Stamp Duty (Housing Market)
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. This debate is broad, and I am sure that there will be various takes on stamp duty. I wanted it to be broad because people will have different views on what we should be doing about stamp duty, which is incurred by many constituents throughout the country.
Stamp duty land tax first appeared in its current form in 2003, and it is interesting to note that it has not been debated outside its legislative context since then. It was debated briefly in 2006, when the zero-rate threshold was raised from £120,000 to £125,000, but other than that the House has not debated it, yet stamp duty has been putting increasing pressure on home buyers since then.
I am sure that the public find it odd that such a burdensome tax affecting that most British of ideals—home ownership—has not been properly examined by Members in the House. As a Conservative, I am proud to say that I believe we are the party of home ownership. Indeed, it was under Margaret Thatcher in 1980 that we encouraged people to believe that owning their own homes gave them a stake in society and their community, aspiration and a belief that they and their families could get on. I am sure that many people in your constituency, Mr Betts, have aspired to own their own homes and taken up the right to buy introduced in 1980.
It is depressing to realise that, in constituencies such as mine, not a single property will be left below the 1% threshold. Even a tiny one-bedroom flat—an ordinary flat, not in a chichi area—will cost £170,000. I am concerned that by allowing so many people to be sucked into paying ever-higher rates of tax despite the fact that earnings have either risen only modestly or been frozen, such as in public sector jobs, we are denying our families of the future the chance to own their own homes. In 1980, we believed in encouraging families at all income levels to own their own home, and I hope that we have not moved away from that ideal.
Labour introduced the tax in 2003, but I believe that we should move away from politics on this matter, as the tax now sucks in many constituencies represented by Labour Members. Many of them are on the payroll, like Government Members, and will not be able to discuss the matter in this debate, but they know who they are. A quick look on Rightmove, Zoopla or similar sites will show how many constituencies—often ones with areas of multiple deprivation—have hugely expensive house prices. They are victims of what I like to call bracket creep.
The House might be interested to hear a few figures from Zoopla, showing how the tax hits huge numbers of people across the political divide. In Rutland, Leicestershire, the average house price is £319,000. In Witney, Oxfordshire, it is £324,000. In Twickenham, it is £653,000; in Bath, £355,000; in Cheltenham, £304,000; in Southwark, £653,000; in Bethnal Green, £447,000. I hope that I have demonstrated in that snapshot that the issue affects all parties and areas across the country. The Chancellor might be interested to know that the average house price in his constituency of Tatton is £640,000, with a stamp duty liability of £25,600.
As MP for St Albans, I am regularly told tales of woe by home buyers there. When I asked my local estate agents at Collinson Hall what effect they believed the stamp duty land tax was having on the housing market, some of the things that they said were shocking. To quote their e-mail to me:
“I do, however, believe that the real lack of supply of properties in St Albans between £650,000 and £1 million is due to the majority of local people who in earlier times would have been looking to sell in this price range and buy upwards in the market deciding to extend their own property instead of moving, due to the moving costs including SDLT of around 6%. This scarcity is in turn having a direct impact on prices increasing.”
People’s lack of willingness to move and their decision to stay put, rather than be clobbered with the duty, is resulting in a sclerosis in the market.
Shockingly, Collinson Hall went on to say that
“we find that more buyers use stamp duty as a negotiating tool to drive an asking price down, and we do have to be extremely careful when pricing a property that would be close to a stamp duty threshold. For example, if we feel a property is likely to be worth £265,000, the conversation would likely be, ‘You are definitely going to get £250,000 because of the change in stamp duty, but if you price it at £275,000-£280,000’”—
thus inflating the price—
“‘you may get someone that feels it is priced enough over the threshold to justify paying the extra stamp duty.’”
That is bizarre. I cannot believe that we should price houses to move them away from certain thresholds so that in the end people feel, “Well, they’re never going to accept the lower figure, so I’ll pay it.” It is having an effect on the market in areas such as mine.
According to the TaxPayers Alliance, by 2017-18, 87% of homes in St Albans will be in the 3% band or higher. If we believe that the levy was introduced to clobber those who are more affluent, I cannot accept that 87% of all homes in my constituency will catch those people. I have areas of multiple deprivation in my constituency, as I am sure do other colleagues here, and people there are being hit just as hard trying to stay in the area close to their families.
It is getting harder and harder for public sector workers to afford living in higher-priced areas such as my constituency. They are priced out by high house values and doubly clobbered by having to pay stamp duty. A tax that I believe was originally designed for wealthy home buyers now brings so much money into the Treasury that—I say this to the Minister—it is now seen as an untouchable cash cow, too big and too lucrative to be tinkered with.
Collection of stamp duty in its current form enshrines inequality, denies fair access to home ownership and taxes aspiration. It is discriminatory, targeting certain areas of the country regardless of ability to pay. That cannot be fair. Ordinary families are being clobbered the most by the tax. To give an example of how the middle-class postcode tax, as I call it, works, here are three starting salaries for public sector workers: a nurse is paid just over £21,000, a teacher just over £22,000 and a police officer just over £23,000. Those are certainly not riches beyond avarice, but many in the public sector in my constituency and others like it earn such salaries.
If such people are trying to save for their first home, they have a mountain to climb. While they wait to get their finances in place, they will face, according to Zoopla, a crippling average home rental in the south and east of £1,765 a month. They will have to shell out an awful lot of their modest salaries just to live in the area that they serve by working in the public sector. If they are not paying rent, they may be squatting like overgrown cuckoos in their parents’ home, while they pile as much money as possible into their savings pot or piggy bank to get on the housing ladder. If they are young graduates, 9% of their income will already have been sliced directly out of their salary through the tax system to pay for any student loans. They face a housing market that has risen by 27% over the past five years, according to the Office for National Statistics. House prices are zooming out of reach. They will have to scrape together a deposit and fees. Then, if they happen to be a victim of the postcode tax, they will have to save for stamp duty on top of everything else.
The reason why it is a postcode tax is that—as will become apparent if hon. Members go to property websites—in some postcodes, hardly anyone pays any tax to the Chancellor, not even 1% tax on a modest three-bedroom semi-detached house. In other areas, such as mine, the same house has a huge 3% tax bill attached to it. Houses of £500,000 and under are not mansions. They are ordinary family homes for many of us. That is why we must tackle the bands to banish the unfairness of bracket creep.
Take the middle figure among our public sector employees, a young teacher with a salary of just over £22,000. That salary would go a lot further, for example, in Droitwich, a pleasant spa town in the midlands where the average house price is £203,000—well under the 3% limit with a tax duty of just over £2,000. In St Albans, the same house would cost an average of £475,000. According to the latest figures, it would incur a whopping £13,701 in tax.
People working in our public sector, aspiring to achieve the same things, are, in certain areas, having to put a large amount aside to pay tax—and for what? What are they getting that that teacher in Droitwich does not get? They have the same salaries, same job, same hopes and dreams of their own home and, hopefully, a family; but in areas such as mine, there is a massive financial hill to climb, and people are finding themselves unable to access the housing market, no matter how hard they work or save, and doomed, at best, to squeeze into tiny spaces unsuitable for family living.
Is it any wonder that, according to MoneySuperMarket, people are aged 36 before they can expect to get on the property ladder in the south and east? That is nearly middle-aged. By 36 most of us feel that we should have achieved things with our lives. We are sitting on a time bomb. A whole generation will, according to the Office for National Statistics, have their first child when they are 30—before the age at which they can expect to be on the housing ladder—and probably be divorced by 40, possibly due to the pressures of trying to get on the housing ladder, having spent their entire adult lives, or at least the most productive part of their adult lives, unable to put a roof over their own heads and battling financial stresses. That is not the mark of a caring or fair society. I do not believe that that was intended when stamp duty land tax was originally thought of. It is a stealth tax, because people are unaware of exactly how much they are going to pay until they find the house that they want to buy. It is not a tax that allows anyone to figure the amount of savings into paying it. It is variable.
This is a timely debate, as the major parties are now furiously refining their policies, which will later appear in manifestos, and then we will have a chance to thrash things out. It was interesting to see that in a speech in “Total Politics”—it was pointed out to me—the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), prior to the Labour party’s manifesto being made, gave a commitment to get rid of stamp duty land tax for all houses under £250,000. Sadly, that did not make it into his manifesto, or into ours. I should like to know the Labour party’s view of whether there should be movement in the bands.
It is time to give some helpful suggestions to the Chancellor before his autumn statement and tease out from the Labour party what commitments it would like to make to the British public, because as I said earlier, this affects everyone; it does not matter whether people are in a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat constituency.
We have a duty to help the next generation get on the ladder to owning their own home. The Government have recognised this. On 30 April, during Prime Minister’s questions, I asked him about considering stamp duty thresholds and helping young people get on the housing ladder. He said that he was
“very happy to look at the issues that she raises, but the weapon that we have used to try to help young people who do not have rich parents but who can afford mortgage payments is Help to Buy”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 828.]
I agree with the Prime Minister that home ownership should not be about the bank of mum and dad, but in constituencies such as mine, it is about the bank of mum and dad. In many ordinary families, parents do not raid the savings account or the trust fund, but will often downsize to release equity.
It is ironic that in constituencies such as mine parents who trade down to release equity to help their children will usually pay stamp duty on their smaller property as well, and then hand over money to help pay the stamp duty on the son or daughter’s purchase. Taxed on the way up and taxed on the way down.
Although the Help to Buy scheme is a valuable tool that works in some parts of the country, as has been shown by statistics, the areas where it does work are those with lower-priced houses. It is not well taken up in areas with high-value house prices, such as mine. In the two years between March 2012 and 2014, only seven people have used the Help to Buy New Buy scheme in St Albans. No one has just used the Help to Buy scheme. Why? If a buyer cannot scrape together a big enough deposit to qualify for the Help to Buy scheme, how on earth are they going to save to pay the tax associated with it as well? The Chancellor is helping giving with one hand and taking back with the other. That is so unfair. If a young person qualifies for the Help to Buy scheme, where are they getting the money from for the tax due on a high-value property? It cannot be rolled up into their mortgage, so is it the bank of mum and dad again? I think that it would have to be; either that or, hopefully, somebody will lend it to them from another source. Therefore, we are pushing people more into debt.
We must not try to tinker with the Help to Buy scheme, because it will not remain in place in perpetuity for first-time buyers, and it certainly does not help people who are downsizing. Unless we tackle stamp duty, it will be an ever-increasing obstacle to property ownership. The Homeowners Alliance points out that stamp duty has risen 7.1 times faster than inflation, 6.5 times faster than average earnings and 4.6 times faster than house prices. Stamp duty is proving a significant barrier to first-time buyers getting on to the property ladder and slowing existing homeowners’ progress up the ladder. The average stamp duty bill is now the equivalent of 11 weeks’ wages—for what?
Too many constituents of all ages, whether they are moving up or down the ladder, point out the unfairness of being taxed multiple times in high-value areas such as the south and the east. People are taxed if a couple splits up and one has to buy the other out if they want a property; taxed if a divorcing couple have to buy two less expensive properties in areas like mine—they will still pay stamp duty—further diminishing their ability to stay in the area, which is perhaps where their children go to school; taxed if a separated single father tries to buy to stay near his children; taxed if they are elderly and want to downsize to help supplement funds for personal care. Taxed on the way up and taxed on the way down.
Stamp duty land tax is a strong contender for the worst-designed tax, because the relevant rate applies to the full sale price. Transactions of very similar value are discouraged to completely different degrees and there are enormous incentives to keep prices just below the thresholds, as Collinson’s estate agents have pointed out. The Government should move away from this slab structure and tackle the unfairness of paying stamp duty on ordinary homes below £500,000. Overhauling stamp duty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) said today in The Daily Telegraph, would fuel growth and increase wider tax receipts, and, above all, it would be fair and increase property ownership for those we say we would like to help.
These artificial ceilings distort the market. Builders tell me that home owners put off doing improvements to homes—I had an e-mail to that effect—that are at threshold level. What would be the point of making those improvements if no money would ever be recouped? Sellers come up with creative wheezes to stay just below the threshold. Such a ceiling reduces labour mobility, because people are discouraged from moving to where suitable jobs are available. Data from the Land Registry show bunching below stamp duty thresholds.
