Finance (No. 2) Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

It does indeed. Let me illustrate the success of co-ownership in Northern Ireland, which is similar to the co-operative housing that the hon. Gentleman describes. More than 50% of new houses in Northern Ireland are being sold through the co-ownership arrangement. Importantly, because it is targeted at first-time buyers, it has enabled them to get their foot on the housing market ladder, stimulated demand in the economy and created the jobs in the construction industry that are so sorely needed.

Be it the mortgage equity scheme or the mortgage loan scheme, the Government should have no fear of new clause 1. If they have confidence in the schemes they propose, they should not fear scrutiny of them. Indeed, all the evidence from the Northern Ireland market and the Irish Republic market shows that the schemes will work.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular need across the country for affordable housing to rent and to buy, and that, on striking the balance that he referred to earlier, there is a grave danger, as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has said, of creating another housing bubble if the wrong level is set? Is that the point he is driving at?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the next point I want to make—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

What I am saying is that, at the Budget, we set out a scheme outline. Now we need to work, with lenders and other stakeholders, on the detail. We want to ensure that we avoid any unexpected adverse consequences of the scheme, such as attempts to use it to purchase second homes. We want to look at this carefully, and we want to ensure that we discuss the details with industry. We have already started this process, and we will report back to Parliament in due course. Therefore the report suggested by new clause 1 is wholly unnecessary.

[Bill Esterson]

This is a really important point. What the Minister has not announced is that, if somebody is moving up to a second home, they must sell their first home. Can he confirm that they will not be able to keep that first home, because otherwise it will mean that people will be able to get a second home by using the scheme?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, which is that it is the Government’s duty to carefully consider what is meant by a second home. He has given as an example the situation in which someone has no intention of owning two homes, but is in the process of moving home. Let me share another example. There are couples who unfortunately get divorced, and there may be a need for another home as the family splits. The question then arises, is that a second home or not? It is sensible for the Government to examine such issues carefully as we flesh out the details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I get the sense that the hon. Gentleman is starting an accountancy line, perhaps thinking how best to advise these bankers of ways around that nasty Labour Government’s bankers’ bonus tax. I am sure that whether it be in Bitcoins, gold or shares, bankers will be ingenious in how they pay and reward themselves. We have to get a grip of it, though, because however much they lavish rewards on themselves, the Exchequer needs to keep pace with the arrangement. I accept that this is a fluid situation, with policy and banker remuneration changing at the European level, but we must capture this particular issue and not adopt the lackadaisical attitude that the Treasury has adopted so far.

[Bill Esterson]

A number of figures have been bandied around in the debate, and it is difficult to know exactly which ones are right. Surely that is why we need the review that the amendment proposes. Such a review will, using the resources available to the Treasury, show how the scheme would work. That is surely the best way of answering the questions. We are hearing too many different arguments and different figures—even from the Members who have spoken over the last few minutes.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is correct. However, even if we assume that, as the Minister will no doubt say when I give way to him in a moment, cash bonuses have been changing and the revenue yield will not be the same as it was in 2009, the fact remains that in 2009 we brought in £3.5 billion, and we calculate that this year we could bring in £2 billion. I have not seen any figures to the contrary. As for the Minister’s predictions of what may happen to bonus arrangements in the future, we can come to that in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

That simply is not the case. I was at the Bank of England relatively recently looking at the profile of debt in the run-up to 2008 and from 2010. From 2010, the ratio of the debt between the Government and the banking community was 1:2. Two thirds of the debt was that of the banking community. Do not misunderstand me: there has been a problem with the general public ratcheting up more private debt through the availability of low interest rates, which in themselves are a good thing, thanks to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) introduced Bank of England independence and all the rest of it, and thanks to a feeling that there would be a continuation of growth. People were investing in houses and they were growing in price and so on.

Since 2010, when the Chancellor said, “We will have half a million people unemployed in the public services” and did not say who they were or when they would lose their jobs, there has been a sharp rise in savings rates and a fall-off in consumer demand. We have seen consumer demand basically flatlining, which underlines the reason why we do not have growth, which is why we do not have a reduction in the debt to GDP ratio.

We need confidence to get back on a growth path so that people can spend in the knowledge that they will have jobs in the future. Part of that is to re-engineer the financial world in such a way that money is channelled into productive capacity. Although, allegedly, we have an extra million people in work, overall output is the same. Average production has fallen and average productivity is down, which is very worrying. So we need to think how to ensure that the banking community pays its fair share and how to direct money, in a meaningful way, into job creation and public and private assets.

I was not in the Chamber for the previous debate, but part of that thought process would be, how to encourage the banking community, not in a high-risk way, to start helping people to build desperately needed housing—to get people who have been out of work, many of them in the construction industry, back into work to provide social houses.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Geraint Davies]

I will give way in a moment.

After all, one of the big issues that is waved around by the Government is, “We must get the welfare bill down and Labour will not do anything about it.” The flagship of that proposition is, “Housing benefit has doubled to £20 billion in the past 10 years. What is the Labour party going to do about that? We are going to introduce the empty bedroom tax.” In fact, 70% of that increase has come about through escalating private sector rents, and local councils being forced to use the private sector for people in need of housing, because not enough social housing is being built.

If we could somehow get the banks to build social houses, perhaps by allowing them to own partly some of those assets, and by doing so create jobs for people who would pay tax, people would have houses and the housing benefit bill per household would go down because rents would go down—housing benefit is linked to rent levels. We need to think about how to put this together, and part of that debate clearly relates to the banks. When there are obscene bonuses and the recipients are receiving tax cuts, it is not fair, certainly from where I stand, when I am seeing local unemployment up 42%.

[Geraint Davies]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) first.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is conducting a very thorough examination of the causes of the financial problems that we face. He mentioned housing. Does he agree that the housing bubble is part of the cause of the problem, because people borrowed against the value of their property, which is not a long-term, sustainable way of producing growth in the economy? One reason why the proposal that we are debating is so important is that we need a sustainable model of taxation to underpin the growth in the economy with the type of investment that my hon. Friend is talking about, rather than using assets as a way of investing, which is not sustainable. Actually, there is some evidence that that problem is recurring now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

You, Mr Amess, probably have one of these sophisticated iPhones. I bring it out of my pocket because all the heavy lifting of the technology in this phone, which is a multi-billion pound product in a global marketplace, has been done by the public sector. We invented the internet, but GPS, touch sensitivity, voice sensitivity and most of those things were done by the institute of technology in California, which is why the Californian government are suing Apple for £26 billion to try to recover some of the money earned. Apple did a bit of packaging and marketing, produced the goods in a lower cost place, and paid tax somewhere else. We have global companies, which we all know about, which do not pay tax where the economic activity takes place. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question whether it would be better to give money back to companies for R and D is that companies want to do a bit of R and D, but they want to do it on the back of the heavy lifting of the public sector. That is the reality. Part of our challenge is to attract those companies to where we have public sector activity, to engage in partnership, and to ensure that we tax where the economic activity and marketplaces are, so that we get our fair share of the added value and a return from our taxpayer investment. So the answer is yes, yes, yes.

