Amendment of the Law

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

They still had people living in them. The hon. Gentleman should come to the constituencies of Labour Members to see the investment in social homes, and the partnerships that were developed with the private sector to ensure that we had social homes alongside private developments. The previous Government were putting an end to the division whereby social homes were in one part of the community and private homes were built in another. That is the Labour way, and I am very proud of it.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The story the right hon. Lady tells is not one that I recognise in my constituency, which had the worst quality council housing in the whole country. Seventy per cent. of our housing was not up to the decent homes standard, and it has taken a Conservative-led coalition Government to deliver the £21 million to bring them up to standard over the next four years.

[Caroline Flint]

People throughout the country benefited from the decent homes programme and other housing initiatives that helped them to get on to the property ladder and to ensure that they had choices. In the first six months of 2010, before the election, the number of new homes built went up by more than 20%, but in the last six months of 2010, after the election, the number of new homes started fell by nearly 20%. If the Secretary of State wants that debate, I am always happy to have it with him—or with any of his colleagues.

The country wants to know what the Secretary of State and his Government will do to help to build the homes for which communities up and down the country are crying out. Whatever he pretends, the reality is that the Budget brings very little good news. It promises help for first-time buyers. The Opposition welcome the Government’s U-turn—their decision to bring back Labour’s homebuy scheme, which they insist on calling “Firstbuy”—but less than a year ago, the Minister for Housing and Local Government described that policy as an “expensive flop”. That was not what thousands of first-time buyers thought about it or what the housing industry made of it. The Home Builders Federation said that it

“was judged a major success by the industry”.

Only a matter of months later, with his customary humility, the Minister has been forced to admit that he called it wrong. We have wasted 10 months in which we could have ensured that people had a better opportunity to own their own homes. He has done too little, too late, and the measure does not go far enough, because while more than 3 million hopeful first-time buyers try to get a foot on the property ladder, the measure helps only 10,000 of them.

No one is convinced that the new homes bonus is the panacea to the housing crisis that the Government believe it to be, least of all the 21 Tory council leaders from the south-east who wrote to them earlier this year warning that they were not convinced that the plan provides enough of an incentive to communities for them to welcome development. The Budget was crying out for measures to support housing, but they did not happen. All it comes up with is the idea of allowing commercial properties to be turned into homes without requiring planning permission. When the Government get around to establishing exactly which sort of commercial properties will be allowed to turn into residential properties and under what conditions, we will look at their proposals carefully, but if the Secretary of State really believes that the answer to the country’s housing crisis is turning some empty offices into luxury penthouses, or asking people to live in disused out-of-town business parks or derelict industrial estates, he had better think again.

The biggest disappointment is the failure to address the deeper problems of housing supply and the lack of available mortgages. In their submission on the Budget, the Home Builders Federation is absolutely clear that mortgage availability

“is the biggest immediate constraint on demand and house building.”

Figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders published as recently as 18 March show that mortgage lending has stalled. It says that lending is

“weaker than a year ago”

and that the housing market is “stuck in a rut”, but on that, the Budget is silent.

Before we move on from housing, let us remind ourselves of another matter on which the Government have not lived up to their promises. Just a few weeks ago, the Minister for Housing and Local Government told the Zero Carbon Hub annual conference:

“The commitment to Zero Carbon remains in place—there’s no ambiguity about that”,

but when reading the small print of the Budget, we discover that that is just another broken promise, because from 2016, new homes will no longer have to source all their energy from carbon-neutral sources, which goes back on a commitment that the Conservatives made in opposition and repeated in government. Those standards were about not only protecting our environment, but driving innovation and creating new jobs in the green economy. The Government’s failure on that undermines not only their green credentials, but the ability of our economy to compete for new jobs, new investment and new industries.

Let me deal with the underlying economic nonsense at the heart of Government policy. They hope that the UK economy will be saved by an export-led recovery, which I call Osborne’s see-saw, because the Chancellor views the public and private sectors as opposite ends of a see-saw. He thinks that the harder, deeper and faster he cuts the public sector, the sooner the private sector grows to fill the space and suck up the unemployment. One does not have to be an economist to know that there is no reason why cutting home helps, police officers and council cleaners will lead to the UK selling more electrical equipment, cars or IT services abroad. However, I do know that if we cut public investment in roads, regeneration and house building, and shred the school building programme, the private sector takes a huge hit. The construction industry nose-dives and hundreds of thousands of skilled workers and those who manufacture and supply to them lose their jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

Of course that is right, and that is part of my point. I would like the zones to be targeted in unemployment blackspots, which we have in the north-east. Unfortunately for Blyth Valley and Wansbeck—my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) is not here—those zones did not come into our areas. If they are going to be in Tyneside, we have to get the people from our area into Tyneside, but the only transport we have is buses and people’s private cars—we have a rail link, but we do not have a train on it. If we target those blackspots, the enterprise zones might see some success.