Let me mention a St Albans house move example that could so easily be an example from Cheltenham or Tatton. On average, a person moves four times in their lifetime. In St Albans and many other areas, particularly in the south and east, this could be their property journey: first home, a small flat, average price just over £262,463 and purchase price incurring 3% tax of £7,873; second home, a small terrace, average price of £393,543 but more than £11,806 tax due; third home, a modest family detached, £759,191 and now paying more than £30,000 tax; and when the family flies the nest, hopefully when deposits have been saved up, Mr and Mrs Average in St Albans downsize to their fourth home, a modest semi-detached at £492,802, paying nearly £15,000 in tax. Of course, that family could have moved many more times. Nevertheless, during those four moves, they will have a stamp duty spend of more than £64,000. The average wage is only £37,000 in St Albans, and obviously a lot less for younger people, so that is nearly two years’ pay just to be able to move house, on top of all the fees.
According to a Lloyds survey of my constituency, people in St Albans pay 34% of their disposable income on their mortgage payment, compared with the 28% average. Although stamp duty hits London and the south-east particularly hard, analysis of the data shows that it is a huge burden on the entire country. The key findings of this research are that in 2012-13, more than £4 billion was paid by home buyers in stamp duty, of which £3.6 billion was paid at a rate of 3% or more, which shows that a significant number—indeed, the majority—of homes are coming into this 3% bracket. We should not be clobbering people just because we can. I think that tax should be fair and proportionate and should not suck ever more people of modest means into its remit.
If a tax has a negative impact on society, as Members of Parliament, we should tackle it. It too easy to say, “There is a black hole. Let’s fill it.” I read in the paper yesterday that Mr Speaker has decided to spend £100,000 more in his budget. We spend a lot of money in the House moving the furniture around and decorating things that seem perfectly fine to me. We waste money, left, right and centre, in Departments, on ministerial cars, and so on, and even, I would say, giving free school meals that we cannot afford or need to give to children in areas such as mine, for example. We can look at other budgets. Why are we clobbering young people trying to own their own home? It is not fair; it is too simplistic and too easy; and the desperate aspiration to get on the housing ladder means that people will have to stump up somehow, if they wish to do it.
It is obvious that the first two brackets are catching significant numbers of ordinary people, many of whom can least afford it. I call on the Minister—I am pleased to see him here—to go back to the Chancellor, persuaded of the case that we should get rid of this unfair postcode tax on thousands of ordinary families with homes worth less than £500,000. They are being stamped on by the Treasury, and it is just not fair.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, I think for the first time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this important debate with her characteristic tenacity. I can only reinforce the compelling arguments she has made, which I am sure will be conveyed to the Chancellor through Treasury Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I hope that that will result in further action on this important issue.
I start on the key point of principle of economics: a well functioning housing market should enable people to engage in mutually beneficial transactions and make efficient use of existing housing stock. We know that we have a problem with the supply of housing stock, which is all the more reason to make the best use of the stock we have. I pay tribute to the coalition for its efforts to increase the overall housing supply and, in particular, the supply of affordable housing.
What does that principle mean for the average person? A family in a small house should be able to move to a larger one, if they need to or if they have a growing family, or because of a promotion from working harder. Older couples should not be forgotten. They want to be free to downsize when and how they want, not least to free up cash for other needs. They might want to go travelling, if they are in good health. They might want or need to use the money for care, or they might want to realise some of the value from their assets and free up some money from them. We should not be creaming money off people with those real social needs. The key point is that stamp duty is a poorly designed tax that undercuts that type of social mobility in both directions.
Further to what my hon. Friend said, I have all sorts of horror stories from my constituency, where we feel the disproportionate burden of stamp duty. Some families in Elmbridge are on very high incomes, but overall, looking beyond the small minority who are doing incredibly well and are very affluent, the truth is—I see this day to day, week to week and month to month—that it is no land of milk and honey. The vast majority are hard-working people on low and middle incomes. We also have pockets of acute deprivation and, in particular, as I alluded to, elderly deprivation. For many residents, their home is a nest egg that has been built up after years of saving. They may be asset-rich in statistical terms, but they are income-poor. They might want to downsize or need to release the cash for income or the cost of care, and stamp duty has an utterly arbitrary impact on them.
As my hon. Friend said, many key workers in local public services simply find it unaffordable to live locally, and stamp duty exacerbates that problem. Above all, I want to take time to speak out as a voice for the many people in low and middle-income households. They are working hard and facing high cost of living pressures, of which affordable housing is a major factor. As of the second quarter of last year, the median house price in Elmbridge was £445,000. That does not buy a mansion. Typically, it fetches a nice, but relatively modest-sized, two-bedroom home. According to market data, a family in a small home looking to buy a larger one would face a bill of £13,000 on the average two-bedroom property and a bill of £23,000 on the average three-bedroom home.
Mrs Main
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about families growing up in cramped environments? What space is there for children to study? There is a direct correlation between people living in cramped conditions and achievement in life. If we are not allowing people to move up, that could be part of the problem.
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend has made a typically astute point. The problem has a social impact as well as an economic one. Let us remember that stamp duty costs are on top of the tax on income, the money that families scrape together for a deposit, the legal fees, which are increasingly high, and the money for a survey. The cumulative bill in my constituency is staggering. To give a sense of the big picture, for 2012-13, residents in my constituency paid £56 million to the Exchequer in stamp duty on residential property. That is more than the total paid in the whole of the north-east of England. I am not trying to set off some sort of north-south divide, but at some point in the debate on the redistribution of wealth, there needs to be some recognition that it is not just the uber-wealthy and the super rich who are paying the burden; it is middle England, the middle classes and those on relatively low and middling incomes.
The amount of stamp duty paid in my constituency is equivalent to a third of the figure for the entirety of Scotland. Frankly, in constituencies such as mine, stamp duty feels like an assault by the taxman on hard-working, middle-income savers, who are precisely the people we should be incentivising, not walloping—I would have said “clobbering”, but my hon. Friend has used that word. Of course, Esher and Walton is just one example of the geographic unevenness of stamp duty. London accounted for 41% of residential stamp duty last year, with the south-east accounting for a further 22%. England as a whole accounts for 94% of UK stamp duty. The tax clearly has an arbitrary effect in different areas of Britain.
More broadly, the tax is not economically efficient. If we look at the raw economics—I know my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and the Minister care deeply about economic efficiency—we see that it is an inefficient tax. Stamp duty on residential property distorts the whole structure of the housing market. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans has mentioned the slab structure, under which the relevant rates apply to the full sale price, not just the part above the relevant threshold. That creates huge cliff edges. A £1 increase in the price of a home, from just under £250,000 to just over, triggers an extra tax liability of £5,000. The cliff edges have been shown to harm both home owners and would-be buyers. After all, why would someone put an offer in for a property at £255,000, when for the extra £5,000 in bricks and mortar, they would pay more in stamp duty? They would not—no one does, and the data from all the estate agents bear that out.
Data on the distribution of transactions show that most buyers are simply unable or unwilling to meet asking prices just above the £250,000 threshold, because of the extra £5,000 penalty in stamp duty. As a result, the property experts London Central Portfolio, together with the Cass business school, has estimated that 13,800 home owners a year are being forced to reduce the asking price of their house to get under a stamp duty threshold. Other would-be sellers are either unable or unwilling to reduce their prices to below the nearest threshold. That causes bottlenecks in the market and a drought of available properties in certain price ranges in certain areas, until market prices rise far enough to justify the additional stamp duty, which takes a while. That deters buyers and sellers and reduces labour mobility, as my hon. Friend pointed out, because people are discouraged from moving to where suitable jobs are available, which damages the economy as a whole. It is little wonder, therefore, that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described stamp duty as
“a strong contender for the UK’s worst designed tax”,
with a “perverse” and “absurd” structure. The director of the IFS argued earlier this year that in the modern era of broadly-based taxation, the case for maintaining stamp duty is “very weak indeed”.
However, it is not just the economic distortions and inefficiencies that we should care about. Frankly, Government Members have perhaps been a bit too defensive about coming out and saying squarely, as my hon. Friend has, that this is socially unfair and wrong. That is illustrated by the data from my constituency and the impact of the 1% rate, let alone the 3% rate. Take a family—a two-salary couple who both earn £15,000 a year—who are mortgaged to the hilt to buy a property. The usual limit, which is strictly enforced, is debt at four times joint salary. They have scraped together the money for a 10% deposit, and that way they can buy a property at £150,000. Why should they pay £1,500 extra in tax at that point? It is just a penalty. It might seem like a small percentage of the price of the property, but for families on tight margins, working hard, it is utterly punitive.
When the additional 3% and 4% rates were introduced in 2000, they were designed to target the wealthiest, and had the original threshold for the 3% rate risen in line with house price inflation, it would be levied only on properties worth £1.3 million or more today. In 2000, 391,000 homes were exempt from stamp duty. Today, that number has almost halved. That is the level, scope and scale of the fiscal drag we are discussing. The average UK house price in 2000 was around £110,000, which is well below the 3% threshold, but the average price today, according to the Office for National Statistics, is £265,000, which is well over the 3% rate, landing middle-income home buyers with a bill of some £8,000. If we are really in the business of supporting and encouraging savers, how on earth can we justify such a penalty? Sales in the 3% band covering homes worth between £250,000 and £500,000 increased from 8% as a proportion of total sales in 2003 to 19% in 2013. According to London Central Portfolio and the Cass business school, revenue from the 3% band has almost tripled since 2000, rising from £724 million to close to £2 billion this year.
Such a fiscal drag is not only a serious problem in its own right, but should also serve as the starkest of warnings to anyone in any party who is tempted by a mansion tax, as proposed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. That is perhaps why no Labour Back Benchers are here to justify either the stealth tax implemented by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), or their current proposals.
Mrs Main
I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentions the mansion tax, because there has been much rhetoric about it catching only the wealthiest. I completely agree with him that people felt that the 3% stamp duty threshold was not for them and only for the wealthiest, but in areas such as mine and his, it will soon become a mansion tax for the ordinary and not the wealthy.
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Liberal Democrats originally started discussing a mansion tax, it was to be levied on homes worth £1 million, and when everyone complained about fiscal drag, stamp duty and the like, it was increased to £2 million. What is most interesting is that if the Liberal Democrats use that extra money for the perfectly laudable objective of increasing the personal tax allowance still further, there is a black hole of something like £6 billion in their spending plans, so they would have to increase the net of their mansion tax. The lesson from stamp duty that the Labour party has offered us, which the Liberal Democrats ignore and which Conservatives must take on board, is that what starts out as a tax on the rich always ends up—I will use the word my hon. Friend used—clobbering the middle classes. That is the stark reality that we must guard against.
Stamp duty should be abolished for homes under £500,000 and the remaining thresholds should be indexed to house price inflation in primary legislation. It would be a dynamic tax cut that would probably—it can never be guaranteed—raise additional revenue. I set out in a report for the Centre for Policy Studies how we could fund the change up front by cutting back on the waste mentioned by my hon. Friend. Extra revenue could be raised while a major economic and social issue is dealt with.
Stamp duty has morphed into a vindictive stealth tax on aspirational Britain. It distorts the housing market. It warps labour mobility. It penalises savers. It wallops those on relatively low and middle incomes. The case for reform is overwhelming.
Mrs Main
One of the worst cases that I have heard is of people selling properties with planning permission for a large extension, so that they do not then pay stamp duty on the builder building the extension, but simply on the property that they have bought. That is the most outrageous case that I have heard recently.
Mr Jones
That can also happen.
We need to look at the slab rate again and to consider the distorting effect that it has on the market and the difficulties that it causes people, whether buying or selling—for people who want to sell because they want to downsize, or people who want to sell because they want to move on. That is one of the reasons why some of the suggestions that I have heard over the years to charge stamp duty to the seller would also be completely inappropriate and unacceptable; it would place a massive burden on those trying to sell the investment that they have often worked for over many years.
I make a final plea to Ministers. If they are ever minded to make any changes to how stamp duty is charged or to its rates, will they be extremely careful about how they do it? Back in the dark days of the great Labour recession in 2008, following pressure from the Conservative party, the then Prime Minister and Chancellor decided to create a stamp duty holiday. They announced it with great fanfare in the press and on the media, but it was probably six or seven weeks before the policy was implemented.
I can tell hon. Members that a flat property market was depressed further, because people did not want to conduct transactions between when that announcement was made and when the measure came in, because that would not make financial sense and they could save money. I implore Ministers to make any changes carefully and to consider the implications for the overall housing market, which is extremely important to our economy. The housing market is now on the move, which is part of the reason why our services sector in this country is doing so well.