[Bill Esterson]

With regard to why Government have to intervene, my hon. Friend mentioned Swansea, but around the country there are regions with big problems, particularly youth unemployment—Merseyside is a key area where that is a problem—where we need such intervention. We are talking about a levy on banks, not on Tata, and we need that money to be directed where the job shortages are for young people. A small number of my constituents who have not been able to find work locally travel to London to obtain work, with all the inherent problems of high housing costs. It is not an attractive option. It is not what they want to do, but they have no choice. However, the vast majority are not in a position to do that, and that is why youth unemployment in the regions is going up, and that is why we need the kind of intervention that my hon. Friend is talking about.

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, and my hon. Friend makes an important point about the growing regional imbalance in the British economy. I realise that the Government have paid lip service to that issue, but if the only place to get a good job is London, that inflates costs, and young people come to London to live in squalid conditions in the hope that they can get the experience to go home at some point. There is a brain-drain as well, so this policy does not make any sense. One of the first things the Government did was to get rid of the regional development agencies. They said that they were no use and cost too much.

Economic Policy

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Of course we are working in the north-east, as elsewhere, to create the right conditions for businesses to grow. Unemployment has fallen—the unemployment rate is lower; a million jobs have been created; the number of youths unemployed has fallen as well; and there is a record number of jobs and a record number of women in work. Those things are welcome, but of course we have to do more to help businesses grow, and that is precisely what we are going to do.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has spent the past hour denying what he said previously, but the reality is that he staked his entire reputation on maintaining this country’s credit rating. Why on earth is he still in a job?

[Mr Osborne]

I have made it very clear that although the credit rating is an important benchmark, it is one of a number of benchmarks. We are tested every day out there in the market, and what we have not heard from the shadow Chancellor is any alternative. It is all very well criticising the current Government’s economic policy, but what is the Opposition’s alternative? They have to have a policy to attack a policy.

Infrastructure

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Sawford]

The overwhelming majority of the investment in new children’s centres, schools and health improvement projects in my constituency was publicly funded. Government Members should remember that PFI was dreamt up by a previous Conservative Government, and that they did not oppose a single new school, children’s centre or hospital built by the Labour Government. If they were honest, they would have objected to them being built in the first place—or say they would close them down now. Let us have honesty on that.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right about the benefits of the new schools and children’s centres. A group of sixth-formers from Deyes high school were at an education event in the Palace earlier today. Their school building was due to be replaced under Building Schools for the Future, but they will not see it, and neither—more importantly—will their brothers and sisters. However, it would have been replaced under a Labour Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that is the disgrace in what the current Government have done. They have cancelled the future in schools for many of our young people.

[Andy Sawford]

I absolutely agree. The planned rebuilding of Lodge Park school in my constituency under Building Schools for the Future was cancelled—one of the Government’s first acts. The Secretary of State for Education later apologised for his bungling and mishandling of that, but his apology means nothing to the young people whose education is suffering, or to the construction workers who otherwise would have had employment in my town. It is all part of the story of the past two years. This Government’s policies took Britain back into recession—one of only two G20 countries to go back into recession. The very people who counselled that Britain needed a plan to reduce its deficit over time—the previous Government set out a reasonable, sensible plan—are now telling the Government that they got it wrong and reduced the deficit too quickly, and that the plan has been hugely damaging to our economy. The Government’s economic arguments present a false divide between the public and private sectors. The public sector and the private sector are intimately interconnected in my constituency, as in any other. The Government create a false divide between the role of Government and Government spending and prospects for growth.

Corby and east Northamptonshire has a new railway station and new schools, and the new Tresham college building is a fantastic facility for young people. That investment helps companies such as AGI Amaray, which makes all the DVD boxes we have in our homes. It helps companies such as Tata Steel to recruit people with the skills they need. It helps innovative new start-ups such as KwikScreen—some people from that company were in Parliament yesterday and I visited them a few weeks ago—which is now selling all over the world. It helps them because we are investing in the young people they need to compete in the world. The Corby east midlands international swimming pool is an incredible investment of which the whole country can proud. The Leader of the Opposition went there with me to meet visiting international swimmers and to wonder at the facility. It is impressive to people looking to invest in the town and provides a wide range of facilities for local people, including ways of keeping them healthy, and we need a healthy population for the work force of the future.

All the good that Labour did for Corby contrasts with what is happening now. It is reasonable to contrast Government records, and important to do so when looking ahead. The slow-down in the market has had huge consequences for my community. We have one of the fastest growing populations in the country—it is set to double in the next 20 years. Little Stanion is a new development that, because the bottom dropped out of the housing market and the construction sector, has not yet reached the trigger point for the infrastructure it needs. I have talked to local people. They do not have the parks, play areas, public transport provision or the investment in schools and other facilities that they need. We need to get the economy growing. That is why, in my by-election, many people came out to vote for me on a cold, dark November evening. They voted because I made a pledge to support a jobs guarantee for young people, funded by a one-year national insurance tax break for small firms—I do not why the Government will not listen to that idea.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West is absolutely right to press the Government for action to get young people back to work. There are specific projects in east Northamptonshire and Corby, such as the Chowns Mill roundabout, investment in the A45, the Rockingham northern orbital route, getting the Geddington road reopened again and broadband. The previous Government promised 2 megabit broadband for every household in my constituency by 2012, but those plans were cancelled. We are now hoping that that might happen by 2015, but it is all part of a picture for my constituents of jam tomorrow—the investment was removed just when it was most needed. The Government really should listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) about the unwillingness of business to invest, and the effect on jobs and growth of our lack of confidence in the economic prospects of the country, which is caused by the Government’s economic policy. That point summarised the problems and set out why this debate is crucial and why it is crucial that the Government get infrastructure investment right.

When the coalition Government were elected, one of their first acts was to cancel a number of infrastructure projects, including the Building Schools for the Future programme. Chesterfield high school in my constituency was one victim of that decision and did not receive the investment in new buildings it so badly needed. The decision also meant the end of plans for Chesterfield high school to be integrated with Crosby high school. Crosby high school is a special school, and students and staff at both schools would have benefited from the integration of special and mainstream education on the same site. Sadly, that was not to be, and hon. Members across the country will have similar examples of the impact of the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future.

