Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Anne Main and Alison McGovern

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I want to talk about the cut to stamp duty for first-time buyers, but before I do so I would like to take the opportunity to briefly remind Ministers on the Treasury Bench that in March my constituency suffered a terrible disaster: the gas explosion in New Ferry. The Department for Communities and Local Government currently has Wirral Council’s plan for the rebuild. I trust that, in the context of discussing new housing, Treasury Ministers will look kindly on the plan should it come before them.

I want to argue against the cut to stamp duty and for the Opposition amendment, which calls for a review of the policy, and a review of the place of first-time buyers in the housing market and the supply of housing. My argument against this specific policy is, first, that it looks set to fail against the targets the Government have set themselves; and secondly, that in the current economic context it is simply the wrong policy priority. Perhaps we might consider this policy if we were experiencing the same growth as other countries in Europe or we had dealt with our budget deficit, but even if it was not set to work against what the Government have tried to achieve, it would still be the wrong policy because it is not the country’s priority.

I imagine this policy coming before Treasury Ministers during the Budget preparations and their thinking to themselves, “Well, this might be attractive on the face of it, but ought we not to ask our bevvy of economists here in the Treasury what the likely impact might be?” The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) just rolled his eyes at me, and he did so because he knows as well as I do—we have debated it often enough—that the advice from the OBR was entirely predictable.

It was entirely predictable that anyone looking at the policy in the current economic climate would say that we have clear, credible evidence from previous changes to stamp duty that the value of this tax change will accrue not to first-time buyers but to those who already own properties. That is what the OBR says, and it is what advice from the specialists in the Treasury would have told Ministers. I do not know—I have no evidence of this—but I have confidence in the Government Economic Service and I think they would have told Ministers that.

Furthermore, it is very unlikely that the Treasury does not have the full analysis requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). All Members across the House know in their own minds whether their constituencies will benefit from this, and all members of the Cabinet know whether constituents in their constituencies—which are largely in the south-east of England—will benefit. Those of us who have watched house prices in our constituencies barely grow at all in the past 10 years will know that our constituents will benefit very little from this very expensive tax change.

[Mrs Main]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, because obviously I have a constituency in one of the higher value areas. I am confused. The shadow Minister just said that the stamp duty cut was not appropriate because the right measures were not in place for affordable housing, whereas she seems to be saying that a stamp duty cut is not what she would like to see. Which is it? Does she think that the stamp duty cut should not happen at all? I would like a simple yes or no answer.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I have already answered her question. I said that in better economic circumstances this might be something that we might want to do, but it is not a priority for now. I answered her question before she even asked it.

Given what the OBR has said, I ask Ministers once again to look at that and at the evidence. The value of this tax cut will not go to first-time buyers. That is absolutely clear. If Ministers think that they can come back to this House after having a review and persuading the OBR that the Treasury is correct and the OBR is wrong, then fine, we can look at it, but I see no reason to think that, and here is why. When we asked the Chancellor about this measure in the Treasury Committee, he gave the same line as the Minister just gave at the Dispatch Box. He said, “Ah, yes, but the OBR assessment —their model—doesn’t take into account our reforms, which will make a huge difference to the supply of housing.”

Anybody can look at page 28 of the Budget—at the Budget scorecard. This year, the stamp duty land tax cut will cost us £125 million. How much extra will we spend on the housing infrastructure fund? A big fat zero. Next year, 2018-19, the stamp duty land tax cut will cost us a whopping £560 million. How much extra will we spend on the housing infrastructure fund? A big fat zero. In fact, according to the Budget we will not spend anything on extending the housing infrastructure fund until 2019-20, when we will spend £215 million. In the same year, we will spend £585 million on the tax cut. And so it goes on, and on. We are frontloading a tax cut and pushing back spending on housing infrastructure. How can the Chancellor come to this House and say, “Oh no, the OBR has got it all wrong, because we are going to build all these houses and that will sort out the housing market”? Honestly, Mr Owen, I do not know what he is talking about.