I ask Ministers to consider the issue extremely carefully. It affects not only the south-east or London, but all parts of the country in differing ways. It creates massive distortion, because of the slab rate. I ask the Minister to consider it carefully not only in reply to the debate, but in his work on our party manifesto.
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have received submissions from various experts on the matter and we are looking at it very closely. We are clear about our start position. We do not want more modest properties to be brought into the mansion tax regime, and we are looking carefully at the details of our ultimate policy to ensure that that does not happen. I have had conversations with people about the issue, but I cannot tell him today what we will ultimately be able to take forward.
Mrs Main
For clarification, before the hon. Lady moved on to her mansion tax, she mentioned the slab structure, which was introduced by a Labour Government. Do the Opposition have any plans in their manifesto to tackle the slab structure at the same time as introducing the mansion tax? I am sure that she has received representations on that.
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right. I have received representations about the slab structure, as, I am sure, has the Minister. It is one feature of stamp duty that causes particular consternation, as we have heard from all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate today. I cannot make a manifesto commitment today, but I will make it clear later in my speech that we are alive to the issues raised today and that we are looking at them carefully.
I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made a customary reference to the Laffer curve. I feel that these debates are not quite what they should be if there is not at least one reference to the Laffer curve. I was pleased that he was able to make that point.
I acknowledge the passionate views of hon. Members in this debate. There has been a vigorous campaign on the issue. I suspect that many hon. Members are less concerned about what I have to say about Labour policy and more concerned about what the Minister might do ahead of the autumn statement on 3 December. We saw a similar vigorous campaign ahead of the Budget earlier this year. In the lead up to that Budget, the expectation was that there might be a doubling of the threshold to £250,000 and the introduction of a stamp duty tax credit system, but the Government did not ultimately go down that path. I suspect we are seeing a similar build-up of lobbying for the Government to do something in the autumn statement.
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think the point that the deputy leader was making was about progressive taxation and the argument that those who are wealthier should pay more. That is the thinking behind our mansion tax policy. His Government have presided over more people being brought into the 40p tax band, for example, and he could ask his Minister about that today.
Stamp duty is a matter of growing concern to the public and a significant burden on people wanting to buy a new home, particularly first-time buyers. I acknowledge the strength of feeling among hon. Members and throughout the country, but I am not in a position to make a spending commitment via this debate. Stamp duty brings in a large and growing amount of revenue, and any policy change in this area would have to be fully funded. Our start point as an incoming Labour Government in 2015 would be the current Government’s spending plans for 2015-16 and any change to that spending round would have to be fully funded. That has been the thinking behind the policies we have unveiled. They are all fully funded and primarily involve switching from one area of spend to another to deal with some of our child care priorities and other measures.
The difficult financial position that an incoming Labour Government in 2015 would inherit means that we would have to make some difficult choices. Given that, our focus has been wider reform of the housing market and how it might stimulate greater home ownership. In particular, the problem of housing supply has become acute in the past few years and is causing many problems, such as people having to rely on the bank of mum and dad and home ownership occurring much later in life. The hon. Member for St Albans made a point about that, and it is true.
We are seeing the biggest housing crisis in a generation and we are not building even half the homes we need to keep up with demand. The shortage of decent homes has much wider social and economic costs and we heard about some of those relating to inflexibility in the labour market, as well as the impact on people in overcrowded homes and the impact on children’s health and educational outcomes.
What can we do to build more homes? That must be the centre point of getting more sense and fairness into our housing market. We supported the Help to Buy scheme, but we would have preferred a scheme that focused more on first-time buyers. Our policy shows that the Government have simply not understood that boosting demand without boosting supply risks putting prices out of reach of the very families and young people we particularly want to help to get on the housing ladder. That is why we have committed ourselves to building 200,000 homes a year by 2020. That is probably not enough, and we should build many more than that, but it is an ambitious start point. We currently have a housing commission, led by Sir Michael Lyons, which is looking at a detailed road map, so that we may be able to deliver our vision.
Mrs Main
Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the Help to Buy scheme? It has proved to be a good scheme in the north by helping people, but has not worked in the south because people must save the stamp duty as well as being helped with the mortgage deposit. We cannot get past that with the current Help to Buy scheme. Stamp duty is the barrier, especially in the south, no matter how many houses are built.
Shabana Mahmood
I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. She is certainly right about the interplay between the Help to Buy policy and the burden that remains with stamp duty. As I have said, in constrained financial circumstances, difficult choices must be made and we have preferred at this stage to look at how we might do the one central thing that we know can reform the housing market and get more homes within the reach of more people: build more homes. That must be the start point, and that is the key issue with the Help to Buy scheme. It is not a bad policy and we should be helping people to buy homes, but we must boost supply, and we are failing to do that at the moment.
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have made it clear that that is a central commitment of our party. We acknowledge that we simply did not build enough homes when we were in government. No Government for 20-odd years have built enough homes. We recognise that without boosting supply we will simply not have fairness and sense in our housing market. That is why we set up the Lyons commission. We want to ensure that we have a detailed road map. We will unveil it in our manifesto ahead of the general election and it will show exactly how we will realise our ambition in government.
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree with the hon. Lady. I think that it is right to set targets and ambitions, and it is right that we look to such experts to help us to get to that position. We are looking partly at the expense of land and the housing market in different parts of the country. We will discuss those issues in greater detail as we get closer to producing our manifesto.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing the debate and putting forward her case with such tenacity, if I may borrow that word from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton, for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) for their contributions to the debate.
I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for her remarks. She said that she thought that the hon. Members present would be more looking to me, as a Minister, to outline possible thoughts for the autumn statement than expecting her to say anything about Labour party policy in this matter. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not expect me to outline any announcements for the autumn statement, but I suspect that they did not expect to get much from the shadow Minister, either.
Ensuring that there is good-quality, affordable housing for all and an effective housing market is an important priority for this Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans said in her opening remarks, home ownership is very important to us. It is very important to the Government and the Conservative party. I entirely endorse and share her views about the importance of ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to own their own homes.
Although I understand the concerns raised today that stamp duty is putting people off moving and preventing people from getting on the housing ladder, the fundamental point is about the high cost of property. Removing or reducing stamp duty land tax will not by itself address the fundamental issues. I will deal with SDLT and the various points that have been raised, but as other right hon. and hon. Members have acknowledged, we have to look at the housing market as a whole; in particular, it is worth highlighting the steps that the Government are taking to increase housing supply. Those measures, combined with support for home buyers, are, we believe, the right way to address this issue. That is why we have introduced a range of measures to get Britain building again, to fix the broken housing market and to help hard-working people to get the home that they want.
We are supporting home buyers, including through the Help to Buy scheme—a major package of measures to increase the supply of low-deposit mortgages for creditworthy households. We are also increasing housing supply through schemes such as the £474 million local infrastructure fund, the £19.5 billion of public and private investment in the affordable rented sector and the £1 billion Build to Rent scheme to support the growth of the private rented sector, because we believe that those matters are important.
Mrs Main
My point is about the Help to Buy scheme. Has the Minister done any analysis of the situation in areas such as mine, where, over two years, only seven people have availed themselves of the Help to Buy scheme? Has he considered that that could be because people still simply cannot afford to use the scheme?
Mr Gauke
Undoubtedly, the vast majority of those who have made use of the Help to Buy scheme have been at the lower end of the market in terms of house prices and have generally not been in London and the south-east—the greater south-east, if she will forgive a fellow Hertfordshire Member of Parliament for using that phrase. That, however, was the intention of the Help to Buy scheme—for it not to be focused at the top end of the market and more expensive homes.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point that much of the activity has been away from areas such as London and the home counties, but that is not something that we are necessarily ashamed of. However, I will deal with her fundamental argument. I know the point that she is making—that stamp duty land tax has prevented use of Help to Buy in some parts of the country.
Let me return to the issue of the housing market. We are maintaining stability in the housing market by keeping interest rates low and supporting improvements to the mortgage market—and that is working. The number of first-time buyers is at a six-year high, mortgage approvals are up 8% on last year and repossessions are at their lowest level since 2007. More than 150,000 households have been helped to buy or reserve property since spring 2010 through Government-backed schemes. That includes nearly 50,000 supported through our Help to Buy schemes.
Housing supply is up. Almost 480,000 new homes have been delivered since April 2010. Starts on new homes in the past year totalled 137,780—up by 22% on the previous year and the highest annual total since 2007. The construction sector has been growing for 16 consecutive months and is currently experiencing the sharpest rise in house building orders since 2003, while companies are taking on new workers at the fastest rate since 1997. A growing pipeline of new projects is also emerging from the reformed planning system. Last year, successful applications for major housing schemes were up 23% and planning permissions were granted for 216,000 new homes.
The Government remain committed to improving the housing market, and that will remain a vital part of our long-term economic plan. That is why at the last Budget we introduced programmes including the £525 million builders finance fund and a £6 billion extension for the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, to run until 2020. We also announced our plans for an urban development corporation to deliver a garden city at Ebbsfleet and deliver up to 15,000 new homes.
In June, we announced that £400 million would be made available to support 20 housing zones to provide new homes on brownfield land. We remain on track to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes in the four years to March 2015, and a further 165,000 between 2015 and 2018. That will constitute the fastest rate of affordable house building for 20 years, a record that well withstands comparison with that of our predecessors. We must remember that the housing market, like the rest of the economy, is recovering after having suffered a severe downturn following the financial crisis, but we have taken measures to ensure that it is moving in the right direction. That is important to today’s debate, which is about ensuring that there are opportunities for people to own their own home.
I recognise that stamp duty land tax is an important issue, and my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans, experiences many of the issues that have been raised. The Government, however, remain committed as a priority to tackling our record deficit. SDLT is an important source of Government revenue; it raises several billion pounds each year to help pay for the essential services that the Government provide and support, and to reduce the deficit.
In 2013-14, SDLT raised £9.3 billion, a substantial sum—money that we need. I appreciate the argument that we have to ensure that taxes bring in the requisite revenue, and that it is perfectly possible for a tax rate to be too high and above the optimum level. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and I have often argued in the House of Commons Chamber in favour of the reduction of the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p, which is a good example. I am not convinced, however, that the case is as strong in this context and that reductions in SDLT would pay for themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans made the case for increasing the SDLT threshold to £500,000. On a static analysis, if we were to do that for 2015-16, the cost would be £4.2 billion. That static analysis does not take into account the behavioural response, but I do not believe that the behavioural impact of increasing the SDLT threshold to £500,000 would substantially reduce that cost. We should bear in mind that that is a substantial amount of money, especially at a time when we have to be careful with the public finances.
It is also worth pointing out that the majority of the revenue comes from those who buy the most expensive homes: 52% of SDLT residential yield comes from properties bought for more than £500,000, despite the fact that such properties represent only 6% of transactions. A third of all residential transactions do not involve the payment of any SDLT, which is a higher proportion than in 2007, when that figure was 29%.
Consumer Rights Bill
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
Clearly, I was not saying that. I was asking the hon. Lady whether she wanted to comment on the growth of home credit and rent to own. We have had many opportunities in this House to discuss a cap on the cost of credit, and she and I—and she and many other Members—have had an opportunity to discuss some of the practical aspects. There will now be a cap on the total cost of credit, but that is not to say that the definition of that is without difficulties. It remains a tricky thing to do. All of us, including her, who take a close interest in these issues know that there is no single silver bullet solution that solves any of these market problems. We need regulation, empowerment for consumers, financial education and sensible alternatives. This House is at its best when we are discussing what those practical approaches might be, and I welcome the new clauses, which allow us to talk about those very things. I have an awful lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind new clause 11, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Makerfield, and for what is behind new clauses 7 and 9, but we must be wary about seemingly straightforward legislative solutions that may not deliver all they purport to.
We always talk in the plural when we refer to rent-to-own companies, but in reality there is one really big company. There is a problem with the pricing and marketing of these companies. I have recently been added to the BrightHouse e-mail marketing list. I do not know what I have done to deserve that honour—I am not sure whether I should take it as a compliment—but I am now bombarded with messages saying how easy it is to pay weekly, and it is those messages that go to the heart of the problem. To be fair, the slightly misleading approach that we are talking about does not necessarily apply just to rent-to-own companies. We could say that it applies to every pay-monthly mobile phone contract, through which we not only pay for our calls but finance the phone, but it is never advertised how much is for the phone and how much for the calls. We always see it as one all-together monthly amount.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making very measured comments. It is true that no one party has a handle on debt in this debate. Many of us are concerned about the matter. Does he agree that companies such as Emmaus in my constituency have helped to ensure that people do not have to take on ridiculous payback terms, by enabling them to access good refurbished second-hand goods free of charge if their circumstances allow? I pay tribute to companies such as Emmaus that have helped many people in difficulty who need goods.