When they took power the Government scrapped a number of infrastructure schemes and reviewed a number of schemes that the previous Government had already approved. On infrastructure spending, it is clear that the Government have cut investment by £12.8 billion compared with the plans of the previous Government. The Treasury identifies 574 projects worth £310 billion in the Government’s 2012 infrastructure pipeline, but just seven of those are completed or operational and they include a road scheme started under the Labour Government.

In my area, the Mersey Gateway has been described by KPMG as one of the world’s most important infrastructure projects, yet as we heard from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), a preferred bidder has yet to be announced for that important scheme. In my constituency, the previous Labour Government gave the go-ahead for the Switch Island to Thornton relief road. That road was put on hold in May 2010 by the incoming coalition Government but reinstated after a review.

Sefton council spent considerable time and money negotiating first with the Government and then with various landowners. The road has widespread local support, as it will relieve congestion for the residents of Thornton and speed up journeys for people from Formby, Crosby, Maghull and Aintree in my constituency. It will help the economy and boost jobs and growth. It has been discussed for at least 40 years, and the news that it was to go ahead was welcomed by nearly all my constituents. There has been a marked absence of opposition to the road, partly because the consultation carried out by Sefton council was so thorough. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State decided to call in the project and hold a public inquiry.

At the cost of an inquiry, the Government have delayed a much-needed piece of infrastructure, and three years later there is still no sign of building work. I am sure colleagues will know the cost of such inquiries, and the final cost of the Thornton relief road inquiry will be of great interest to my constituents. I dare say that Members across the House will know of schemes that have suffered similar delays because of how we deal with infrastructure in this country. The slow progress made on the Thornton relief road and the complete lack of progress on most of the projects in the infrastructure pipeline—the Treasury’s words, not mine—highlight an institutional delay that happens in this country and a real problem that we have on infrastructure.

Some Members have talked about consensus, and that issue must be addressed across the House, but the lack of progress, the delay in starting work and the decline in the construction industry show a much bigger problem, which lies at the heart of the economic problems in this country. The Thornton relief road is important for the economic benefits it will bring once it is built, but it is also vital because of the impact of construction on the local economy, on jobs and on the multiplier effect of infrastructure spending on the wider economy.

The lack of activity in the construction industry is a key reason why our economy has stalled since May 2010, and the fact that the construction sector has declined so much is a cause for great long-term concern, as well as concern about its short-term impact. Output in the construction industry fell by 9.3% between the end of 2011 and the end of 2012, and 129,000 jobs have been lost in construction since the Tories and Lib Dems joined forces nearly three years ago. The delay in infrastructure planning and the impact on the construction industry, on jobs and on the economy will have a long-term effect. The firms that have closed cannot just reopen, and workers who have been laid off cannot simply be re-employed. For projects such as the Thornton relief road, delay means that potential economic benefit is not realised when it is most needed, which is now.

The Government state that they want to speed up the planning process to drive economic development, yet they hold unnecessary and expensive planning inquiries, which only delay the start of projects. To listen to the Minister, one might have thought that the whole country had been turned into one big building site—how far from the truth can that be? His description of large-scale, widespread projects in road, rail and energy might have led us to believe that we have a thriving, growing economy, where the construction sector is booming. Sadly, that is just not the case. Even the Government’s own figures show what is really happening.

The case for infrastructure has been made by the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce. Unless we see those investments, we will not see the return to growth and prosperity, and the jobs that are so desperately needed. The Government need to take action now.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

On the question of physicality, I am not suggesting that the Government have got it wholly wrong. I am suggesting that if, at some point in the future, we have empirical evidence that such physicality has an impact on those particular jobs, the Minister—I am sure he is rushing off to check the data—might revisit the rules to see if that physicality can be reflected in those specific roles within those specific categories.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Many years ago I took the bleep test and I can only describe its physical demands as a form of hell. The hon. Gentleman is right about the demands on the police, but what about other public sector workers? It has been put to me by nursery staff, school staff who work with small children, nurses and other NHS staff that they have very physically demanding jobs. Their jobs are not as potentially violent as the job he has just described, but they are demanding. Does he accept that we need to look carefully at the impact on those people too?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not rule out the possibility where there is empirical evidence that people’s ability to work and progress is affected by the physicality of that profession. One difficulty is that those in some of the roles described in the Bill will have limited opportunities to move into other less physical roles. That is another consideration. If there are roles in the NHS where the physicality affects people’s ability to perform that role and where no other avenues are available to them, that is a fair point, but in most roles there will be opportunities to move into less physically demanding roles. Unfortunately, in the armed forces, police and fire service, there are limited opportunities to move out of front-line roles. It is the House’s duty to protect those who protect us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I want to refer, in particular, to my amendment 1. I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) very interesting indeed. I certainly agree with a range of points he made.

The amendment seeks to place two additional occupations into the Bill, and they have been mentioned on both sides of the Chamber. They are those of prison officer and psychiatric nurse. Clause 9(2) lists the three occupations to be enshrined in the legislation as exemptions from subsection (1)—they have been discussed by various Members and there seems to be some agreement—which are

“fire and rescue workers who are firefighters…members of a police force, and…members of the armed forces.”

I fully support people working in those occupations and the courageous work they do on a regular basis. I fully understand why they are included in the Bill and support their inclusion, but for the very same reasons I wish to amend the Bill to include prison officers and psychiatric nurses.

It is widely accepted that prison officers and psychiatric nurses have to deal with some of the most dangerous, dysfunctional and disruptive people in society on an almost daily basis. Expecting these categories of worker to work above the age 65 is totally and utterly unjustified; in fact, when we look at it in great detail, the decision seems absolutely outrageous. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green mentioned a constituent of his, a very fit police officer from the territorial support unit who explained exactly how he kept himself in peak fitness to do his job. We cannot expect people in the Prison Service to be grappling with prisoners at the age of 65 and above, but the Bill as it stands would allow that.

Currently, prison officers regularly have to take five different tests: a grip strength test, an endurance and fitness test, a dynamic strength test, an agility test and a static shield hold test. If a prison officer fails any of those tests, they fail the entire health and fitness test. The current regime is therefore rather stringent. If clause 9 is agreed to unamended, it will mean many prison officers and psychiatric nurses either dying in service or retiring on ill health grounds and not having a very healthy lifestyle thereafter.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is doing a fine job of explaining the concern of people who work in the Prison Service or in psychiatric health. Ashworth hospital and HM Prison Kennet are in my constituency, and people working at both have expressed exactly those concerns to me. Does he think that, as well as potentially leading to damaged health and increased disability, the Bill will discourage people from entering the Prison Service and that part of the NHS?