Let me turn quickly to what I have heard since this Government came to power about how the last Government are to blame for the mess we are in. We hear all the time—we have heard it this evening—about the bankers’ mess, and that is indeed what I would call it: the bankers’ mess. The one thing that we never hear from the Government Benches is any criticism of the banks and the crisis that the bankers put us in. This country was going on wheels until 2008, when the bankers created the crisis. Government Members are not blaming the last Labour Government for the crisis in America, the crisis in Greece, the crisis in Spain, the crisis in Portugal or the crisis in Ireland. They are not blaming the Labour Government for all that—or would they in fact want to blame them for it?

I will tell the House why Government Members are not blaming the bankers: because since the Prime Minister was selected as a candidate for the leadership of the Tory party, the City has put £42 million into the Tory coffers to fight elections. That is why we do not hear anything from the Government side about the banks. That is why the banks and the bonuses are allowed to flourish, because the Tories are in the pay of the bankers. Make no mistake about it: that is a fact. The fact is that the Conservatives are in their pockets, and the banks are in their pockets.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I welcome this Budget as the first step in a much overdue reform of our economy and our tax system. It is not a sustainable position to expect the private sector, at 50% of the economy, to support itself and the other 50%, which is the public sector. The rebalancing of our economy is not a nice optional extra or a Government whim: it is absolutely essential to our country’s current and future economic survival in an increasingly competitive world. It will be by promoting enterprise that we grow our way out of the disastrous position left behind by the last Labour Government and their debt-fuelled economic model, which has been proven to be totally unsustainable. They borrowed even in the boom years of 1997 to 2004, when the national debt rose by an eye-watering £74.9 billion.

I welcome the announcement of the extra 1% cut in corporation tax to 26% this year, making it the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, which is accompanied by commitments to reduce corporation tax further in future years. That positive move will let international businesses know that Britain is truly open for business. In addition, there are many signposts that if someone is prepared to take risks to generate wealth and pay taxes, the rewards will be worth while. The doubling of the size of the entrepreneur’s relief, for instance, ensures that if someone creates wealth and employment, they will not be overly punished by the taxman when they exit their business.

Other measures taken in this Budget are a welcome start on the road to regulatory reform and will be of encouragement to employers in my constituency and across the country, especially those with fewer than 10 employees—90% of the businesses in this country fall into that category. The announcements on incentives for charitable giving and the rise in personal allowances should be welcomed and supported by Members on both sides of the House.

I also welcome the announcement that the 50p tax rate is to be reviewed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the revenue raised from the new rate calculated. I have written at length about the damage the measure has done to our economy. Hon. Members will recall that when Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60p to 40p in 1988, the tax take rose and the top earners actually paid a larger share of it. When the Treasury recently decided to set the rate of capital gains tax at 28%, it stated that studies it had conducted concluded that this was the rate that maximised the tax take. If that is correct and the optimum rate for unearned income is about 28%, it is very unlikely that the optimum top rate of income tax should be nearly double that level. I look forward to the report in due course.

On a personal basis, on behalf of North West Leicestershire, I very much welcome the news that the per plane tax plan is to be dropped. East Midlands airport is in my constituency and the jobs dependent on both the airport and air distribution are a significant part of my district’s economy and employment base. There is nothing more international than air transport and if we had acted alone with the per plane tax, those jobs would have been threatened. Cuts in fuel duty are also particularly welcome for North West Leicestershire, as one in three of our private sector jobs are either in distribution or distribution-related.

I believe the Budget will act as a signpost that the Government will take action to reform our taxation system and our economy. Labour left our economy in a totally unsustainable state—imbalanced in so many ways, whether that meant the proportion of the economy made up by the public sector, our decline in manufacturing or our reliance, or over-reliance, on financial services and housing bubbles. There is no doubt that Labour’s economic model was and still is unsustainable. The attitude of the Opposition to the record deficit they bequeathed the coalition Government is both startling and opportunistic. In opposing all the coalition Government’s saving reductions but still claiming to be in favour of deficit reduction, they are failing to act in their duty of being a credible Opposition on this topic.

This is a good Budget for growth, a good Budget for jobs and a good Budget for North West Leicestershire, and I support it enthusiastically.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

I shall conclude by making two further points, the first of which relates to the myths about this country’s level of deficit and national debt.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the OBR is in place. Does the hon. Gentleman think that if it had been formed back in 1997, it would have advised the Labour Government against increasing the national debt by a stonking £74.9 billion in the boom years between 1997 and 2004?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

We, like other countries in the western world, are losing manufacturing jobs because of our refusal to deal with Chinese imports and the consumer myth of buying ever cheaper from China. The inherent trade imbalances and problems that accrue as a result will come back to haunt us, and while I know that the Government will want to allocate time to discuss that vital subject in the near future, it is slightly outside our present debate.

The hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly wrong. While it would be wrong to discuss policy issues relating to the economy now, if the statistics had been broken down at that time to allow his assessment to be made more accurately, it is rational to assume that the situation could have been debated more regularly and in a more informed way. That might have had a positive impact for Opposition Members such as him as well as Labour Back Benchers. Indeed, such information might also have informed the previous Government’s policy making, which explains why amendment 1 is in the Government’s favour.