Damian Hinds
I am not familiar with Emmaus, but I am sure that it is an admirable organisation. I can mention Furniture Helpline in my constituency, and there are many others throughout the country.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who is sitting next to me, mentions catalogues: catalogue credit has worked on that basis for a long time, stressing the weekly repayment amount. There is also an ability to shift the amount that is apparently the cost of the product and how much is paid for the financing—in the case of catalogues, that is often zero, but the base price is inflated to allow for that.
My worry about the approach in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield is that I do not know how we would make the price comparator work. She made an important point about product numbers. As electronic comparison capability increases, it will be important to be able to make a direct like-for-like comparison, and adding an extra letter to a product number to make such comparison impossible should certainly be cracked down on.
Damian Hinds
It is difficult, but if we are talking about a big plasma TV or a washing machine, equivalent products and other brands are also available. The basic problem, however, is not that the information is not available, because the idea that people do not have the ability to make such comparisons becomes less and less true every month, with smartphones and so on. The difficulty relates to money advice, and encouraging and prompting people to make the comparison. We do not solve that problem by adding small-print text about the total cost, the annual percentage rate, the total cost of credit, the reminder that “your house may be at risk”, blah, blah, blah. All those things do not solve the problem of how we encourage people to make that comparison and do the analysis to ensure that they are not worse off than they need to be.
That leads me on to new clause 6 and the so-called
“annual report on the level at which a levy on lenders in the high cost consumer credit market should be set”.
There is a levy that applies to lenders, so I assume that the requirement for a report is a device to call for something that might be in place anyway. Debt advice is also provided. We could argue that, at the high-cost end of sub-prime, such lenders should make a greater contribution, because of the detriment associated with them, but that does not require primary legislation.
The new clause would also have the Government make provision for affordable credit to be available through credit unions. I would argue strongly that the Government have brought and are bringing forward measures to ensure that affordable credit is available to vulnerable customers through credit unions. Through the credit union expansion project, tens of millions of pounds are being made available to modernise and upgrade the sector. Through regulatory reform—the passing, finally, of the legislative reform order—the increase in the monthly interest rate cap from 2% to 3% makes competition with high-cost, short-term lenders a little more possible. Also, as we were discussing, the cap on the interest charged in the commercial sector will at least help to slow the apparently inexorable rise of that sector. There are also things that the social lending sector must do. It has to step up to the plate on its marketing, branding and consistency of product offer. There will have to be consolidation in the sector to provide the services that people want.
I do not know whether the idea behind new clause 6 in the mind of the hon. Member for Walthamstow came from the recent IPPR report, on which she commented, which suggested that a one-off levy on high-cost lenders would facilitate a great expansion in the social lending sector.
Mrs Main
Will my hon. Friend speak a little more slowly? The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), on the Opposition Front Bench, is having trouble tweeting. She is trying to provide a running commentary on his speech and perhaps if he went a little more slowly she would catch up.
Damian Hinds
I will always follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow, so I shall pay great attention to what she has tweeted after the debate.
I have a lot of sympathy with any measures proposed to help support the growth of the credit union sector. A lot of things in the IPPR report are welcome and positive, such as the idea of having credit unions in post offices, Church of England facilities and so on, but with respect to all concerned I would say that those are hardly first-time-out occurrences of the proposals. A back-stop reclaim facility, through the benefit system, could also have some benefits.
However, the idea—this is the main point—that some huge one-off capitalisation of credit unions would help to facilitate their growth, is not right. Under the previous Government, we had the growth fund, and I am not here to diss that. It was a well-intentioned initiative and will have done a lot of good. Such things are also eroded over time, however, and by definition if one has a big one-off capitalisation one ends up having to address a slightly more costly part of the market, which contributes to that erosion. What we need to do to help support and facilitate the growth of credit unions is what this Government are doing. We are trying to get them on to a sustainable footing with modernised systems, working collaboratively together to get the marketing and branding right so that the sector does not need a subsidy for ever but reaches a scale at which it can address more and more consumers, meaning that fewer and fewer consumers need or want to access the types of lenders we have been discussing today.
Mrs Main
Does the Minister think there is any merit in making people aware, potentially at school age, of exactly what they can afford and how they can manage their personal finances? People often get themselves into a mess before they approach some of these loan sharks and high-interest places. It might be good if we started this off at an earlier age.
Jenny Willott
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. There are some really good schemes in schools across the country, but provision can be a bit patchy. I have worked in schools in my constituency that are doing exactly that. Such matters can be extremely complex for people to understand, and learning about them as part of the school curriculum before they get into debt can be extremely helpful.
Stella Creasy
We have had an interesting debate. I acknowledge that there is interest in this issue, as well as experience and expertise, on both sides of the House, which has been reflected in most of the speeches. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) who, for all of us, is a touchstone on issues involving the consumer credit market.
I put on the record my support for the work of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on the credit union movement. However, I must say that I brook no argument from him when Government Members have had three chances—not one, not two, but three chances, or an almost biblical opportunity—to deal with payday lending and the cost of credit, but voted against it.
In 140 characters, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), like Shelley’s grandmother, shed much heat but not a lot of light on what Government Members will do about the issues that are to come. Our new clauses are about the new forms of legal loan sharking and the new nightmares experienced by many of our constituents. The hon. Lady is making a tapping noise. Is that her calculating the amount of money people have to pay out to the debt management and logbook loan companies?
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady is doing herself a disservice. We are not point scoring. Many Government Members have concerns about debt. The tapping noise I was making refers to the fact that she seems unable to listen to comments from Government Members, and just tweets her own self-promotion endlessly.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Lady may be horrified about letting the public know what she and Government Members have been saying, but we are not. Government Members may be confident in their commitment to the idea that they are somehow tackling the cost of living, but when it comes to opportunities to make progress on such things as logbook loans or debt management fees, they have nothing to say and they should rightly be held to account not just in the House, but online. She would do well to reflect on such matters.
I want to move on to what hon. Members have mentioned in the debate, but may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) that I consider us to be master and apprentice in our dress today? She pointed out that the Government seem to have a problem with the doors when it comes to voting the right way on consumer credit matters.
Let me pay tribute to the Minister and the members of the Sharkstoppers campaign. To hear a Minister in this Government talking about the action that they will take on payday lending is a tribute to the work of all those campaigners across the country. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt when she says that this Government want to make payday lenders pay their fair share. She was extremely honest about the fact that she has no idea how much money payday lenders will contribute to the cost of providing debt advice. We want to return to the issue in the Lords once we get that information, but we are happy to wait for the Minister to come back with the sums, to show that payday lenders are paying their fair share. We are pleased that the Financial Conduct Authority is looking at the outrageous practice of charging people in debt with debt management fees, and we will wait to see what the Government bring forward, and consider these issues again in the Lords in terms of whether fees should be abolished outright.
Stella Creasy
The new clauses and amendments are designed to make progress on issues of precisely that kind. One of the problems of ticket touting is trying to identify who is responsible for the crime that is taking place. Making the seller of the ticket give the details of that ticket will enable us to identify its provenance and who is selling it. We shall then be able to crack down on the people involved, whether it involves the rugby world cup or another event, so that organisations will not have their tickets sold on when they do not wish that to happen. It will give that kind of flexibility, and it reflects the all-party group work done on some of these issues. I hope there will be support from across the House.
Stella Creasy
If the hon. Lady wants to suggest some tweets, I will happily take them, but I am sure everyone will appreciate it if we can move on to the question of letting fees.
Stella Creasy
There are already criminal elements to what we are talking about. What we are talking about in this legislation is the information provided to a consumer—this is, after all, a consumer rights Bill—that could help address the problems caused by ticket touting, and it reflects the work being done by the all-party group. [Interruption.] Well, this is a separate issue about what we can do for consumers, and with that in mind I want to move on to new clause 22 because, as I have said, there is a lucky dip element to the amendments before us and it is about letting fees.
I pay tribute to the work done in this area by my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East. I see first hand in my constituency the problems caused by increasingly difficult access to housing and affordable housing, particularly within the private rented sector. We know that 9 million people in England are living in rented homes and they are paying on average over £1,000 more a year in rent than they did in 2010. That is why we have to reform the private rented sector. The costs that people are facing are unsustainable. I have families in my constituency spending between 60% and 70% of their monthly income on rent alone. They cannot make ends meet.
There is a wider debate to be had about the length of tenancies and the levels of rent, but this amendment, like the previous amendments I was speaking to, relates to consumer legislation, and in particular the specific issue of fees and whether they should be charged.
Mark Durkan
The other point the Government make is that this will be the subject of a European directive in a couple of years’ time. I would only make the point that we should not have to wait for a European directive, and that it would be better if a meaningful European directive were transposed through existing legislation. New clause 15 would provide exactly those powers and that legislation.
Mrs Main
I would like to speak to new clauses 13 and 22, and make a small reference to new clauses 18 to 21.
New clause 13 was explained so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as being a matter of consumer choice. I have a huge degree of sympathy with that, but I will explain why I cannot support him today. We should all know exactly what we are eating. We should have a good deal of information about how animals have lived and died. I have major concerns that Europe does not have the same high standards of animal welfare that we have in this country, yet we import meat from those animals that have been raised with living standards we do not find acceptable and have outlawed, such as farrowing pens for pigs.
Briefing from the Eurogroup for Animals, published in 2011, gives some interesting information about European standards of animal husbandry and, indeed, animal slaughter—much of the meat involved enters our own food chain—and makes it clear that many of us should be very concerned about those issues. That organisation opposes the slaughter of all animals without their being stunned beforehand. The briefing states:
“In 2010, the European Commission requested from Member States official data regarding numbers of animals ritually slaughtered within their territory.”
Unfortunately, there was a real lack of data. According to the briefing,
“most of the countries do not have reliable figures available as no traceability exists to differentiate between animals”
when it comes to how they have been slaughtered. Of course, I am concerned about how they have lived as well. There is also a significant over-slaughtering of animals for halal and kosher meat within the food chain to allow for the amount of demand that might arise in countries that import such meat, which means that there is no way of showing what happens to animals that have been killed in that way and where they end up in the food chain.
This is indeed a labelling issue, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that, according to some of the information that has been gleaned through the examination of people who do not wish animals to be killed without being stunned, it is almost impossible to trace the meat involved, and that without Europe-wide traceability, his proposal will be totally unenforceable. I appreciate that many consumers would like to know how the animals were treated, where and in what conditions they were raised, the extent of the confinement in which they were placed, and how they were slaughtered. While I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments—I, too, believe that consumers should know exactly what they are purchasing—I therefore cannot support his new clause.
Let me now say something about the tenancy issues that have been raised. I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley a great deal, because he talks a lot of good sense, and his heart is often in the right place. However, I believe that if we put all the onus on landlords when it comes to any fees associated with the checking of tenants—they often have to be checked now because of the rules on residency, which govern whether they have the right to rent in this country—those fees will go into the chain, and other ways will be found to put up rents. I cannot believe that the Labour party wants that to happen.
A small letting agency in St Albans, which contacted me about the Labour party’s proposal, is deeply unhappy about it. Given that the agency provides a service enabling people to go into its office, choose from the properties that are advertised, be shown round and so on, why should a fee not be incurred for the benefit that the potential tenant enjoys? The landlord may enjoy a different benefit in the form of the checking of the tenants; the benefits are not always exactly the same.
I suggest that the Government should be extremely cautious before accepting any blandishments from the Labour party, which constantly tries to impose all the cost on businesses. We, as consumers, also want a degree of protection.
Mrs Main
I am afraid that this is a very short debate.
Part of those fees go towards ensuring that there is a market for people who want a good choice of tenanted properties that they can go and look at.
Let me now add my few words to the extensive debate about tickets. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made a very good point about touts who would potentially sell tickets back. That is a flaw, but I have a huge amount of sympathy with those who have bought a ticket that cannot be used for some reason. I do not see how it can be wrong to sell that ticket on, as I might sell on anything else that I might have purchased. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made the valid point that if a major company selling tickets en bloc wants to try to stop the practice, it should be working with the Government for that purpose.
