giving confidence to business and everyone?

The messages from the Government on low-carbon investment have been confusing—including on the change to feed-in tariffs and on renewables. They do not create the confidence necessary to encourage private sector investment and development, and the private sector is looking at the Humber in respect of developing such initiatives. We had a debate last week on broadband in which all north Lincolnshire MPs, on a cross-party basis, agreed that broadband projects and infrastructure should be brought forward.

We are not short of projects, we are just short of will. Money has been pumped into the banks in quantitative easing, but they have not lent to anybody. Would it not be better to give the money to a national investment bank that invests directly in companies and gets things going?

As many hon. Members have said, it is not clear to which projects the Bill would give the green light. The Chief Secretary said that there were ongoing discussions with individual projects, but was vague about what would and would not get the green light. It is time to stop dithering and time to start doing. There is much to do. Let us get on with it.

Interest Rate Swap Products

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the mis-selling of interest rate swap products to small and medium-sized businesses; notes the work undertaken by the Financial Services Authority in this respect; and calls for a prompt resolution of the matter.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for awarding me the debate. It has received a number of fine applications for time in the main Chamber and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the mis-selling of bank interest rate swap products. A number of colleagues have indicated their willingness and a desire to speak in the debate, so I shall try to be as concise as I can in my opening remarks.

The issue came to my attention in dealing as an MP with the hassles raised in constituency surgeries. It is a great advert for doing surgeries: we never know what will come through the door. Back in the autumn of last year, a constituent came in to talk about interest rate swaps, collars, caps and similar things. I was a self-employed business person for 15 years before I was elected to this place, and it crossed my mind that this business man who was talking about the loss of his business and his hotel and the potential loss of his house might be finding an excuse for his business failure. I am not a hard-hearted individual, but I have been in business for a long time and I have the view that there is the rule of buyer beware in transactions with banks and other financial institutions. I therefore listened to his case attentively but with a degree of scepticism, wondering whether he was looking for an excuse for what happened to him.

The more I listened, however, the more I thought that there was something that I should look into, and the crux for me came when I tried to get hold of the verbal agreement between my constituent, Mr Colin Jones, and his bank. It took us a long time to get the bank to allow us to see a transcript of the verbal agreement, and by that point I understood something about the nature of interest swap derivatives and what was meant by swaps, caps and collars. I had a degree of understanding that we were not considering a straightforward financial product.

My concern, which became apparent from the transcript, was that time and again—on four if not five occasions—during the telephone conversation that was the basis of the legal agreement the bank described the product as a fixed rate one. The bank even went so far as to say, in essence, “Mr Jones, it is basically a fixed rate product. It will protect you in the same way as a fixed rate product would protect your house.” His problems and the financial effect of his decision to sign up to that product have been extremely damaging. He was misled, given that the description of the product as akin to a fixed rate product was, to say the least, economical with the truth.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I apologise for being a tad late in getting to the Chamber. I assume that the person his constituent was talking to was fully qualified under the Financial Services Authority to sell that product. I have some constituency business in which, clearly, there is a real issue about the competence and qualifications of the person doing the selling. Has the hon. Gentleman come across any similar problem either in his constituency or as a result of this debate being called?

[Guto Bebb]

There have been examples of such scenarios, which have come across my desk as a result of what has now become a campaign. One of the reasons for holding the debate is to ensure that more cases come forward, because the more information we have, the easier it will be for the FSA, for example, to bring the issue to a resolution and for the banks to acknowledge that there is a problem. The hon. Lady makes an important intervention.

IMF

Alison Seabeck Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Could the Chancellor please explain to the House and to his largely absent Lib Dem coalition partners—I say that for the record—why the amount chosen for the IMF is, by some extraordinary coincidence, just below the level required for a parliamentary vote? He has bandied around the words “political opportunism”, but is he not himself being a political opportunist?

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think that there is much political opportunism in having to take the difficult decision that Britain should contribute to IMF resources. I have taken that difficult decision, and I am happy to explain it to Parliament and to the public.