We need to know about job creation and what jobs are available not only in London and the south-east, but in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have talked about immigration, but there is an equally vital factor for economic and social policy: the blurring, albeit for rational reasons, of retirement age. We have to consider early retirement, late retirement and the retirement age itself, as well as the vital question of pensions. Some employers in areas such as mine have deliberately targeted getting the over-60s back into employment. That is perfectly rational, and it is good for those people, for the social economy and, perhaps, for the economy overall. We need the information, however; not because that is a bad thing, but because we need to know whether the new jobs in our regions and constituencies are getting those people who are deemed to be retired into the labour market, as opposed to people who are not working—whether they want to work or not. If we are to crack the problem of those who choose not to work, or who are incapable of getting work—again, the rational employer goes for the person with work history—such understanding will be vital to our economic and social policy. I put it to hon. Members that the rational employer is far more likely to employ a 67-year-old with an excellent work history who is re-entering the labour market, perhaps in a part-time job, than a 57-year-old who has been unemployed for 10 years.

The decisions taken by employers and those individuals who wish to re-enter the labour market are not necessarily matters for us, but the consequences of their decisions are important to us, and especially to economic policy making. An understanding of the precise breakdown of new jobs and job losses is fundamental to economic policy making. Several of the economic assumptions that can be made about consumer behaviour, pensioners and wage demands flow from such analysis. That is why, as a slight aside, it would be foolhardy not to give the Treasury Committee a role in all five OBR appointments, because such a role would ensure that if a Chancellor were so foolish as to skew the appointment process towards people with a certain mindset or from a certain discipline in economics, as opposed to trying to achieve a balance, that Chancellor could be corrected through appropriate cross-party decision making. I am talking about any Chancellor—the present one, whoever replaces him in future reshuffles and our Chancellor, when we are in power. It is vital that there is an evidence base that stands independent of the Government so that we can all decide how to vote on the various measures that the Government bring forward. How can we possibly make an informed decision otherwise, except by political instinct, which is important but insufficient compared with having all the information?

I am therefore puzzled by why the Government are not leaping to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East for tabling the amendment. Labour Members might see the fact that his approach would help out such a Tory Government as somewhat treacherous, but this is clearly the new politics. It is coalition gone mad when a Labour Front Bencher is putting forward a proposal that would help Conservative Back Benchers, the handful—a tiny number—of Liberals who are anywhere near government and the Government themselves.

Let me give another example about policy making. Who knows what will be determined about petrol policy tomorrow, but that is a good example of something that should be covered by the OBR’s analysis. We need to know what has happened, including in the past, so that we can assess the impact of VAT on petrol, as well as on petrol duty, and the changes to petrol duty itself. The Chancellor might decide not to cut the price of petrol and yet not to increase it further, even though the price paid by drivers such as myself has gone up by ten quid since he became Chancellor. If he decides not to increase the price further, we will need to see a breakdown of the relevant information. We could go back through history, although I can guarantee that such a consideration will not be in the report that the OBR produces tomorrow. I could assist the office, however, because I have statistics that demonstrate that 70% of the existing tax on petrol was brought in by Conservative Chancellors since 1973. One might ask why Conservative Chancellors pick on the motorist to such an extent, but that is a debate for tomorrow rather than today, although I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others in the rural community will want to know why that is the case.

The point, in the context of the amendment, is that we must know precisely what is going on. I imagine that Conservative Back Benchers would be shocked to find out that Conservative Chancellors are responsible, as of today, for 70% of the tax on petrol. If the OBR had the mandate, however, those statistics could be laid out for us at every Budget and the pressure would be on. The pressure would, of course, be on Labour if the reverse had been the case and Labour Chancellors such as my right hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) had been responsible for the rise.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s honesty in saying that Conservative Chancellors are responsible, because there is no doubt that Labour Chancellors have been extremely irresponsible. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I would not want to be tempted in the least. I will resist temptation.

The focus of the amendment is very much on the important area of growth. As I have mentioned, the important opportunity is to refocus our entrepreneurial activity on export-driven growth. For example, in the Budget tomorrow the Chancellor might announce tax breaks for investment in small and medium-sized enterprises, which I would welcome. I do not think that he will, because he does not particularly care about SMEs; he will just say something about not giving mothers and fathers rights to see their children. The fact is that, with regard to the engines of growth, the liquidity has been taken out by the banks, which are just rebalancing their balance sheets. They should be pressurised into providing the fuel to allow the entrepreneurial engine to move forward, because so many companies have full balance sheets but no cash flow because the banks are letting them down.