I do not wish us to outlaw the selling on of tickets that people may have purchased quite rightfully and of which they then wish to dispose. I feel that that would creep into other areas and start applying to people who buy the latest thing from Kate Moss At Topshop, the latest pair of trainers or the latest toy, and then choose to sell it on. I think that that is a slippery slope, and I do not wish to go down it.
Consumer Rights Bill
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy
I am conscious of time and I would like to make a little progress, but I will let the hon. Lady intervene if she is quick.
Mrs Main
It slightly confuses the matter if the hon. Lady tries to bring secondary ticketing within the scope of the Bill. That is more about how touts get hold of tickets, rather than what people choose to pay should they buy a ticket from a secondary ticketing market. It would confuse the Bill’s good intentions if she tried to drag all that in.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Lady does not quite recognise that a contract involves both a vendor and a purchaser, and the terms of a contract can apply to both. That is the point of the amendments we will table. On secondary ticketing, for example—the Secretary of State should be interested in this as the Member for Twickenham—legislating to make the rugby world cup an event of national significance would require tickets to be resold through recognised ticket vendors at face value, as happened in 2012. It would then be illegal to sell tickets through any other means. Indeed, viagogo already has tickets on sale for that event at huge mark-ups, and tickets do not even go on sale until the autumn. Some 2.3 million tickets will be sold at between £7 and £15 for children, with a top price of £700 for adults. That means that touts will be able to cash in on those prices on top of that, and damage the affordable ticketing policy of the organisers. Surely it cannot be right for us not to include in the Bill a way of ensuring that if someone wants to sell a ticket at a certain price, they can.
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, some of which is dealt with in the Bill. It will be interesting to see whether it is picked up in Committee.
Consumers spend more than 59 million hours a year dealing with goods and services problems, which costs an estimated £3 billion a year to the British economy. The Bill is deregulatory by nature, which means that consumers and businesses will find it easier to resolve problems with faulty goods and substandard services, and, for the first time, corrupted digital downloads. I noted with great interest that the executive director of Which?, Richard Lloyd, has said that the Bill
“brings consumer law into the 21st century, extending rights into digital content for the first time, and making it easier for people to understand their rights and challenge bad practice.”
The House will agree that that is a welcome step.
I welcome the fact that underpinning the Bill is the principle of fairness and helping customers when things go wrong, as they sometimes do. The measures will provide a firm foundation for empowering consumers, which will benefit businesses that treat consumers fairly.
Many businesses provide their customers with enhanced rights, but the truth is that even the best businesses still spend significant time and resources—more than they should have to spend—understanding the law and training their staff to apply it. The Bill will benefit businesses by reducing many of the burdens they face because of complicated consumer law. I particularly welcome the competition affairs tribunal.
My support for the Bill is genuine, but I wanted to mention one or two aspects of it that reveal, within our society, a view of consumer rights that is, at times, rather too narrow and that does not embrace broadly enough a concept of true consumer and citizen empowerment on the scale we need to drive a sustainable recovery and to reform how we deliver public services and put this country back on its feet. There are three specific areas in which the challenge of unleashing citizen and consumer power are urgent.
First, some markets—banking, utilities and telecoms—are holding back our recovery. Secondly, I am struck that the consumer rights conversation is framed around consumables, point-of-purchase rights and commercial rights in the commercial market. Many of those concepts could and should apply equally in the public sector and public services. Thirdly, it is also important to have active and empowered consumers in supply chains to drive them. That subject may not entertain all hon. Members, but I know that the Secretary of State feels particularly strongly about it.
In the bigger markets—banking, utilities and telecoms —we inherited from the previous Government an extraordinary concentration of power. One or two institutions had a very unhealthy predominance in each of those key markets, which are vital to the proper functioning of a free market economy. What we need as we try to recover from that toxic legacy of debt and dysfunctional markets is an insurgency of empowered consumer citizens to drive a new paradigm of choice, and to demand and insist that that which is available in so many fields of public life is available in banking, utilities and telecoms.
In banking, why is it still so difficult for bank customers to take their accounts to different banks? I would like to see consumer power, and consumer frustration with some banks, driving much more insurgency and the creation of new banks. First Direct appeared nearly 20 years ago, which was a stunning moment for our generation, who had never seen an online bank. We tapped the mouse and wondered whether it could be trusted and whether it would work. It turns out that First Direct was a stunning new entrant that catalysed all sorts of reforms in banking market. Why not have more now? Our banking sector is dominated by too few big banks, which were propped up by a very unhealthy burst of crony capitalism under the previous Government and shored up in the crisis that that incubated. We need to release customers to drive that insurgency in banking.
I would argue that the same is true with some of the utilities. Following privatisation in the ’80s, we saw those markets consolidate under the previous Government. For 13 years, we did not see or hear very much about that. We have inherited, particularly in energy, a small number of big companies that now pass on substantial global commodity price rises to customers, who have all too little real choice and power to drive across the market. To a lesser extent, the same is true for telecoms and broadband. We still see a very powerful monopoly provider in BT. Of course, other providers are able to operate on the railway tracks, but I do not think that in the telecoms market, given the extraordinary empowering impact of the underlying core technology, we have seen a parallel opening up of consumer power. Going the final mile to get broadband into deep rural areas to drive a rural renaissance, in my constituency and in East Anglia more generally, will require us to support consumers through some sort of voucher mechanism—I welcome the steps the Government are taking on this—to be more empowered to choose satellite, digital or any one of the insurgent broadband providers appearing on the market.
On public services, as important as the measures in the Bill are and as important as this subject is, they are still framed, as is the wider public debate on consumer rights, within the notion of point-of-purchase and consumerist trade descriptions legislation. It is principally concerned with the rights of the consumer at the point at which they buy a consumable. However, the concepts, ideas and rights enshrined in this useful Bill could and should go further. In fact, a number of the reforms that the Government are rightly unlocking in other areas of government will demand that they do. For example, why can patients in the health service, parents in the education system, or even pupils—possibly not young pupils, but sixth-form pupils—not have greater choice, transparency and consumer rights in the public services they receive? I would argue that a sixth former in a failing school who is receiving a bad education has just as many rights as the consumer of faulty electronic goods at a supermarket checkout. We need to extend this principle more broadly across public services.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. On education, many students are not aware of how little time they will have in lectures or interactive courses when they apply for degrees. Expanding transparency to what exactly students are purchasing when they take a course might be helpful.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an extremely interesting and shrewd observation. The truth at the heart of public services is that the taxpayers provide the money and the Government, as best they can, the service. In that loop, something is lost: a direct connection between the recipient of the public service and the point of payment. Most of the recipients of public services have, of course, already paid for them through their taxes, but the sacred moment of the empowerment of the consumer gets lost in a complex chain of public service delivery. She makes the point that we need to look across our public services at how we can restore that moment. I would like more parents and pupils in schools to feel that the choice they make—choosing which school to send their child to—is a choice that the system respects. I wholly welcome the reforms that the Secretary of State for Education is putting in place to that end.
I want to mention health care, in particular, as we are seeing an extraordinary change in modern health care. I do not think it is too profound or bold to claim that health care is going from something that traditionally, in the 20th century, was done to us by Governments when they decided we needed it, to being something that modern consumer health care citizens do for ourselves. We are seeing across the NHS much greater patient demand for information, transparency and choice. We are seeing click health care and modern patients wanting to be able to access information and be empowered. That is all to the good if we want a new generation of citizens empowered to understand what causes disease—how lifestyle, diet and even genomics affect one’s predisposition to disease. We want to empower consumer citizens to prevent disease. We will not do that without empowering them to make choices and receive information. That is why I have a ten-minute rule Bill on the very subject of releasing patient data to patients within the framework of acknowledging that it is their data—our data. By giving patients back their data, we empower them to use them better for public health care.
George Freeman
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts precisely the point I was about to make about balance in supply chains. The manufacturer at the end of the supply chain has a duty to understand, monitor, measure and take responsibility for the supply chain, but we also need to provide for consumers to exercise their rights and understand the supply chain.
I want to talk about the two areas I have most experience of: the Government’s industrial strategies for life sciences and agricultural technologies. The central thrust of the agri-tech and food strategy, which we launched last summer, is that corporate interests in reducing costs and dependence on agrochemicals, energy and labour are now very much aligned with consumer interests and demand for increasingly green food with low-carbon, low-plastics and low-water footprints. The challenge in global agriculture is how to measure those inputs and communicate to consumers clearly and simply at the point of purchase that the thing they are buying comes with a low-carbon and low-water footprint. A proper system for measuring that will also make Britain a leader in the technologies required to hit those targets. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who has done a lot of work on resilience in supply chains and the importance of this agenda. I suspect we will get the benefit of her comments in a moment.
That agenda applies equally in the field of medicine. The challenge of discovering drugs for modern patient groups has seen the industry reinvent itself and move away from spending 15 years and $1 billion on developing a blockbuster drug that it can present to Governments as working for everybody. The more we know about disease, genomics and different patient groups, the more we know that different people get the same disease in different ways, and the challenge is to help the industry develop drugs around the patients whom we know will benefit. Then we can give the right drugs to the right people, instead of wasting drugs and having to set dosages at levels that make drugs ineffective in those for whom they work well in order to prevent side effects in those for whom they do not.
That agenda is driving a completely different way of discovering drugs—one where the NHS works with patients—and creating extraordinary opportunities for the UK to lead the world in providing targeted and ultimately personalised medicine, but it requires a different way of thinking about patient rights. We need to think of patients as having the right to be involved in NHS research; to access the best medicines available; and to access and use data, both personalised and anonymised, to support research. I understand that the Bill does not address that area of consumer rights, but the House will have to return to it in the coming years.
Mrs Main
On supply chains and consumer rights, my hon. Friend might be aware that the all-party group on Bangladesh visited that country last September to look into the Rana Plaza collapse. One thing that came out of our report was the suggestion that consumers should be able to identify whether garments have been produced ethically through a supply chain that does not use people who work in bonded workshops or sweatshops or who are badly treated and not paid a fair wage for a fair day’s work. That is the driving force. I know the Minister is considering a kitemark for garments so that people can be reassured.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes another excellent point. If we are to seize the benefits of globalisation and embrace our potential to play a role in those emerging markets, we could help set in place a framework in which citizens of the globe can buy products from the global supply chain confident that they are not supporting sweatshops or irresponsible capitalism. That is a deeply inspiring and progressive purpose for this country in the next cycle of growth around the world.
Consumer rights are not the sexiest subject in public debate—it is not something one hears discussed in those terms down at The Dog and Duck—but it sits at the heart of a lot of the issues the electorate, citizens and taxpayers in this country are grappling with. I do not want to be overly partisan, but under Labour we had 13 years of what increasingly—and perhaps surprisingly—became an example of crony capitalism, and the nation is now grappling with that inheritance: an overconcentration of wealth, privilege and power, and in key markets, such as banking and elsewhere, a small number of providers. As a consequence of that crisis—the black hole in the public finances, the structural deficit—we will have to unleash the powers of modern consumer citizens to drive enlightened public services and a more entrepreneurial and innovative recovery. Consumer rights—consumers of public services as well as private goods—sit at the heart of that. Consumers must be able to understand and demand the right standards from all those supplying them goods and services—whether at the till in the supermarket, on a global website or in the public services on which we all rely—and to hold them to account.
Scotch Whisky Excise Duty
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Paisley
I am not the representative of Irish whiskey, but I do have the Bushmills distillery in my constituency. It employs 102 people, but it also supports a vital tourist industry; there are more than 140,000 visitors each year to the distillery. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the tax impacts on jobs not only in Scotland, but in my part of the United Kingdom? Indeed, 90% of what is manufactured in my constituency’s distillery is exported globally, but if the Government continue with the escalator, we are going to have high taxation on products that are exported. That is a bad signal to send to an industry.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Please make interventions brief. There are a lot of Members in this room. If everyone has interventions of that length, Mr Donohoe will run out of time.
Mr Donohoe
I am grateful, Mrs Main. I hope that Members will note what you have said. What the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said is important. He is from another part of the United Kingdom and correcting this wrong tax at the Budget is as important to him and his constituents.
Graeme Morrice
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this debate. The Minister may not be aware that there is a considerable number of whisky producers in my constituency, including the North British Distillery in West Calder, Glenmorangie and Glen Turner in Livingston, and Ian MacLeod Distillers in Broxburn. This last wrote to me recently to express concern about the fact that, in the past five years, while we have seen a 44% increase in taxation on whisky, there has been a 12% reduction in UK sales.