[Ian Lavery]

That is absolutely right. When anybody looks to take up a new employment opportunity, they look at a whole array of things. The public sector is changing by the day—although the Prison Service and the NHS now involve not just the public sector, but the private sector. People look at how their pensions will end up and what the pensionable age is, which we have also been discussing this afternoon. That is a huge consideration for many people who want to choose their profession early on in life. This measure will put people off becoming prison officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady has spoken eloquently and passionately about that point. I do not know whether she was present earlier when I expressed my personal view, but her point may fit in with it. In addition to the issue of physicality, in undertaking their work the people employed in the careers identified in clause 9(2) put their lives at risk. If that is the case for prison officers in Northern Ireland, too, they should be included, and I would be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has to say about that.

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

Other Members want to contribute to the debate, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He might have an opportunity to speak later.

If we are to change the retirement age for the careers in question, we must undertake those physical tests as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is of a similar age to me, has said that he is going to do the police test, and I have agreed that I will do the firefighter test. I reiterate his challenge to the shadow Minister and to the Minister, both of whom are at least a decade younger than us, to sign up to do those tests if we are to proceed with the Bill at the end of Third Reading. I would be very grateful to hear them accept that challenge, and indeed to hear the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), do so.

Bank of England

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Canadian economy did better than any other major western economy in weathering the financial crisis. Its public finances were in better shape, its banks were better regulated and the Bank of Canada was able to take Canada through this period in a way that in Britain and in many other western economies we wish we could have emulated.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

When the Chancellor speaks to the new Governor, will he discuss the Engineering Employers Federation’s comments that further austerity will not help the British economy because it is too weak and that the policy should be for growth and not cuts?

Fuel Duty

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes himself absolutely clear. He has been an avid campaigner on this issue, and his point of view is certainly being taken on board.

These low interest rates have helped hard-working families up and down the country with their cost of living. With interest rates low, mortgage bills are also low. If interest rates rose by just 1%, average mortgage bills would increase by almost £1,000 a year.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that his constituents want the planned rise in fuel duty to be cancelled—as do my constituents—and the Minister said that he agreed with him, so why does he not support our motion?

[Sajid Javid]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will hear about the action we have taken to help with the cost of living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; I will come on to it.

[Bill Esterson]

It would be great if the Minister spoke to the fuel duty motion—[Interruption.] The fuel duty part of the motion. He talks about tax avoidance. Many of my constituents used to work at HMRC—they do not any more because his Government got rid of them. How can he be serious about tax avoidance when he has not provided the new inspectors he promised and has cut some of the staff who were there when the Government took office?

[Sajid Javid]

The motion mentions tax avoidance—he really should read his own party’s motion. The number of HMRC employees went down from 96,000 to 66,000 under his Government.

Labour Members had 13 years to clamp down more widely on tax avoidance. They had 13 years to do what they are calling for today. Did they take that chance? No. There were 13 years of inaction, and a consultation gathering dust in the Treasury archives. Even then, their figures simply do not add up. They claim that clamping down on this tax relief would bring in £650 million, but figures released while they were in power show it would bring in significantly less. If they ever want to regain credibility on the economy, they need to apologise for the mess in which they left the economy and learn to stop making irresponsible, unfunded promises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment, because it helps me to remind her that, when Britain was in recession at the back end of 2008, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession at the beginning of 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession in September 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When there was a faltering recovery—which was probably credit fuelled—in March 2010, on the eve of an election, at the point when the figures showed that the economy was recovering, fuel duty went up by 1p. So much for the correlation between recession and fuel duty increases.

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Those who think they are bottom of the list will also have minutes removed.

[Bill Esterson]

I am always happy to be guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the research—

[Sajid Javid]

Reading!

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is aware of the research by FairFuelUK that points out that a 3p increase in duty would deliver a 0.1% drop in GDP and the loss of 35,000 jobs. Does he accept those figures?

[Ben Gummer]

At least FairFuelUK sticks to its position. My point is that Labour put up fuel duty in government when the country was in a deep recession and increased it by marginally less when the country was showing signs of a credit-fuelled recovery—coincidentally, on the eve of an election—yet now, when there has been 1% growth in GDP, Labour objects to an increase in fuel duty that was programmed at that point by the previous Government. What Labour lacks in consistency it also lacks in remembrance of what it did previously, faced with the worst recession this country has ever suffered, when the Labour Government put duel duty up by 6p over 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). I gently point out to her that there are twice as many Government Back Benchers here tonight than Labour Back Benchers, and that is for an Opposition day debate, but we will let that one lie.

It is great pleasure to participate in this debate, and I congratulate the Opposition on tabling this motion, because it gives us all an opportunity to stand back and admire the brazen brass neck, the unbridled cynicism and the naked opportunism that characterises it. It seems that the shadow Chancellor is almost congenitally unable to stand and watch a bandwagon pass by without having the urge to jump aboard it. However, it seems that he has been overtaken with uncharacteristic modesty this evening, because he is not here; he has fallen silent. For the past few days he has been beating his chest, beating the drum and complaining about fuel duty increases, but now, this evening, he has donned the mantle of the mute. A week after Guy Fawkes night, he has lit the blue touch paper and withdrawn to a safe distance, leaving his ciphers and his sidekicks to propose and support his motion—and well he might, because we have heard a chorus of amnesia from Labour Members. We have heard them speak forgetting all they have done in the past, forgetting what they are saying while they are saying it and forgetting everything they have said when they have sat down. But we will not forget: we will not forget the meagre 75p increase in pensions; we will not forget the 12 hikes in fuel duty; and we will not forget the increase in fuel poverty between 2004 and 2009. I want to touch on that issue, because during Labour’s tenure—

[Bill Esterson]

According to the House of Commons Library, the proportion of a litre of fuel paid in tax rose from 59% to 75% between 1990 and 1997, whereas between 1997 and 2010 it fell back to 65%. Does the hon. Gentleman accept those figures?

[Christopher Pincher]

All I will confirm is that fuel duty would have increased many more times had Labour’s Budget been implemented and that 2.8 million more people fell into fuel poverty between 2004 and 2010 as a result of the policies that the Labour Government pursued. The fact of the matter is that energy prices went up on the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Secretary of State—that is all he did; he stood there and watched as millions more people fell into fuel poverty.