It would also be a good idea to have a tax break for investment in SMEs in order to push things forward, as that way people could put in their own money and it would produce a better rate of return from the point of view of the business and venture capitalists. I do not think for one moment that the Chancellor will announce such a tax break—he does not have the imagination—but if he did, that could be factored into the growth figures for the OBR, because obviously the money we would spend on the tax break would be recovered from business growth, particularly if it was targeted at export-driven, high-quality manufacturing.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

I will give way to the man with the badge.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the OBR, had it existed before the financial crisis, would have been able to tell the previous Government that much of the growth they were claiming was actually a mirage? That growth was driven by a Government who were spending more than they were gaining in taxes and so creating a deficit. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), they were also exporting manufacturing jobs to the far east and importing cheap goods, which was having a deflationary effect on our economy, allowing interest rates to be kept artificially low and feeding a housing bubble that was getting ever bigger. When it burst, that was when it all happened.

[Geraint Davies]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is wearing a badge saying that he has a GCSE in economics, but I doubt it.

On a serious point, I have already accepted that prior to the financial crisis there was a marginal deficit to be confronted, and it was going to be confronted through growth initiatives. We have since had the financial crisis, and the important thing now is to move forward with ideas for investing in growth. Clearly, there are big questions on tax and spend and where those will be deployed. Many new ideas might emerge in the Budget, such as a windfall tax on the energy giants, whose profit margins have suddenly increased by 38% because they did not adjust their prices when costs changed and so ripped off Britain’s consumers. That is obviously a legacy of the previous Conservative Government’s privatisation and the lack of controls.

There is money available to invest in growth and services and to close the deficit gap. The point about the amendment is that we must put growth centre stage, as that will enable us to move forward in a balanced way, rather than in the narrowly defined way that the Government prescribe. With those thoughts, I will give other Members the chance to make their own unique contributions.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I was saying that the Office for Budget Responsibility has given the lie to the view that a fuel duty stabiliser mechanism can be financed by the windfall that rising oil prices give the Government by revealing that that surplus does not exist.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was caught recently saying that the Liberal Democrats are in a “constant battle” inside the Government, especially over tax proposals. They are obviously in a battle over the fuel duty stabiliser. In debates on the 2008 Finance Bill, he said that fuel duty stabilisers were “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”. He also said:

“May I suggest that there might not be any net windfall at all?”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 339.]

The OBR has since confirmed that there is not. The Liberal Democrat bit of the Government is saying one thing and its Tory masters another. Together, there is total inaction on fuel prices.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded that introducing a fuel duty stabiliser would inject more uncertainty into the public finances rather than less. Analysis by the Policy Studies Institute found that if a stabiliser had existed for the 12 months to last December, when the price of petrol rose by 13p a litre, it would have cost the Exchequer a staggering £6 billion. The Government’s flagship policy on fuel, which they used cynically before the election to generate so many favourable headlines and to gather votes, is not only late in arriving, but looks shambolic and incoherent.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Ms Eagle]

It is clear that the policy can be introduced only at the risk of injecting huge and dangerous uncertainty into the public finances. I give way to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen).

[Andrew Bridgen]

The Labour party’s apparent damascene conversion on fuel taxes will amaze and intrigue the bulk of the electorate. Will the hon. Lady confirm whether she supported the crafty action of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, who effectively excluded fuel from a VAT reduction in 2008 by raising duty, and then put the VAT on fuel back up to 17.5% in January 2010?

[Ms Eagle]

One minute Government Members say that we have no plan to deal with the deficit, and the next minute they complain that we had a plan that would have raised money. They really do try to have it both ways and are not remotely coherent.

The time for action is now. The Chancellor should take immediate action on fuel prices to ease the cost of living crisis in Britain. He does not even have to wait until the Budget. We are calling on him to reverse immediately the 2.5 percentage point increase in VAT on petrol that he imposed in January.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

This is what the Prime Minister called for in November:

“The right framework, so it’s easier for new companies to start up”.

That is what he wants to happen in the east London tech city initiative. My question to the Minister is why is the Bill not doing that which the Prime Minister has so clearly called for? If it were my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn appealing to the Minister to do that, I could understand why he would not be willing to do it, but it is the Prime Minister, who appointed the Minister to his job. Why is the Minister not doing what the Prime Minister said?

I commend to the Minister the Prime Minister’s speech of 4 November, in which he went on to describe what different parties are doing to help to secure this vision of a new high-tech city in east London:

“But what about here—in the heart of east London where there’s already so much to work with? We’re working with business to make sure the infrastructure and advice you need is in place. Imperial Innovations, the venture capital arm of Imperial College London”—

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the coalition Government’s reintroduction of the enterprise allowance scheme, which we have opened to people the length and breadth of the UK who have been unemployed for six months or more to help them get into self-employment?

[Stephen Timms]

I have always taken the view that self-employment is a very important vehicle for helping people not in work to get into work. That is why the new deal for self-employment, as an element of the new deal in the past, was so valuable, and I welcome other initiatives to achieve the same thing.

The Prime Minister went on to say that Imperial Innovations

“is going to advise on making sure this accelerator space is attractive to spinout companies from academia and beyond. Indeed, they will be encouraging some of their own brilliant companies to be based here.”