Graeme Morrice
Given the current 80% taxation on whisky, will the Minister seriously consider approaching the Chancellor before the March Budget—
Graeme Morrice
To look at freezing alcohol duty and at the abolition of the duty escalator?
Nicky Morgan
Mrs Main, I take the hint that you want me back on my feet and moving towards the conclusion of my speech.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give this matter serious consideration in the run-up to the Budget. I shall certainly discuss it with my colleagues in the Treasury, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Air Passenger Duty
Anne Main Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask through the Chair whether any application has been made for a statement on the recent developments concerning the Arctic 30? I am sure that many of us will be pleased to hear tonight that the charges against them have been downgraded from piracy to hooliganism. Some are related to, or friends of, Members, and one is a constituent of the Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has said. Is there any chance of them now being granted bail, and what does the development mean in terms of the possibility of their being repatriated home to this country?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
As the hon. Lady will know, that is not strictly a point of order. The matter of statements is something the Government themselves determine and I have no knowledge of that, but she has had the opportunity to raise her point in the Chamber and, importantly, to get her views on record. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have taken note of what she said.
Economic Growth
Anne Main Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When I received, somewhat to my surprise, a telephone call from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), inviting me to add my name to an amendment that regretted the absence of an item in the Queen’s Speech, I confess I was somewhat astonished. I think it a mark of the enormous shift in opinion that is taking place on what has for decades been a matter of fundamental consensus in British politics that we find ourselves straining the conventions and normal behaviour, and even the Standing Orders of the House, to accommodate this debate. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) that I utterly respect the sincerity of his views, and I was expressing no more than frustration that he would not allow me a spare minute of his time to explain the statistics on which I think this fundamental debate should be based.
I agree with the terms of the amendment and will support it, although I might not have tabled it myself. I doubt that some of the noise and discord around this issue has impressed those who failed to support us in the elections two weeks ago, reflecting a certain and widespread despair about the ability of all three main parties to keep their promises on referendums, which has become an emblem of the distrust in which so many of our voters hold the British political establishment.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Many members of the British public, whether they hold the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and indeed myself, would like to have the discussion. We went into a referendum on the alternative vote with a discussion led by the Prime Minister, who was not in favour of it, and other Members held honourable positions on the issue. This is about giving the discussion to the British public, however they would like to view it.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will not debate at length the quality or timing of an EU referendum, although I think that those who voted for UKIP and are likely to do so in next year’s European elections will not be impressed unless we make every effort to hold a referendum as soon as possible, rather than when it suits the three main political parties for whatever reasons we have to continue putting it off.
I wanted to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South that I have the figures from the House of Commons Library, and our total earnings from abroad constitute 44% of our GDP. We are a global trading nation and trade a higher proportion of our GDP than any other major European state. Trade with the EU comprises 19% of GDP, and 25% with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is the growing proportion; the EU is the declining proportion. Manufacturing is the only part that would be excluded, by virtue of the tariffs that were mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend, and manufacturing exports to the EU comprise 10% of GDP, and 10% to the rest of the world—a substantial and important part of our economic activity.
The point is that there is no evidence that we would not continue to trade that proportion of our manufactures with the European Union—incidentally, the figures are inflated by what we know as the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect because a lot of what we export to the EU is instantly exported to the rest of the world. We are regulating our entire economy and burdening our taxpayers with the costs of the contribution—rising to £19 billion gross—with our membership of the European Union. One hundred per cent. of our economic activity is burdened with those regulatory costs for the sake of less than 10% of our overall GDP.
Mr Hood
The hon. Lady will know that I always try to be respectful, but that is a foolish comment to make on such a serious subject. If she wants me to give my comments on the leader of the Labour party, I am absolutely delighted. I supported the leader of the Labour party, and I might point out that he is not doing badly, because we are considerably further ahead in the opinion polls than the Conservative Government.
It looks like I am running out of time. The Queen’s Speech should have been about stability, growth and employment.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
Anne Main Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
In my case, it is not 20 times. I have responded to these debates only since the general election.
The key to the debate is the Budget Red Book. I suspect that many Members are not in the Chamber this evening because they have looked at the screens advertising the debate and seen a reference to some obscure European legislation, but I draw all Members attention to page minus 2 at the very beginning of the Red Book. In tiny 9-point font, beneath the statement that the Red Book is printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum, it states:
“The Budget Report is presented pursuant to section 2 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 and…constitutes the Government’s assessment under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 that will form the basis of the Government’s submissions to the European Commission”.
If Members knew that we were debating whether the Chancellor’s assessment of the economy was a true and accurate reflection of what is going on in the UK economy, for the purposes of that Act of Parliament, they would be absolutely astonished.
We have obligations under the Maastricht treaty articles; that is essentially what we are talking about when we refer to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. Article 103 states:
“For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance”—
I know that those words stick in the throats of some hon. Members—
“Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy”.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the Opposition Benches are empty because none of his right hon. or hon. Friends could be bothered to come and scrutinise this document?
Chris Leslie
These Benches are not massively more empty than those on the Government side of the House. She will have to accept that this can, at face value, appear to be quite an obscure issue. [Interruption.] There are not many people on her side of the House, but I do not want to get into a contest on that matter.
Infrastructure
Anne Main Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
That intervention says it all. It is all jam tomorrow from this Government.
The last set of GDP figures demonstrate the scale of the Government’s economic failure. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of last year, demonstrating once again the desperate need for a strategy for growth. Since the Chancellor’s spending review two years ago, out of the G20 economies Britain has been 18th out of 20 when it comes to economic growth—worse than the USA, worse than Canada, worse than Germany, worse than France and worse than Turkey. So much for the Prime Minister’s global race.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In the previous Parliament, I was fortunate to serve on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The Committee examined why houses were not being built under the previous Government, and 400,000 planning permissions not implemented. Surely the hon. Lady ought to be looking at what is stopping building. The permissions have not been stopping. The banks were not lending under the previous Government. This is a deeply entrenched position.
Rachel Reeves
House building was down 8% in 2012 and the think-tank Policy Exchange has warned that the Government could end up presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. That is the record of the hon. Lady’s Government—not one, I would imagine, that she is proud of.
The Prime Minister says that we are in a global race, but in reality we are hardly out of the starting blocks. The Chancellor has been told time and again—most recently by the International Monetary Fund—that if economic growth undershoots expectations, the Government should boost the economy with greater infrastructure spending. Well, growth has undershot and the economy is shrinking. Over two years, economic growth has been 15 times less than the Chancellor promised in 2010.
Rachel Reeves
PFI in my constituency built three new secondary schools and helped to rebuild primary schools, as well as building Sure Start centres. I would not have wanted any of those projects not to go ahead, so I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s criticism.
It is not just independent outsiders attempting to urge the Chancellor to change course and take action or saying that change is needed. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, in what he described as a “self-critical” mood, has stated:
“I think we’ve…realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”
He did not quite get round to saying sorry for a second time, but at least he has finally stumbled upon the problem. We said that cutting infrastructure spending too far and too fast would stifle the recovery, but the Deputy Prime Minister’s brief lapse of regret came two and a half years too late. That moment of self-realisation will not help the construction worker who has already lost his job, the children waiting for their new school or the new business waiting for improved roads. We do not need mea culpas; we need the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister to change course.
Rachel Reeves
The economic and political system in China is a bit different from that of the UK, but what we must learn from other countries is that we need a proper industrial strategy if we are going to create the jobs and growth that we need, and if we are going to excel and win the global race that the Prime Minister has talked about.
Two weeks ago, at Treasury questions, the Chancellor said that I was being “creative” with the facts when I said that he was spending less than Labour planned to on infrastructure investment. He said that I was being misleading on his record on investment. He had to withdraw that slur. Channel 4’s “FactCheck” has looked into his claims. The verdict is in, and I quote from its conclusion:
“Latest figures from the ONS show that Mr Osborne’s claim to have spent more on infrastructure than what Labour had planned is wrong.”
The Chancellor has refused to come to the House to put the record straight, so let us do that now. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility—which the Government set up—the Government are spending £12.8 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans they inherited from the last Labour Government. They are cutting too far and too fast. I am happy to take an intervention on that point.
Rachel Reeves
Yes, I would like to hear why the Government are spending £12.8 billion less.
Mrs Main
The Labour Administration had a target for rail freight interchanges, and the Howbury Park project was given the go-ahead in 2007. However, no work has yet been done. Should not the Labour Government have insisted on proper investment being put into the project, which would have benefited the local area?
Rachel Reeves
I have generously let the hon. Lady have another chance at intervening, but she did not explain why, in the first year of this Parliament, her Government spent £3.2 billion less than the last Labour Government planned to spend, or why, in their second year, her Government spent £2.9 billion less than the amount in the plans they inherited. Nor did she explain why, in the third year of this Parliament, they spent £6.7 billion less than we had planned. When the Chancellor says that he has matched the plans of the last Labour Government, he is just plain wrong.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman will know that infrastructure is particularly important to Corby, and the link road that is to be built there is very important to that. He will also know that the increase in youth unemployment of 17% that happened under the Government he supported has contributed to the situation he describes.
Let me address the point of strategic leadership. How can we have long-term leadership and long-term vision for the future of our country, when important economic contributions to success, such as road schemes, are cancelled? That lunacy persisted for years, as our roads became more congested, to the detriment of the environment as well as the economy. It was not until years had passed that that nonsense was recanted by Lord Prescott, the then Deputy Prime Minister, and we decided that, after all, more traffic required more and better roads.
Mrs Main
Did the Minister note that the list of needs for strategic infrastructure put forward by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) did not include the requirements of the location? There is no point in our having strategic infrastructure just where there happens to be a need for jobs if it is not where we strategically need to place the infrastructure. That should be crucial to our decision making.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right, and what she says makes the point I am making: a long-term strategic view of where we need to invest is crucial. Unfortunately, by the time the then Deputy Prime Minister had decided that we did need to have new roads after all, he had fallen prey to a new fad, regional assemblies—remember them? Having created those unnecessary and unwanted bureaucracies, they needed to be given something to do. What were they given to do? They were given the task of reviewing and prioritising every proposed regional road scheme that had previously been about to proceed. Projects that had been about to commence were delayed for years as regional bureaucrats invented methodologies to reprioritise them. The result was that, 13 years after Labour took office, the A21 road scheme in my constituency and countless other projects around the country languished undelivered.
The Opposition motion talks about dither and delay, which is pretty ripe stuff considering the sorry saga of their roads policy and, for that matter, their stewardship of British energy policy. In July 2009, after 12 years in office, the then Government announced that they expected to have to resort to power cuts in the years ahead. They even published a chart in their strategy for energy predicting an annual shortfall of 3,000 MWh by 2017—a truly shameful and damaging admission for the Government of a developed nation after 12 years in power.
How did things reach that point? As on the economy, when it came to infrastructure, the previous Administration took a typically ostrich-like pose to the challenges of the future. They knew for 12 years that, for example, most of our nuclear power stations and most of our polluting coal-fired power stations would have to close in the decade ahead—indeed, they signed the agreement to close down those power plants—but, unbelievably, by the time they finally made up their mind about nuclear new build, it was already too late to have the new stations up and running before the old ones closed down. How is that for dither and delay? They did not even get around to the long overdue reform of energy markets on which investment in new capacity depends. That surely is something that marks the record of Labour’s first and last Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whose name escapes me just now.
This Government have recognised the importance of infrastructure to the long-term prosperity of the British economy in a way that Labour never understood. We have published for the first time a national infrastructure plan, comprising £310 billion of investment in the most strategically important projects—keeping in mind the point my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made about the importance of looking ahead and looking at where those investments are needed—in sectors such as transport, energy and communications in the period to 2015 and beyond. The man who delivered the Olympics in east London with such spectacular success, Lord Deighton, is the Minister in charge of implementing that plan.
Despite inheriting the most disastrous set of public finances that any Government have bequeathed to their successors outside wartime, we are not only investing in infrastructure, but increasing that investment. Public sector infrastructure investment from 2010 to 2012 was £33 billion a year, which is £4 billion more than during the previous Parliament, and as the National Audit Office states in its report, “Planning for economic infrastructure”:
“Future investment is expected to exceed recent levels.”