I am pleased to say that in my constituency fuel poverty has fallen by 5% in the past year or so, and we estimate that by 2020 it will have fallen by about 25%. Thanks to the Government introducing and increasing the cold weather payments, and thanks to the discount of about £120 a year that will help 600,000 vulnerable pensioners, these people will be better off. The Government are helping them, but it is not enough. If we try to stick sticking plaster over a problem such as fuel poverty, we will not resolve it. That is like treating pneumonia with Angiers junior aspirin. What we really need to do is get to the actual causes of fuel poverty. In the 10 years between 2000 and 2010, under the previous Labour Government, £25 billion was spent on trying to alleviate fuel poverty yet the increases in fuel prices swamped those measures. Now, three quarters of those who live in the most energy-inefficient homes are in fuel poverty compared with one in 20 of those living in the most energy-efficient.

If we are serious about dealing with the problem of fuel poverty and dealing with one of the greatest challenges in the cost of living, we need to get a grip on the demand side of the equation. That means ensuring that homes are properly insulated. Not only that, but they should have proper and modern boilers and smart meters so that people can for the first time take control of their energy demands and reduce them. That is what the green deal is all about.

We need also to deal with the supply side of the energy equation. A generation ago, there were 15 energy suppliers, but that number has now reduced to just six. A generation ago, energy bills were relatively straightforward but now people are confused by an array of tariffs. A generation ago, 75% of people rarely if ever switched their energy suppliers. That is still the case. If we are serious about dealing with one of the biggest challenges and biggest drains on people’s means, we need to deal with energy costs.

I hope that the Government’s proposals in the draft Energy Bill, to which I look forward, will ensure that people are put on the best and cheapest tariffs and that we invest in new nuclear and shale gas, which Labour left behind for 10 years, so that we secure our energy supply and are not exposed to international gas and hydrocarbon volatility, which has caused so much distress to bill payers over the past 10 years. The Government must also be careful in that Bill, because although we need to ensure that we have a sufficient, resilient and diverse supply of energy, we must ensure that the mechanism to deliver that capacity does not place undue burdens on the industry that will deliver it.

The industry reckons that the capacity mechanism could increase its costs, which it could pass on, by anywhere between £3 billion and £13 billion, meaning that anywhere north of £14 a year could be added to energy bills. We need to ensure that the Energy Bill does not have the perverse effect of adding to energy bills as it tries to reduce them. I hope that the Minister will pass on that message to his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

For the moment, let us thank the Labour party for tabling the motion and enjoy the theatre of the absurd. It is an absurd prospect: the Labour party introduced the fuel duty escalator, increased fuel duty and wanted to hike it again if it won the last election, but it is now proposing to freeze fuel duty by closing the tax loopholes that its own labyrinthine Treasury policies allowed. I am sure that the Chancellor is aware of the cost to the country of fuel duty, but I think that the country is also aware of the cost to it of the previous Labour Government—a grisly experiment that it will not want to repeat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) is gathering votes from Government Members as we sit here, we find out that she lasted only five minutes of a bush tucker trial. Meanwhile, back in the real world, her constituents and mine are suffering grievously because of the cuts in living standards that have resulted from the Conservative party’s economic policies. The real struggle of many of our constituents stands in stark contrast to her outrageous behaviour. The impact of fuel prices is one of many worries that have brought living standards under attack. I wonder how many people out there in the country think it is appropriate for a Member of this House to be away for five weeks—

[Christopher Pincher]

Like Gordon Brown.

[Bill Esterson]

And that is when the country faces the toughest economic situation of modern times—[Interruption.] Goodness knows what the hon. Lady’s constituents think, but what of her colleagues? Judging by their reaction to what I have just said, they clearly approve. They have all said that they want to scrap the fuel duty rise, but they will not vote for it. Maybe they should all be in Australia cheering on Nadine, rather than rejecting efforts to help all our constituents.

There are many pressures on living standards and a lot of money has been taken out of the economy, affecting businesses and jobs and delivering hardship for many people in this country. As I have said, it is extraordinary that Government Members will not vote for a measure that would do exactly what they all say they support.

Let me say a little about some of my constituents—the pensioners, working families, young people out of work and commuters—all of whom will be hit by the Government’s failure to cancel the fuel duty rise. Pensioners, some of whom have to choose between heating and eating, face increased food prices and, at the same time, will have to pay more for bus and taxi fares or, if they have a car—some pensioners do—they will find it very expensive to run. It is no wonder we are seeing more and more people relying on food banks. The Government tell pensioners to deal with rising energy costs by going on the internet and looking at uSwitch, but my pensioners tell me that most of them have never used a computer, let alone the internet, and so would not know where to start. How is that a solution to rising energy costs and falling living standards? You tell me, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps the Minister can tell me when he winds up the debate. That is before the granny tax has taken money from pensioners to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. Then there was the young man whose building firm was wound up because he and his partner could not get any work. He now works in a shop for £6.50 an hour and barely has enough money coming in to put food on the table and pay the rent, let alone put fuel in his car.

The least we could do is to make some kind of move to help these people by cancelling the fuel tax increase. As I said in an earlier intervention, and as FairFuelUK has demonstrated, its effect would be a fall in GDP and a loss of 35,000 jobs, so no jobs would be created for the more than 1 million young people who are out of work. At the same time, the tax credit cuts will hit part-time workers, and that is where jobs are being created. Part-time jobs have increased, but not the full-time ones that would help to build prosperity. Many small businesses tell me that they are getting by with fewer staff who are working longer hours. HGV owner-drivers tell me that the cost of filling their lorries has gone up and up, and all those increased fuel costs have to be passed on, either through cuts in their own income or price rises that hit the living standards of those on the lowest incomes. VAT is up, fuel prices are up, food prices are up, energy prices are up, and taxes are up—except, of course, for those millionaires.

Tonight we, as the House of Commons, have an opportunity to vote to cancel the fuel duty rise, not least because of the impact that it would have in the coldest part of the year when people rely on fuel for their cars more than at any other time. The Government have an opportunity, if they choose, to do this by closing tax avoidance loopholes and targeting the Starbucks, Amazons and Googles of this world, thereby helping those whose living standards have suffered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I do agree that we need much more competition in the banking industry, and account portability can play a major role in advancing that. The Vickers commission looked at it, and my hon. Friend has been very vigorous in proposing ways in which she thinks it can be implemented. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I will meet her to discuss how we can advance these proposals.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Small businesses are responsible for 40% of the jobs in my constituency, but with the banks not lending to small businesses, it is very hard for them to grow and create the extra jobs that are needed. What action will the Minister take to make sure that the banks do lend to small businesses so that they can play their part in the growth and jobs desperately needed in my constituency and elsewhere in the country?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is crucial that we get funds to small businesses to get them lending. In fact, lending to small and medium-sized enterprises is up 13% over the past year. He will know that the new funding for lending scheme, which is being conducted in co-operation with the Bank of England, is making £80 billion available to the banking system for the purpose of lending.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight some of the positives in the UK economy, especially the employment figures. My experience of dealing with trade unions is that one should not pay much attention to the rhetoric at their conferences. When one gets down to business with the trade unions, as I did on public service pensions, the majority of them are willing to behave responsibly. That said, and as the shadow Chancellor has said, the British public and trade union members do not want to see strike action in this country.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Borrowing is rising because of the scale and speed of the cuts, as we warned it would. Is it not the case that the economic policy brought in by the right hon. Gentleman and his friend the Chancellor has backfired?