I very much welcome that. I look forward to those start-up companies being established.

Bank Bonuses

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I do remember exactly that story of the Labour Government; indeed, I was reminded of it recently when I saw Tony Blair, that well-known consultant for J. P. Morgan. We are trying to sort out the situation that we inherited—a complete mess with no plans to put it right. Now, seven months in, the Opposition still have no serious economic policy to put forward.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer as appalled as I am by the mock anger of those on the Opposition Benches, which is a blatant attempt to mask the fact that they completely failed to regulate the banking industry that amounts to no more than blatant opportunism, and smacks of canting hypocrisy?

[Mr Osborne]

It is blatant opportunism, and it is a substitute for a serious economic policy. People will have long memories about what happened when Labour was in charge of our economy.

Banking Reform

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mudie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point which links with a point I was about to make. I have described the regulatory structure. There are differences between regulators throughout the western world, but the fact that they were all caught out shows that structure is secondary and that changes to structure alone will not prevent another crisis. We have all been affected despite those different structures, so one cannot attack regulatory structures or see them as a salvation. I regard such restructuring as simply rebuilding the Maginot line: it shows the public that we are doing something, that we are hard at work and that there is something concrete, but when it comes to effectiveness, it would suffer from the same deficiencies as the original Maginot line, so I do not think that structure matters.

If the banks, the bankers and their shareholders do not accept that they have to change their practices then what do we have? We have no regret from the banks and no acceptance that they played a part in events. Let us consider their behaviour over bonuses.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mudie]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), who is a colleague on the Treasury Committee. He always talks a lot of sense and has explained clearly how frustrated people in Britain feel about bankers’ bonuses.

I am amazed at the wording of the motion. To suggest that no action has been taken so far to prevent a recurrence of the financial crash is quite bizarre.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) talked about no regrets, no contrition and no admission of guilt for taking bonuses. Does my hon. Friend think he was talking about the bankers or former Labour Front-Bench Members?

[Andrea Leadsom]

To give a cautious answer, I think there was an element of both.

Last week, I had a meeting with senior bankers and the chief counsel of one bank. They certainly have the sense that the world has changed dramatically for them since the financial crash. As we would expect, both internal and external forces have combined to change things significantly. Tier 1 capital ratios are already significantly higher—from the 2% core at the time of the crisis to about 7% now, which is after all what Basel III will require. Leverage is significantly lower, at an average of 20 times, from about 38 times pre-crash—a considerable change. Many banks welcome the existing proposals to establish a clearing house for over-the-counter derivatives.

According to Hector Sants, the Financial Services Authority has quadrupled the extent of its regulatory investigations. He has even made comments about how afraid banks should be of him. The Bank of England special liquidity scheme still provides about £130 billion of liquidity to banks, enabling them to switch illiquid but good assets for Government bills. All those things are important changes, and they are only a few of the steps taken so far.

Still to come, in 2011 and 2012, are the new regulatory structures in the UK and Europe that will radically improve regulatory accountability. Instead of the FSA looking to the Bank of England and the Treasury for solutions—as in the case of Northern Rock—we will in future have a far stronger Bank of England. It will not just have responsibility for monetary policy and as lender of last resort; the Governor will also be ultimately responsible for individual bank supervisions and, critically, through the Financial Policy Committee, for the overall health of the financial system.

To speak of no action is completely wrong, but that is not to say that a lot more could not be done. It certainly could, and especially about two things: accountability and competition. Specifically, the competition issue worries me at all levels of banking. If we go back to Adam Smith and “The Wealth of Nations”, we see that to have successful free enterprise, we must have free entry and free exit for market players, but looking over the past 20 years, we see that consolidation in banking and the increasing costs of regulation have helped to create an industry where there are huge barriers to entry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me catch your eye in this debate; this is a little different from the last time that I spoke. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is not the size of the dog, but the size of the fight in the dog that decides who wins.

This is an important debate because we need a vibrant, strong and confident banking sector if we are to see the essential growth that all hon. Members desire for our economy. Before we look to the future, it is important that we should address the problems of the past, including the very recent past.

Many Labour Members seem to be keen simply to bash the bankers and blame them for the financial crisis and recession rather than look at the causal and contributory parts played by their own former Treasury Front Benchers, including the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). He has much to answer for, and I wish that he were in the Chamber more often so that he could do so.

[Mr Umunna]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bridgen]

With pleasure.

[Mr Umunna]

In fairness to many hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House, I should say that there has been a recognition that although the crisis was not 100% the fault of the bankers, they bear a huge part of the responsibility. As I said when I spoke, I think that before the crash there was a consensus around the world that tended towards a light-touch regulatory regime. That is something for which everybody, on both sides of the House and in legislatures throughout the western world, has to take responsibility. That has been acknowledged in the Chamber. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that sentiment has been expressed during this debate?