Last year’s autumn statement included a further £5.5 billion of investment, including £1.5 billion for the strategic road network. That includes upgrades to the M1, the M3, the M6 and the A60 at Immingham; £378 million to upgrade the A1 between Leeming and Barton, as part of a much-needed drive to bring the A1 up to motorway standard between Newcastle and the M25; a new link between the A5 and M1; and dualling of the A30. On 27 of the road and rail schemes announced in the 2011 autumn statement either construction has already started or work is due to begin this year, including on the A453 widening, the A11 Fiveways to Thetford improvement, and the A43 Corby link road, which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford).
This Government are ushering in the largest programme of investment in the railways since Victorian times, with £9.5 billion of capital investment allocated from 2014 to 2019. That includes £1 billion to electrify the Great Western line between London and south Wales, as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) will recognise; £500 million for the north-west and trans-Pennine electrification scheme, for which work is already under way; £800 million to electrify the midland main line and increase its speed, which I would have thought the hon. Member for Corby would welcome; and £500 million for the northern hub, which is of benefit to all the cross-Pennine services.
This Government are committed to investing in Britain’s infrastructure for the long term. The first phase of High Speed 1 will be followed by phase 2, which will revolutionise rail travel in Britain, with 211 miles of new track. I am surprised that the Opposition spokesperson, a Leeds MP, did not mention in her speech a project that will link Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester, create five new stations, and cut journey times from Birmingham to Leeds, for example, from two hours to one hour. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Leeds West would mention that. I should have thought that northern MPs would mention the cut in journey times from London to Manchester from two hours eight minutes to one hour eight minutes. The hon. Lady talks about the time it takes to build the track. If we had commenced in 1997, when Labour took power, we could be looking forward to buying our tickets for that railway now.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I profoundly disagree with the motion, particularly what it says about “dithering” and “delay”. I am all for a bit of dithering and delay, but I would call it caution and sensible planning. I am speaking up for the environment because I want us to take a considered approach to planning as well as kick-starting our economy. Carpenters have the old adage, “Measure twice and cut once.” We should be very careful that we get our infrastructure right rather than just dashing forward and building on any old place.
The motion stresses the need to get Britain building, but we need to have a cohesive approach, not a mad dash for growth without considering local communities or what is actually needed. I am concerned that we are intrinsically entwining planning and the Treasury. I want to make sure that we are giving these matters due consideration and are not trampling over communities, historic landscapes, and, importantly, the green belt, but getting our infrastructure right and getting it in the right place.
I want the infrastructure debate to be associated with economic benefit, local regeneration and jobs, but never to lose sight of the environment. The two are intrinsically linked. Local communities need to ensure that plans are not granted in a hasty fashion just to join the ranks of unimplemented or badly located permissions. The absence of a joined-up approach to getting our infrastructure right and ensuring that there are full appraisals of alternative sites for large, private-funded proposals, such as those for rail freight interchanges, is likely to result in a developer-led scramble to see who can get their project through first, and it will often not end up on the best site for the local area or for national economic growth. That can also affect investment in other sites that may be more suitable, but which are starved of potential investment as investors hold fire in case another rival site gets permission through the planning system.
I want to make sure that we ask where we need to deliver such infrastructure in Britain. It is obvious that large infrastructure projects can create jobs and they should, if possible, be based in those areas where there is a need for those jobs, while at the same time doing minimum harm to the environment. That would be a win-win situation for everyone.
There has been a “minded to grant” decision on a rail freight terminal in my constituency. According to the developer of the site, it will create more than 3,000 jobs, the vast majority of which will be blue collar. Such a development could—I agree with the Labour party on this—provide a considerable boost for a struggling local area if it had the work force. It would be a shot in the arm for an area that needed those jobs. In St Albans, however, we are fortunate to have an unemployment rate of just 2.5% and the vast majority of those 1,155 people are white-collar workers. In fact, we have a deficit of blue-collar workers. Beyond that, neither my constituents—some of whom would be situated 100 metres from the development—nor Hertfordshire county council want the site, we are not a regeneration area, and the site will depress our local house prices, concrete over 10% of our green belt and compromise commuter routes into London.
The site has had three refusals, but on the Friday before Christmas, there was a volte-face and the “minded to grant” decision was made. Residents were stunned, because, if we compare and contrast the situation with that of a nearby site in Upper Sundon, just a few miles north of St Albans, we will see—this may be coincidental —that it has all the supposed national benefits that I believe we should be looking for and none of the drawbacks, or very few of them. The site is located in an old quarry—it is not on the green belt—and a ready, accessible work force, who would not need to travel in an unsustainable fashion, want it. It is also on the M1, which I am pleased to say is being upgraded, as we have heard from the Government today.
The site is in the central Bedfordshire development plan and has the support of the council, which would make the planning process simple and, I hope, amicable. Luton airport is also nearby, which is also looking to expand. The site will have easy accessibility to roads and road freight. From the economic point of view, the site is located near Luton, where the most recent figures show that 5.6% of the population are unemployed, most of them blue-collar workers.
I want to marry up those two happy coincidences, but I am concerned that the prevailing mood—driven by the Opposition in particular—is that, in the name of economic necessity, we must give permission to build at whatever cost. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) would not let me intervene when I wanted to ask her whether she agreed—
Rachel Reeves
Of course infrastructure investment should be in the right place, but there is no risk of any infrastructure under this Government. That is the problem that we have been trying to highlight today, and the hon. Lady seems to welcome that lack of investment.
Mrs Main
I point out to the hon. Lady that in 2007, under her Government, the Infrastructure Planning Commission granted the decision to build Howbery park, against much opposition from local residents, on the green belt, on the basis that the Strategic Rail Authority said that it should be situated just about there. However, not a shovel has been turned on that development —the previous Government did nothing about it. I do not see why we should not have a strict rule that infrastructure must be placed exactly where it is needed, not where a developer happens to want it, which may lead to a situation such as that in Alconbury, which ended up with the Trojan horse of a business development park because it never got the rail links it was promised. That is not what we should be doing with our infrastructure. It should be in the right place and linked to the right work force.
If we are going to allow the development of much-needed housing, we should also look at why we have 142,000 unimplemented planning permissions that have already been granted. Across England, the figure is up to 400,000. Our priority should be to look at what has already been granted and ask why it was not built in the first place or why it was not built according to the planning permission that was granted to it, as in the case of Alconbury. If we do not make sure that infrastructure is correctly located, future generations will judge whether we had proper stewardship of our countryside.
We should examine historical permissions, both for large-scale infrastructure developments and large housing developments, that have not come to fruition. We must not just speed up the planning process and churn out more permissions that can be banked for five years, because that does not help the economy by ensuring that development happens where there is economic need and where there are people who can take up the job opportunities that are created.
A clear-sighted strategic decision-making process that was more “steady as she goes” would give investors confidence that they would not end up with permissions granted but never see the developments delivered properly in the way that was envisaged. If people want to get involved in strategic rail, there are many spin-offs such as people working on the site and promises of additional infrastructure upgrades to support the development. However, all those things fail if the developer never puts a spade in the ground and does not deliver the site as it was envisaged. All the potential jobs that are linked to such planning permissions never actually happen.
That has happened under previous Governments, and not only the last Government. However, the Opposition are now arguing that we should rush through more planning permissions and accuse this Government of dithering. I ask the Treasury to please be a bit more cautious and not to do what the previous Government did in allowing loads of permissions to be granted that never delivered what they should have delivered. We should consider applications slowly, cautiously and carefully to ensure that instead of a developer pushing the area where he would like to build, developments are built where we want them to be built and where communities want them to be built. That would be in the best interests of this country as a whole.
To return to the site in St Albans, it will not benefit my constituency one jot to have a rail freight interchange. It would probably benefit Sundon quarry and the surrounding area because of the jobs that it would create, but it would not benefit my constituency if it happened in Radlett. I hope sincerely that the “minded to grant” decision is suddenly reversed to match the original three refusals, because those refusals were sensible. Two of them came under the previous Government, so I hope that Labour Members would approve of them as well. The harm that will be done by that development certainly does not justify its going ahead, especially where an authority slightly further up the road would like to have such development, very much as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said his area would.
We should encourage development to go where communities would welcome it, and where it fits in with our with our bigger, broader strategic plan for the economy of this country.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I draw attention at the outset to my interests as declared in the register.
This has been a curious debate to date. Infrastructure is, at least in theory, a subject on which there is a large measure of cross-party support. There is general agreement across the House that we need to ensure that we have the transport networks, power arrangements, waste and water distribution systems, sewerage systems, flood protection systems and all the other necessary infrastructure that is essential to a modern, functioning economy. Really, we should have been debating how to make a reality of the current investment programmes to deliver the kind of infrastructure that is essential to our economic well-being in the longer term and, in the short term, that will help to create jobs, employment and growth in our stuttering economy.
However, we did not do that. Instead, we have seen a series of differences—not just across the House, between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on our Front Bench, but between the Minister and his Back-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who took a very different view from him. Rather than echoing his stated wish that infrastructure investment should be speeded up, she made a fairly passionate case for slowing it down.
Mrs Main
The right hon. Gentleman will see clearly that I talked about the strategic rail freight interchange in my constituency. More to the point, I am sure he would agree that these issues—whether waste disposal or otherwise—cause tensions in communities and that harm to the environment has to be weighed in the balance against development.
Mr Raynsford
I put it to the hon. Lady that when she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see some pretty clear references to going slowly and not following the advice of her Front-Bench colleague, who wants to accelerate development. He has not been very successful in doing that, but at least his heart is in the right place, and I am with him on that.
The Minister chose to present a case that was, frankly, absurdly partisan—perhaps to divert attention away from his difficulties with his own party, which does not always share his enthusiasm for speeding up the development of infrastructure. The implication that there was no worthwhile infrastructure investment under the previous Government and that the arrival of the current Government has unleashed a cornucopia of new infrastructure schemes is, frankly, risible.
Let us look at the record. I tried in my intervention to point out to the Minister that it was completely unfair to say that there had been no worthwhile investment, particularly in rail, under the previous Government. Let us look at the history of High Speed 1, the link between the channel tunnel and London. That link was not constructed when the channel tunnel was built, because the then Government, headed by Baroness Thatcher, did not believe in rail investment. The French did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Paris. The Belgians did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Brussels. But there was no high-speed link between the tunnel and London because the then Conservative Government did not believe in it. Eventually, the Major Government had a last-minute change of heart and began to recognise the importance of such a link, but they could not get it together and the scheme was in a state of financial uncertainty when the Labour Government came to power. The Minister is a fair-minded man, and I hope that he will recognise that High Speed 1, an important piece of infrastructure investment, was the achievement of the last Labour Government.
I would also like to remind the Minister about Crossrail. The scheme had been talked about for a very long time, since the mists of antiquity, but it was the Major Government who introduced a Bill to enable it to be built. However, rather characteristically of them, their political management in this place was so poor that they entrusted the project to a hybrid Bill Committee, which rejected it. So the Bill never progressed, the infrastructure was not built and, once again, it was left to the Labour Government to introduce the Crossrail scheme, to take the Bill through Parliament and to begin the work.
I give credit to the current Government, because they have sustained the investment in the Crossrail scheme. I am glad that they have done so, but it is risible to argue that everything being done today is wonderful and that nothing good was done before. As the Minister must recognise, the Crossrail scheme was developed by the previous Government and is being carried forward by the current Government. Making a reality of such long-term investment schemes depends on that degree of cross-party consensus.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Given the new time limit and the scope of the Government’s activities in the infrastructure field, I shall limit my remarks to the rail sector.
It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). I must say, however, that the second most absurd comment in his speech—after the one about the Thames estuary airport—was when he invited the Minister to recognise that HS1 was the achievement of the last Labour Government. I thought he was about to make an appeal by saying that infrastructure was a long-term thing and that both parties had been involved in it, but no. Perhaps even more striking was the comment of the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), when he said that we had Lord Prescott to thank for the preservation of the wonderful façade of St Pancras station. That might have been news to the late Sir John Betjeman.
HS1 certainly has better branding than the channel tunnel rail link, and I congratulate Labour Members on that, but the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act was passed in 1996, and it included outline planning permission. The then Government decided as part of that to have the station at Ebbsfleet, and very serious redevelopment in north Kent flowed from that. HS1 cuts through my constituency and there was significant opposition to it at the time. To a degree, the community’s view of it has settled down; certainly the noise and interference from those trains has not been as great as I feared. We have very significant benefits from having Ebbsfleet, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich should recognise the cross-party impetus that was behind HS1.