[Danny Alexander]

Before asking that question the hon. Gentleman should have reflected on the fact that the policy of his party’s Front Benchers is to increase borrowing yet further. They recently announced a new approach, known as pre-distribution. We now know what that means: spend money before it has arrived, in the hope that it might arrive in future. That is the policy that failed this country for 13 years and we will not go back to it.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right. Does he agree that the partisan nature of the debate demonstrates why a parliamentary inquiry of any kind cannot do this job properly?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend anticipates another part of my speech. The processes in this House to set up Committees of this nature—with Government Whips selecting Committee members—will undermine the independence of any investigation. Unless this Committee is independent and the Government take their grubby little hands off it, its investigations will not satisfy the public at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will start by declaring an interest. When I was the chairman of the Future of Banking Commission it was funded by the Consumer Association, which might have influenced my views on this matter.

May I start by commending the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), for the tone of his speech? I agree that we should not let the smoke of political battle in this place come between us and rescuing one of the most important industries in the country. Members on both sides of the House should bear that point in mind.

The title of the debate and of both motions refers to the professional conduct of the business of banking. This is not just about LIBOR and the LIBOR scandal. If it stopped there, we could deal with it through two actions: a change to the procedure to make it transaction-based and audited, and the criminal prosecution of everybody involved. That would resolve the issue once and for all, but that is not as far as this goes.

We all know that the practice of banking in this country has become perverted by huge incentives, which have led bankers to behave in ways that do not serve the economic interests of the country or our national interests—indeed, they have had the opposite impact. Although the Chairman of the Select Committee rightly said that the inquiry would need to be tightly drawn, it will nevertheless go pretty far. I am quite certain, for example, that even if it is confined to banking, things such as the derivatives market will undergo a lot of investigation in the course of the Committee’s investigation. We must understand that this issue is much bigger than just LIBOR.

Secondly, we should take on board the fact that we are debating the superstructure of the inquiry when we should perhaps be talking about its engine room. What matters are the inquiry’s powers, whichever we have, and they do not need to be so different for a judicial inquiry and for a Select Committee inquiry. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) was just plumb wrong about the status of Select Committees in this House and their powers. I speak as a past Public Accounts Committee Chairman who summoned bankers, rail operators, pharmacy companies and all sorts of companies that did not want to come, to give their documents or to give evidence. We did not take evidence on oath, but they did not want to give evidence to the Committee and were made to do so.

[Bill Esterson]

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the relative skills of a parliamentary inquiry and a judge-led inquiry. Some people in this House have very deep skills, but not everybody does, but a judge-led inquiry would have the necessary skills to carry out the kind of deep inquiry that he rightly says is needed. Will he comment on that?

[Mr Davis]

Absolutely. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and its inability to reach a unanimous view has been held up as an example. In my entire time as PAC Chairman—and, I think, that of all the subsequent Chairmen—there was never anything other than a unanimous outcome, because of the factual basis of the inquiries. That is what this inquiry must have. It must rest on the facts, which is why the Committee will need forensic accountants, lawyers and investigating teams. It will, I think, need one change in the law. It will need protection for whistleblowers, as we do not have that, but the same would be true of a judge-led inquiry. That would open the inquiry up to its full extent.

Let me make one more point about judge-led inquiries—it goes back to the Leveson inquiry and is slightly embarrassing for those on my side of the House, but I shall make it anyway. Judge-led inquiries cannot work around a criminal investigation without paying attention to it, and that can cramp what they do. If Members did not see it, I recommend that they look back at the evidence given by Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks, both of whom were facing potential criminal charges. Those were wholly useless days at the Leveson inquiry because the QC involved had to tiptoe around the issues. That might apply to almost every witness who appears before this inquiry, thanks to the issues facing it, so we must bear it in mind that we cannot solve that with a judge. We will solve it through a different mechanism that either approach would have to use and that, frankly, would be in camera hearings with those witnesses. Although the conclusion will have to be wide, open, wide ranging, honest and transparent, that might not be possible for the evidence-taking.

Although a House inquiry will be faster than a judicial inquiry—there is no doubt about that, for the reasons the Chancellor has given—there is the simple problem that any inquiry will have trouble completing by Christmas.

Finance Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend. I have not made much progress yet, but the point that I was trying to make is that a whole series of actions by the banks have let ordinary people and businesses down. It is time that the banks played their part in putting some of that right.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I apologise if I am preventing my hon. Friend from making progress. She need take no lessons from Conservative Members about regulation. They wanted less regulation, not more, and the point that they are trying to make now is disgraceful.

The issue is fairness. People are crying out for a repeat of the bank bonus tax in these tough times. Those with the broadest shoulders should make the biggest contribution in dealing with our problems. Many problems, particularly those faced by young people, could be resolved by the new clause.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend sums up in a nutshell why I am speaking in favour of the new clause.

The shocking revelations from Barclays this week are nothing short of a scandal. Barclays—along with we do not know how many other banks now under investigation —broke the rules to make a profit and put global economic stability at risk. It played fast and loose with rates that affect people’s mortgages and credit cards and, it would appear, gave little thought to how people could be affected.