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman makes that point, but the previous Government encouraged and took part in an orgy of credit: in fact, they led it, and invited individuals and corporations to join in, safe in the knowledge that the former Prime Minister said that he had ended boom and bust, which now sounds as ridiculous as King Canute claiming he could turn back the tide. The taxpayer now has the hangover from that 10-year orgy of credit.

Under the former Prime Minister’s watch, the Bank of England deliberately stoked a consumer boom that led to spiralling house price inflation and massive levels of personal debt. This is not just my opinion, but that of the previous Governor of the Bank of England, the late Lord George, who said of that period:

“We knew that we were having to stimulate consumer spending. We knew we had pushed it up to levels which couldn't possibly be sustained into the medium and long term.”

That approach led to 20% house price inflation when the consumer prices index was running at 2%, led to financial institutions such as Northern Rock offering 120% mortgages, and ultimately led to a run on a British bank and the financial crisis of 2007. Opposition Members might blame America, global markets, or even the fact that we are not in the euro, as ridiculous as that sounds, but this misguided belief, and the hubris of the previous Prime Minister in believing that he had ended boom and bust, helped to contribute to the banking collapse. It is fascinating that the shadow Home Secretary—or perhaps I should say the shadow shadow Chancellor—stated that the cause of the deficit was not the previous Government’s borrowing, but rather the collapse of tax revenues. He failed to recognise that tax revenues based on rapid house inflation and excessive consumer credit are totally unsustainable.

The failure of the previous Prime Minister’s regulatory regime also contributed to the problem. It was clear in the early part of the decade that the UK had an unsustainable consumer credit funding gap: the IMF said so, as did the previous Governor of the Bank of England. The power to regulate had been transferred from the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury, with an inadequate definition of roles and responsibilities. It was an absolute disaster, as was shown at the height of the Northern Rock crash, when Mervyn King was asked, “Who is in control?” and his answer was, “That depends on how you define ‘in control’.” The answer was that nobody was in control, and no one could see who was in control. One cannot have a third of a problem—one wants all of the problem or none of it. That was part of the difficulty.

So where do we go from here? I am a firm believer in sound money. A sustainable banking system is one where lending policies are closely in sync with the projected economic activity of the people it serves, not driving them.

[Alison McGovern]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall, as I do, that the previous Conservative Government left the country with a deficit of 3.4% which was going towards ongoing spending, unlike the debt in 2008, which accorded with the “borrow to invest” rule? In relation to sound money, what does he think about that?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. She, like me, was not in this place at that time. I was in business running a corporation. I fixed the roof while the sun was shining, and I put my company into net credit three months before the banking crash happened.

We need a Government—and a regulator—who do not deliberately go to sleep at the wheel for political advantage, as the previous Government did. We must never let a bubble like the one that built up under the previous Government build up again. Our plan for growth depends on a sensible and sustainable banking system alongside more powerful incentives from Government. We must never return to the bubble that ended in the financial crisis and allowed banks to lend unsustainably under a tick-box regulatory system and a short-termist, feckless Government concerned more with political advantage than with the long-term interests of the country. In short, we need to look at creating a body that is solely in charge of financial stability and has responsibility for macro-economic supervision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on introducing this debate. I do not know whether he remembers it, but five years ago he spoke in Gloucester about the economy—I was the Labour party candidate in Cheltenham—and warned that the banks were out of control. A lot of people looked on that uncharitably, but, sadly, he was proved right, which is why we are having this debate.

The debate is important because there is great anger out there about bankers. No matter what Government Members say, people blame bankers. When I first came to the House, BBC Wales ran a profile of me, the last sentence of which was:

“Since leaving university he’s worked in bookmaking and in banking, which contrary to widespread belief are different professions.”

Yes, there is a difference. I come from a family of bookmakers —my father and my mother were both bookmakers—and the one thing that was drummed into me as I was growing up was risk. As bookmakers, we understood risks, which is why we had odds. We always knew what would happen if we could not cover our losses.

When I joined the bank, naively I thought that I was joining an institution that I could be proud of and that set standards to which other industries could aspire. Unfortunately, I discovered that it was completely and utterly different from that. I was told to lend to whomever I could. I still do not understand the logic of saying to somebody who cannot afford to pay their bills every month, “Mr Customer, you need a £10,000 loan to get you through.”

I got a warning for refusing to lend someone £25,000 in an unsecured loan, because—I was told—I was not thinking about the shareholders. That is the major problem. When I said to my manager, “This can’t go on. This is madness—we’re just writing people off,” he replied, “Son, it’s a sign of the times. You wouldn’t go into a shoe shop and expect not to buy shoes.” However, there is a difference. A person who goes into a shoe shop and buys the wrong shoes will get blisters; a person who goes into the bank and buys the wrong loan loses their house. The people at the bank did not understand that we were dealing with people’s lives. They were arrogant and blasé—“We can’t fail; we’re great banking institutions”—regardless of the Barings bank failure in 1991. I well remember the chief executive of Barings at the time saying, “It isn’t terribly difficult to make money in the City, old boy,” but the bankers ought to have learned that it is terribly difficult for builders and plumbers to earn money.