As for HS2, Opposition Members have spoken of it as it were just some little add-on. We have heard that great things are being done in Brazil; some project worth about £5 billion has been mentioned. However, the scope, scale and ambition of the HS2 project, and the vision shown by the Chancellor in driving forward that project from his time in opposition until now—despite the state of the public finances that we were left—are hugely impressive. That £35 billion project is basically inventing a high-speed rail network for this country.
Opposition Members complain that trains will not stop in certain places or will not go to others, but the fact is that even places that will not be on the new line and will not be given new stations will gain significant benefits from HS2. I am thinking particularly of the link that will go all the way to Wigan, the link that will go almost as far as York, and the link that will allow trains to come on from Crewe. All those will provide huge benefits for Newcastle, Liverpool and Scotland, which, as with the cities actually on the network, will see substantial reductions in travel times. The Government deserve to be given a measure of credit by Opposition Members for pushing ahead with HS2, particularly given the finances with which we were left.
I am happy to give credit to the Opposition when it comes to Crossrail, and I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman give credit to us for keeping it. I think that particular credit is due to us in view of the financial circumstances in which we have proceeded with Crossrail. If he will do me the courtesy of allowing me to visit his constituency on 27 February, I look forward to seeing the handover of the Woolwich station box to Crossrail. Berkeley has done an excellent job, and it will be a real gain for his area and for south-east London in general. I am an Eltham boy of old myself. I also think that there will be huge benefits for north Kent. Crossrail will go through Woolwich to Abbey Wood, and the connections with Dartford, Gravesend and the Medway towns will be much improved.
A Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted could serve as a tribute to, and be a legacy of, the current Government. We are seeking to have infrastructure projects that can be proceeded with quickly. The Davies commission is due to report in 2015, but an interim report is expected this year, which will consider how existing runway capacity in the south-east can be better used. The single best answer to that must be Stansted, because it has one runway which is only half used. It has the capacity for a further 18 million passenger movements per year, but it does not have good links with central London. If we had the Crossrail spur, it would.
The former aviation Minister Steve Norris is doing fantastic work in promoting that idea. He proposes a six-mile tunnel from Stratford to Fairlop Waters, and for the railway to run along the M11 all the way to Stansted. As a result, the journey from Stansted to Liverpool Street would take only 23 minutes, and it would take only half an hour to travel to the west end or to Ebbsfleet. What a legacy for the Government that would be! What better way could we find of kick-starting the construction industry? I would expect the Liberal Democrats to support it: they may not want any new runways ever to be built in the south-east, but at least they believe in improved rail connections, and they are working with the Conservatives to deliver that.
I hope that Treasury Ministers will allow Steve Norris, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and me, to put the case to them. I think that it would be more than a short-term—perhaps a longer-term—solution to the aviation issue.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument for the joined-up thinking that I stressed in my speech. I hope that he continues with it, because the more we can marry areas that want development with the benefits that result from it, the better the position will be for all concerned.
Mark Reckless
I think that the Stansted Crossrail spur could provide an answer to that, from not just a local but a regional and a national perspective.
I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, was encountering a difficulty in regard to the freight terminal that is planned for the lovely area of Radlett. In my constituency, the infrastructure is being put where we want it. Only last month, the Government announced that we were to be given a brand-new railway station in Rochester, which will be built exactly where we want regeneration to happen, in the area around Rochester Riverside. It will hugely assist us in making the case to developers, and in encouraging people to visit and to move to Rochester. It will improve the transport times to London, it will be immediately open to the whole of Rochester high street, and it will link the high street with the regeneration area. This Government have worked very closely with Medway council, through Network Rail, to get this announcement and to get these funds, for which I am very grateful.
Mark Reckless
I agree. I am a localist in these matters. I had the privilege to serve under the Financial Secretary when he ran the Conservative party’s policy unit, and he probably did more than any single person in our party to push that localist agenda. What he has achieved in planning, and in getting agreement for a planning system that boosts the economy and regeneration in this country yet allows local needs to be reflected and gives proper powers to the local democratically elected councillors, has been exemplary. The more we can work to get the economy moving through investment in infrastructure where both communities and the nation want it, the better.
I ask the Financial Secretary to take this agenda forward and to look in particular at giving a further boost to the economy with an extension of Crossrail. I urge him to ensure that the Treasury, as well as the Department for Transport, looks at the case that has been made for a Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted.
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
Anne Main Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
Unfortunately, our party’s leadership does not intend to start substantive renegotiation of our relationship until after 2015, long after this particular opportunity will have passed us by. If we attempt to remediate this measure and its effects on our interests, we will not succeed. This is happening in case after case—the fiscal union treaty is another example.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use every opportunity and not waste any of them? We have an opportunity to make a difference. If we just keep noting everything and do not use our opportunity, that will be another chance gone and the electorate will not forgive us for it.
Mr Jenkin
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right that failure to get the maximum leverage out of these opportunities means that they will be forgone for ever. We may well get to 2015 and find that all the major decisions to federate the eurozone will have already been taken and our opportunities to then renegotiate will look slim and incredible.
I will close by picking up on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and whose comments add a Götterdämmerung-like quality to this debate. Hitherto, the architects of European integration have, like the gods in “The Ring”, attempted to construct their Valhalla on the basis of principles and the rule of law, yet they are now compromising those very principles, on which the legitimacy of this structure depends, and, in doing so, sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
If this was being done properly—I invite the House to reflect on this—it would be a treaty change and there would be an intergovernmental conference. There would be a huge amount of debate about what other changes needed to flow from an intergovernmental conference and we would end up with a whole Act of Parliament, which would have to pass through both Houses of Parliament in this great building. The issue, however, is being debated in a mere 90 minutes on a quiet Tuesday afternoon before the Minister is sent—haplessly, perhaps —to the Council of Ministers to either agree or disagree with these momentous changes.
Major changes are being made in a more casual manner as the European Union becomes more desperate to shore up its previous mistakes. “Macbeth” comes to mind: the worse a situation gets, the more rash and irrational the actors become in defence of the indefensible. I hope that right hon. and hon. Friends will remember this debate, because the move from legality to illegality is a very big step, yet that is what we are witnessing as the Government approach this particular decision. I hope yet that they will see sense and veto the proposal.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
Anne Main Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
It would be inappropriate for the UK Government to dictate the economic policies to be followed by those in the eurozone. Members of the eurozone have made it very clear that they wish to remain part of it, and there are even member states queuing up to join it. Indeed, if we have an independent Scotland, it might consider joining the eurozone. There are challenges, but there is a strong political commitment in the eurozone for the euro to remain in place.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The Minister is making a genuine argument in favour of stability, but the rise of the far right—and Marine Le Pen receiving one in five votes in France—shows that whatever was said before, when all these treaties were signed, may not be current now. There is great unrest on the part of the public about what is being done in their name, both abroad and here.
Mr Hoban
It is not appropriate for any of us to provide a running commentary on the French presidential elections, but it is important that Governments, whether inside or outside the euro, make their argument as to why they believe that the measures required to bring about fiscal stability and economic growth are necessary. Those arguments need to continue to be made, because that is vital to Europe’s long-term interests. We will wait and see what the outcome of the French presidential election is and what the view of the new President is on the fiscal compact.
Chris Leslie
People will have their different reasons for opposing the motion, and my hon. Friend is right to state his reason for opposing it. My reason for opposing it is that, essentially, it asks the House to approve the Government’s assessment of the economy. That is the nub of the question. We are being asked to approve the Budget Red Book as their assessment of the economy. Sadly, we know that the Government are out of touch not only with the public but with economic reality. Their grip on what one might call the actuality of the real economy leaves a great deal to be desired.
This is an opportunity not only to take stock of the Government’s approach to the economy as a whole but to look at their analysis of what is happening. We know that they are pursuing failing policies on jobs, economic growth and deficit reduction. The Minister proudly defended the cut in the 50p top rate of income tax for the wealthiest 1% in society. The Government are giving a tax cut of about £40,000 to millionaires at the expense of pensioners and working people. Is it any wonder that their popularity is falling precipitously as a result? I am glad to have an opportunity, every time the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, to remind those watching these proceedings of the Government’s priorities. Living standards are being squeezed, and the VAT rise is hitting people hard, as are the cuts to tax credits and the cost of living generally. Independent experts say that a typical family will be worse off by £511 this year, but that is the Government’s choice; they want to give millionaires that advantage.
The motion relates to the Government’s assessment of the economy. Such a poor analysis as that presented in their Budget Red Book betrays either extreme wishful thinking on the part of the Treasury or, more likely, a dangerous detachment from the key decisions that Ministers need to confront. Their understanding of what is happening to business, employment and the cost of living is far removed from the experience of the vast majority of the public.
I urge all hon. Members to look at the facts and to examine the way in which the Budget Red Book is so detached from reality. On page 11, the Government claim that growth is
“strengthening over the forecast horizon”.
Growth was minus 0.2% in the last quarter for which we have figures, and the economy has been flatlining for a long time. It has performed very poorly since the spending review, while that of the United States has grown by more than 2%. The Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting growth of just 0.8% in 2012. Last year, in this very debate, we heard that the OBR was forecasting growth of 1.7% in 2012, and that was after several downgrades. There is clear evidence that the Government’s assessment of the economy is entirely out of touch with reality. The OECD is predicting good things for the United States, Germany and Japan, which are all predicted to grow faster than the United Kingdom this year.
What is worse is that on page 15, the Red Book states that we will experience
“positive growth, consistent with experience from past financial crises”.
Last year’s Treasury Red Book said that we were expecting a recovery that was
“in line with previous recoveries”.
I know that my hon. Friends who are students of these matters will be familiar with the charts and analysis produced by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and others that compare the progress of recessions and recoveries across the decades, from the great depression to the recessions in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. When we consider our present position, we see that we are still 4% off the pre-recession peak. We have not yet clambered out of the hole. This is proving to be one of the longest and deepest financial crises, and the Government have failed to make any headway in ensuring our recovery. Their claims that we are in a parallel situation to previous recessions and financial crises prove that they are not in touch with reality.
Mrs Main
I note that the shadow Minister is making a principled argument and that he disagrees with the figures. If he did agree with the Budget figures, would he still feel that we had to submit them for scrutiny? We are a sovereign country. Do we really need our homework to be checked by Europe?
Chris Leslie
That is an interesting question. Obviously, I believe in the rule of law, and there is a legal obligation on Her Majesty’s Government to abide by the treaties. This is where we come back to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall asked earlier. She asked the Minister what the consequences would be if the motion were not passed by the House today. That is the key question that all hon. Members should be pressing the Minister on when he winds up the debate. I will give way to him now if he can answer it. What would be the consequences for us if we did not vote in favour of the motion today? I am happy to give way to him. For the reasons that I have suggested, the Government’s poor assessment of the economy does not inspire me to vote for the motion. I do not see why we would want to support their woeful assessment. The Minister is not giving us a reason for voting for it.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I just wish to contribute a few words at the end of this debate, which I have listened to with interest. I am extremely concerned, but not because we are having to justify our Budget. I think that our Government are doing absolutely the right thing in cutting back on the deficit left to us by the previous Government, putting our house in order and putting the public first. That is where I would like to be: putting the public first. I do not wish there to be any consideration of whether Europe agrees that we are putting our public first or that we are putting European issues first. The European issues must be sorted out in Europe, among the people there. I do not feel that, as a sovereign Parliament, we should have to submit our Budget, regardless of whether the Opposition oppose or agree with it. It is up to us to decide the best for the British people and deliver the best for the British people—whether or not that causes “convergence” is neither here nor there.
The convergence that was perhaps envisaged in 1993 is not a route we would even want to go down now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, we are not sure what we are trying to converge with. I do not know why we are submitting documents that have the word “convergence” on the front of them, unless people are giving us marks out of 10 for converging with something.
Mr Redwood
I fear that the convergence programme began so that countries could converge with the Maastricht criteria to join the euro. As it is clear that we do not want to join the euro, we should in no way be talking about convergence.
Mrs Main
I shall not be supporting this motion, because I fundamentally disagree with what is on the front of the document—convergence. I do not think that our currency or our country should be converging with anything in Europe. Our sovereign Parliament should not have to hand in its notes to see whether or not they are acceptable to Europe. If there is convergence, I am sure that somebody is marking us out of 10 on how far down the road we have gone. If we have gone down that road, I would happily stop doing so right this minute. I conclude by saying that at some point this Parliament has got to stand up for itself and say, “We are not going to do this any more.” I would like this to be the year when we are not going to do this any more.