In another shocking scandal, we found out that thousands of small businesses had been sold expensive insurance products that they did not need and could not use, spending money, which could have been used to protect jobs, to pay for products that never should have been offered to them in the first place. How many businesses have lost out as a result? All those actions on the part of the banks were totally unacceptable. The banks have been taking without giving back. The Government can take action now to put the situation right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree. It is not just about giving opportunities to young people where so few exist, but about this desperately concerning period in which we risk creating an entire lost generation, because young people are coming out of school, higher education and college and finding no opportunities at the other end. Once they fail to get on to the ladder of work and opportunities, the consequences can be long term and cause a lifetime of damage. The Government need to factor that in and grasp it now before it is too late to make sure that these opportunities are provided and that too many young people do not miss out. That is why it is so important that we use this opportunity to make sure that the bankers who caused much of the global economic and financial meltdown take responsibility for that and pay their way, giving young people real chances and opportunities.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for repeating the bank bonus tax. Does she agree that the Government should be considering the evidence from the 1980s about the effect that long spells of youth unemployment had on young people and how hard it was for many of them ever to find decent jobs and catch up? As a result of the Government’s delay and refusal to adopt this policy, they are in grave danger of repeating exactly the same mistakes, with all the misery that that will cause.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention and reminds me particularly of my own region, the north-east, where too many people lost out on opportunities in the 1980s and never quite recovered from the experience. When I talk to young people today, I find that some of the brightest are coming out of school and choosing not to go to university or college but instead to try desperately to find whatever work opportunities might be available to them because, apart from the fact that they are put off by the tuition fees, they are so worried that if they did step on the ladder and go to university they would come out at the end to find there were still no opportunities. There is a deep sense of anxiety among young people that the Government need to be seriously aware of.

That is what is so concerning about the scrapping of the future jobs fund, which was not only providing real opportunities for young people and breaking the cycles of lack of opportunity, but helping businesses to open up and take on young people in particular. The Government replaced it with the work experience scheme, which they eventually rolled out last year and which offers only eight-week, unpaid placements. There is nothing to say that that is not valuable in itself, but it is simply not doing enough for enough young people. It is also available only for people under 21, so it does not cover unemployed people who have left further or higher education. Again, that compounds some of the anxieties that young people are expressing to me when they say that if they go on to college or university they will be no better offer at the end and they will instead be saddled with a lifetime of debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

My position is that the bank levy strikes the right balance. That is why I asked the shadow Minister whether her proposal would be in addition to, or an alternative to, the bank levy. That is significant. She is arguing, on the gross figures, for more than £3 billion more to be pulled out of the banking system. That would have an immediate effect on the capital that banks can lend to small businesses and hard-pressed home owners.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman says that his solution is to get the banks lending again. This Government have categorically failed at that. What we are coming forward with is a concrete set of proposals. He has acknowledged that youth unemployment in his constituency is a problem and that it has doubled since his Government came to power. Why will he not accept concrete proposals that would deal with the blight that faces many young people in his constituency?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman is simply suggesting that we give with one hand and take away with the other. He might think that he can throw lots of money at dealing with the problem of youth unemployment, but he would meanwhile be constraining businesses in getting the capital that they need to create new jobs and maintain their existing jobs. That is the central flaw in the Opposition’s argument. They want to take more money out of the banking system when capital and lending are already constrained.

The issue that we need to deal with is bonuses. The Government have taken action on bonuses in the taxpayer-owned banks. They have said that there will be no cash bonuses of more than £2,000 at the taxpayer-owned banks. It is right to have longer-term share incentivisation schemes, which align people’s interests with the success of the banks over the longer term.

--- Later in debate ---

The Opposition would have us believe that their bank bonus levy raised more money than the coalition’s bank levy, but that does not quite stack up, does it? The gross receipts from the Labour Government’s bank bonus tax were £3.45 billion, but the net yield was estimated to be more like £2.3 billion. The explanation for that was given by Lord Sassoon in a detailed written answer to Lord Myners. Under the current Government—Ministers will correct me if I have got it wrong—the permanent bank levy raises about £2.5 billion, which is more money than Labour’s levy. I would have thought the Opposition would welcome that.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the amount raised by Labour’s levy was lower than £3.5 billion, but the Office for Budget Responsibility has given only one figure. Can he confirm what it was?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The OBR has given so many different figures that I do not know exactly which one the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I will read him what Lord Sassoon said:

“The net yield raised by the bank payroll tax is estimated to be £2.3 billion, while gross receipts were £3.45 billion. An explanation of the methodology underlying the estimate of net yield can be found in”

a previous written answer. He continued:

“In line with guidance from the Office for National Statistics, the yield from the bank payroll tax was allocated to the 2010-11 tax year, as this is the point at which the tax was passed into legislation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2011; Vol. 724, c. WA57.]

The current Government’s levy on banks therefore raised more than the previous Government’s levy.

The previous Government said that their levy was meant to be a one-off, but now Labour is in opposition it is saying, “Let’s make it permanent.” It also wants to make it additional to the permanent bank levy, and it is using the recent scandal, of which Barclays is the first bank to be found guilty publicly, as an excuse to do that. It should be more responsible in opposition than that.

[Bill Esterson]

As the hon. Gentleman will not admit to the figure that the OBR gave for Labour’s levy, I will tell him that it was £3.5 billon. The Government set up the OBR as an independent organisation to give such figures, so I am absolutely amazed that he will not rely on it. That is nearly double the amount raised by the current bank levy in its first year, and significantly more than is predicted for coming years. As we have heard from the shadow Minister, the predicted figure is falling because of the recession that has been created in Downing street.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I believe that the OBR’s figure was for gross receipts, which were not £3.5 billion but £3.45 billion. We need to examine the net yield raised, which was £2.3 billion. That is a lower figure than the £2.5 billion raised under the current Government’s system. I appreciate that the difference between net and gross can be confusing, because not all of us are accountants—I certainly am not. Nevertheless, more cash is coming through the door under the current Government’s arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman’s argument misses a central point, which is that the Opposition want their bank bonus levy to be an additional impost on the banks. My concern is that that would pull more capital out of the banking system. Right now, we need to lend to business and kick-start the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have taken enough interventions. I have been generous in giving way and in dealing in detail with the hon. Gentleman’s points in particular.

The Opposition are saying, it seems, that we should take more money out of the banking system, but that would be irresponsible because it would constrain banks’ ability to lend. The Opposition use Barclays as an excuse to blame everything on greedy traders manipulating the LIBOR interest rate. I would urge caution, however, because I have looked through some of the internal documents floating around, particularly the note of a conversation involving Paul Tucker of the Bank of England. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall briefly read it to the House by way of scene setting and to demonstrate the Opposition’s mischievousness in seeking to impose this tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice]

A good point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect that my hon. Friend might repeat some of my points, as we Labour Members have robust arguments in support of the bank bonus tax in new clause 13, to which I am delighted to lend my support this evening.