The essential truth is that banking is simple—a bank lends money to someone and makes money through the agreed interest rate—but the banks made it complicated. In the debate this afternoon, I have heard about derivatives and arbitrage, but the average person who walks into their bank will think, “What relevance do derivatives and arbitrage have in my life?” The banks made lending into mathematical equations—someone mentioned a biology graduate—and sold debt on, so the money came from several different sources. Eventually, that massive tower block collapsed when the person at the bottom failed. I have been reading Ha Joon-Chang’s “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism”, in which he argues that we should ban complex financial instruments. That is an outrageous thing to say, but if bankers and economists do not understand such instruments, how can anybody else be expected to do so?

Before I finish, I want to return to the anger that people feel. In an article in The Sun today headlined, “Bank chiefs grab £15 million bonus”, I read that Stephen Hester of RBS will receive £2.4 million, that Eric Daniels of Lloyds Banking Group will receive £2.3 million, that John Varley of Barclays will receive £3 million and that Peter Sands of Standard Chartered will receive £3.2 million. What message does that send to people? That money is absolutely obscene, including to people who work for those banks. I go back to my experience of working in a high street bank. We were kept on deliberately low wages. The only thing that kept us going was the promise of a bonus. They would say, “We want you to bring in so many leads so stay till 7 o’clock at night. Forget about your family. You’ve got to earn money and put some bread on the table boy.”

That is still going on. Someone came to my surgery the other day and said, “I have to work till 8 o’clock every night because I’ve got to speak to the people I did not speak to in the day. I’ve got to get leads.” No amount of Government legislation or regulation will change that.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that it is

“the hope of reward that sweetens labour”

for us all?

[Chris Evans]

For people earning £12,000 a year and struggling to pay the bills, the pressure is on to stay after work and phone up leads to earn a quarterly bonus just to get through. That is not right. They should be paid a living, decent wage, which is what the Opposition support. I hope that everyone else will eventually do likewise.

Finally, as I said, no amount of Government regulation or legislation will change that culture. We need to say to the bankers, who were to blame for the economic crisis, “Either you change your culture, or the crisis will happen all over again.” We had better start opening our eyes to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

That is a valid and important point. Central to that point is the judgment of people who look forward and have a broad view, looking after the health not only of the banking system, but of the macro-economy, while also having the ability to change the way they regulate according to changes in the economy, so as to take into account new developments, which is critical. Far from being the simple renaming of the institutions, bringing together macro-prudential regulation with regulation of the economy and monetary policy more broadly is central to restoring the ability to prevent the build-up of credit, as happened over the past 15 years.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to have a regulator who is fleet of foot than a clunking fist?

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The question that the Minister needs to reflect on, here or in Committee, is how we should split the national insurance holiday cake. There are many ways of doing that, but his way is unfair to the areas of greatest need, to the areas with the highest public sector employment, and to areas that contain seas of prosperity as well as deprivation.

The Minister has mentioned areas of high public sector employment, but I have already shown him the fallacy behind his argument as it affects many of our constituents throughout the country. Figures for jobseeker’s allowance show that the rate of unemployment is currently higher in London than in the south-west, part of which is represented by the hon. Member for Central Devon, in North Wales, where my constituency is, or in Scotland, where it is 3.8%. Unemployment is also higher in London than in the east midlands or the north-west—[Interruption.] The Economic Secretary to the Treasury did not take your strictures to heart, Madam Deputy Speaker. She is continuing to heckle from a sedentary position. I would be happy to give way to her if she wants to intervene.

However we measure unemployment, the levels of jobseeker’s allowance claims in London are higher than in the south-west, Wales, Scotland, the east midlands and the north-west. Indeed, they are above the UK average. That is a key point when we are thinking about how to divide the cake up.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I must say that the enthusiasm being shown by the right hon. Gentleman, and by so many Opposition Members for this fantastic Conservative policy, or coalition policy, on national insurance holidays is absolutely heart-warming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

If the scheme were applied to Greater London, the east and the south-east, and taken up at the level that the Minister expects, it would—according to figures that he gave me only last night—cost about £660 million. He says that there are about 1,000 interested companies to date, but I do not know what the take-up would be.

The cost could be offset by new employment and new taxes, because let us remember that the scheme under discussion is for new businesses, so the holiday period offset will be a cost to the Treasury, but it could be offset by increased growth, increased taxation paid by individuals who are employed and by the increased growth of businesses. The cost of the scheme downstream, at the end of the three years, is debatable, but, equally, there are ways in which we could divvy up the money that the Minister has allocated to the regions of Wales—one of which the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) represents—and all others. We could think about whether to divvy them up differently, so as to tackle areas of high unemployment in London or—if the Minister’s criterion is high public sector employment—areas with high public sector employment, such as those that I mentioned. They are in the 10% of areas with the highest such employment, and include seats that the current scheme will not cover.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his statement? Did he just suggest that we cut taxes to increase growth in order to increase the tax take overall? If so, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman as a believer in the Laffer curve.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition have a growth strategy. We had one prior to the election.