Urban Regeneration (England)

Debate between Anne Main and Alison McGovern

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. May I ask for interventions to be kept brief? That was more like a mini-speech.

[Alison McGovern]

Thank you, Mrs Main. I think that was the first intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) has made in Westminster Hall, so I am sure he will take your advice.

My hon. Friend is right, however. Of course I care that businesses should be successful; I want people to be able to make a profit, to enjoy their town centres and to have a good environment to be in. My main point, however, is that regeneration matters because of what the quality of buildings and the built environment do to people’s hearts and souls. Being from a place that other people think is rubbish is no good—I know—so regeneration matters not only because it helps people to make a buck and to get a job, but because of the pride we take and the status of our towns. That is why I am having the debate today.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North made another good point. The problem with regeneration is the fact that the Government pull away access to capital from every direction. The housing market renewal initiative, which was helping lots of parts of Merseyside, including just up the road from New Ferry, has been cancelled and done away with. Swathes of grassland just by New Ferry are not being built on because the market is providing no capital to build the houses, and the Government will not do it. Regional development agencies—gone. Bromborough, where I am from, was rebuilt by the regional development agency, which identified business opportunities and pushed friendly capital towards there, so that our place would grow, and it did—but the RDA is now no longer there. We have the local enterprise partnership, which is a lovely organisation, but it has no resources. As my hon. Friend said, every Department of Government has stopped spending capital that previously went to regenerate our towns.

The net impact is that market failure simply cannot be addressed. Where a town centre has deteriorated to such an extent that no business can make a decent case to the markets to access capital to invest there, nothing can be done. Only the state can fix this—it is not for the private sector alone. It is not down to Government alone, either, but it cannot be done without Government.

I want to say a few words about New Ferry. It is where my office is, and I have spent time trying to get a regeneration scheme off the ground there. It is very close to a cancelled housing site that is now just scrubland, and there are lots of empty shops. There is a genuine need, not just for business investment but for regeneration. The area needs reshaping and a new idea of what it can be; there are so many empty shops that people do not go there any more. No business is prepared to risk expending capital by itself on New Ferry. What the Government have done means that there is no mechanism to make regeneration happen, so I am standing here today to ask the Minister to create a mechanism—to find a way for the state to do regeneration in our towns once more. That is desperately needed and it must be done.

I will briefly share some of my constituents’ views. In advance of this debate, I distributed leaflets and used Twitter and Facebook to tell my constituents about it, and they have written to me in great numbers to tell me what they think. Miriam Clack of Stanley Road in New Ferry said, about the place that we are from:

“it’s a pig hole, and it’s a disgrace, and no one is in the least bothered about it.”

I am bothered about it, and I think the Government should be as well. This is the place where we live. She asks why the closed shops are not pulled down or made into something else, and she is right to. She goes on:

“If I was younger I would leave but I can’t so I’m stuck in this hole.”



Another constituent, Matthew Thomas, has had a great idea. He says:

“I think we already have a sufficient number of shop premises. I would even say we have too many. In my opinion it is worth considering the impact of removing the shops”.

He is right. New Ferry needs to be reshaped, but only the Government can do that. No one business, on its own, is going to lead a private sector solution to deal with it; it needs to be a partnership.

The local community has done great things, but, as Joan Rawcliffe of Ortega Close said,

“in spite of considerable efforts carried out by the New Ferry Regeneration Action Group (e.g. the farmers’ market, the landfill site”—

we have a new park there—

“regeneration of the area as a whole failed to take place. Monies from outside sources…were not received by New Ferry.”

Such money was received in other areas, but is not available now because of the Government’s actions.

In closing my contribution, I put it to the Minister that the situation is desperate. I see it, day in, day out, week in, week out, when I am in New Ferry staring at boarded-up buildings and the crumbling bricks of those beautiful old buildings I mentioned. I see it; if he does not, he is welcome to come with me to myriad town centres up and down our country to see it. I ask him to think about this: if he, as a Government Minister, could do one thing, it should be to restart the regeneration of our country. That is desperately needed and I ask him to do it.