The measure under discussion has been proposed to give new businesses a national insurance holiday to help them with their costs for three years. The Minister estimates the costs for the three regions as £650 million to £660 million, based on the scheme’s anticipated roll-out in those regions. My simple point is that these are new employment jobs and new businesses, so they will presumably entail new employment areas and new people employed to fill them, who will pay new taxes. All that is part of the growth strategy, which will be hit hard by VAT increases and public spending cuts. That is a separate issue.

If we are thinking about a payment holiday, the question for me is whether it will achieve its objectives by being available in the areas of the highest public sector employment, or whether it will go to areas such as Tatton, Richmond or other wealthy areas of the north and midlands. In those areas jobs will be created, but the people who most need them will not be able to get them. That is the crucial issue for debate.

Without making a party political point of it, I would argue that Government Members have participated constructively both in previous debates on this subject and in today’s debate. John Walker, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses has said:

“With small firms in the South East most likely to be working below capacity, this shows how wrong the Government is to not include this vital region, as well as the East and London, in its proposals for a National Insurance holiday for start-up businesses.”

I have already said that we are not going to vote against the Bill—although if the reasoned amendment had been selected we would have voted for that. However, it is important both to consider the issue in the round and for the Minister to reflect on the concerns expressed, by his hon. Friends as well as by Labour Members, about the application of the national insurance holiday.

At the same time as implementing this Bill, the Minister is scrapping completely the regional growth strategy for different departments, and scrapping the regional development agencies and replacing them with local enterprise partnerships, which in my view will not help with regional development to the extent that we would want. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) has said that that sends out the wrong message about the work that has been done.

We need to look towards a better application of this policy, and the Minister needs to reflect further on the concerns expressed in our debate. Although we will disagree politically, I am most interested in ensuring that any national insurance holiday is of benefit to the people who most need it. Sadly, the Bill misses the mark in that respect, and fails to address those key issues.

I repeat that we will give the Bill a fair passage and not vote against it this evening. We welcome the rise in national insurance, which we too would have implemented. We welcome the holiday provisions as far as they go, but they need further reflection, so we will take every opportunity in Committee to try to persuade the Minister to look at more imaginative schemes, which might use the same amount of money in different ways, or extend the holiday to areas where it would be a valued resource and help reduce unemployment in the constituencies in the south-east, London and the east that most need that.

I hope that what I have said is helpful to the Minister. I look forward to spending the next few weeks in Committee with him, just as I have spent the last few weeks in Committee with him and his colleagues on various other Bills. To make a wholly non-partisan point, the Treasury appears to be one of the busiest Departments at the moment, and we are all having fun. I am sure that our discussions will shortly continue elsewhere.

Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the test of any currency is in the tough times, not just the good ones? That was explained to all the countries that joined the euro, many of which, in my view, did so with their eyes wide shut. Is it not abhorrent that this liability, and the failure of the euro, should become a liability to the UK taxpayer at this time?

[Mr Hoban]

I do think that we have an interest in having a strong, stable eurozone and eurozone economy. Member states will reflect on the measures that need to be taken to strengthen the eurozone; that is part of the thinking behind some of the measures in the economic governance paper proposed by Herman Von Rompuy just a few months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

Of course there are areas where more work needs to be done, and the hon. Gentleman is right that Michel Barnier has made further proposals, in a consultation paper that he published earlier this year. They included looking at the business models for credit rating agencies. However, I question whether taxpayers in Europe would feel it right that their money should be going to fund credit rating agencies.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is it not a cause for cautious optimism that agencies such as Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have now given the UK such an excellent credit rating?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it just goes to show that credit rating agencies do not get it wrong all the time. In May, Standard & Poor’s put the UK’s credit rating on a “negative outlook”, as a consequence of the previous Government’s policies. However, in October it said that

“the coalition parties have shown a high degree of cohesion in putting the U.K.’s public finances onto what we view to be a more sustainable footing.”

We welcome those comments.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There is a very substantial increase, of about 37%, in DFID’s budget. There are parts of international development work that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office carries out too—conflict stabilisation and the like. It is, of course, perfectly within the rules set on the UN commitment, which are internationally policed and so we cannot fudge them, and perfectly reasonable to count that expenditure towards the 0.7% target. However, the large bulk will be delivered through DFID, whose budget has a substantial increase. I suggest that it is a task for this House—all parties—to ensure that that development aid is well spent on the poorest people and on conflict prevention.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why the previous Labour Government failed to hold a spending review was because they bottled their responsibilities? Does he also agree that Labour Members are still running away from those now and that the cuts that we are seeing are no more than the butcher’s bill for 13 years of Labour profligacy and waste?

[Mr Osborne]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is striking that in all the responses and everything that we have heard today from Labour Front Benchers and Back Benchers there has not been a single positive proposal as to how to reduce the deficit that they all sat there and allowed to grow.