Given the dramatic events at Barclays over the past few days, it is particularly apposite to be discussing the contribution of the banks to the well-being of our economy and how to deal with the excessive bonus culture in the financial services sector. Our position on this issue has been clear and consistent: bonuses should be exceptional payments paid for exceptional performance. Far too many highly paid bankers, however, continue to be paid astronomical bonuses, often seemingly with little or no connection to meeting their performance targets. While such excessive and unjustifiable bonuses remain, the case for a tax on bank bonuses is strong and undoubtedly popular with the public. The LIBOR scandal at Barclays will cause the banks’ reputation to plummet to a new low. Few would have believed that the public’s opinion of them could get any worse, but they manage to keep coming up with inventive new ways of further undermining the trust of their customers and the wider population.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the popularity of a tax on bank bonuses with the public, but the tax should not just be popular; it should also work. Nothing that Government have done has remotely worked, and those failures—including their failure in regard to bank lending—are the real reason why this is the right thing to do.

[Graeme Morrice]

I agree, and I shall deal with that aspect of bank lending in due course. It is vital for people’s trust in British banks to be restored as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Morrice]

That may be the hon. Gentleman’s opinion, but I reiterate the point that, because of the Government’s policies of the past two years, the official figures show that banks lent £9.5 billion less to SMEs last year than in the previous year, so there is a problem now.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right about the poor state of bank lending, but the reality is that the banks are not lending because they have no confidence; they have no confidence in this Government because they have pushed us back into a double-dip recession. That is the reality, and that is why action is needed. That is why this Labour proposal is the right way forward to kick-start the economy and start to solve the problem of youth unemployment.

[Graeme Morrice]

I agree. I am sure that many Members have been contacted by SMEs based in their constituencies who are desperate because they cannot attract as much lending from the banks and other financial institutions as they enjoyed a number of years ago. While many are critical of the lending banks, they are also critical of Government policy. Members on the Government Benches may not agree with that, but it is the reality, and that is why people are approaching us with these complaints and concerns.

The continued failure on lending is making a mockery of the Chancellor’s promise to link the pay of the chief executives of each bank with performance against SME lending targets, but there is now another chance for Members on the Government Benches to demonstrate to their constituents that they are genuine about making bankers pay their fair share. Labour’s bank bonus tax raised about £3.5 billion, as confirmed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, even on a cautious estimate, we believe that this year alone it could raise at least £2 billion, over and above what is already in place. The Government could use those funds to introduce the real jobs guarantee for young people who are long-term unemployed, potentially helping 100,000 into work. It could also be used to build thousands of much-needed new affordable homes.

In conclusion, by supporting the new clause hon. Members can show that we are serious about holding bankers to account and ensuring that they pay their fair share, while also raising additional funds to address the people’s priorities—youth jobs and affordable homes—and make a real contribution to turning around our ailing economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I would like to begin my remarks on new clause 13 by agreeing with much of what has been said today by Opposition colleagues. I want briefly to take the House back a couple of years to 2010, when I was lucky enough to secure an Adjournment debate on young people and unemployment, the first such debate I led in the House. For me, it could not have been on a more important subject than the position of young people in the labour market in my constituency. I do not wish to put myself forward as some kind of Cassandra or some awful foreseer of what has come about, but I warned the Minister then that the swift withdrawal of some of the more successful things the Labour Government had been doing to tackle young people’s unemployment would lead to more young people being on the dole. Sadly, that is what has happened. In fact, two years later the ONS tells us that an extra 65,000 16 to 24-year-olds are now without work. That is not just a waste of talent and funds, but a moral shame.

I want to say a few words on that subject and why new clause 13 is so important to young people facing that difficult situation. The Government have had two years to tackle the problem, yet all of us here have to admit that the problem is getting worse, not better, and that action is needed more today than it was in 2010. The Government would not listen then; I beg them to listen now.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has a proud record, before and since reaching this place, of advocating for young people and employment. She is quite right to draw attention to the Government’s record. We should remember that we saw the same thing happen in the ’90s. The Government are going back to exactly the same failed policies of the ’90s. The difference between Government and Opposition Members is that when we were in government we looked after unemployment. We kept unemployment, repossessions and business failures low. Under this lot they have gone up and we are seeing the problems for young people, which is why we need the action we are debating right now.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour in Merseyside for his intervention. He is quite right. The return to things such as the youth training scheme has been one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Government’s work in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Youth unemployment is higher than when Labour left office, unemployment generally is higher than when Labour left office, and the economy was growing when Labour left office whereas now we are back in recession. Will the Minister confirm all three of those facts?

[Mr Hoban]

The challenge that we face is dealing with the economic legacy left by Labour, with the huge boom in financial services and the huge bust that followed.

We have heard Labour Members’ story that they presided over a golden age in the financial services sector. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) could not bring herself to admit that the scandal over LIBOR fixing took place between 2005 and 2008 or that the interest rate mis-selling that affected so many small businesses took place in the same period leading up to the financial crisis.

Labour Members deplore the bonus culture, but let us not forget that when they were in government, bonuses were paid out in the year that they were earned and paid out in cash. That was the hallmark of the age of irresponsibility that characterised their time in office. This Government are taking action to tackle the bonus culture. This Government have introduced rules to ensure that bonuses are not paid out in the year they are earned but spread over a three-year period, that they are not paid out in cash but in shares, and, crucially, that they can be clawed back where there have been problems in the business or where there has been wrongdoing. This Government have tackled the bonus culture in the UK whereas the previous Government let it run riot, and we have seen the financial consequences of their so doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

When listening to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), I was reminded of the rather depressing speeches and interventions from some of his Tory colleagues in our previous debates on youth unemployment and the bank bonus tax, who showed very clearly that they do not live in the real world. They have no idea of the impact on young people of the chronic levels of unemployment they now face or the depressing reality that this is a repeat of what happened under the Tories in the ’80s and ’90s.

The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned Bob Diamond’s £100 million in bonuses, which, under the real jobs guarantee scheme, would create 25,000 jobs for young people. I wonder whether Government Members consider that a better use of £100 million in bankers’ bonuses, because I certainly do.

We have already seen new schemes from the Government which are depressingly familiar; they remind me of the youth opportunities programme and its successor, the youth training scheme, in the early ’80s, and of how benefits were withdrawn from young people during those years when there were no jobs. There are no jobs for young people in my constituency or in many parts of the country.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will always give way to a fellow member of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Heather Wheeler]

Why is it that in South Derbyshire the number of apprentices has gone up by 80%, when the hon. Gentleman says that there are no jobs for young people? What is going on in his constituency that is not happening in South Derbyshire?

[Bill Esterson]

People in the hon. Lady’s part of the world must be incredibly lucky, because it must be the only place in the country where that is the case.

In reality, every Member knows that the youth unemployment figure has gone over the 1 million mark; that is a fact which everyone here accepts.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Bill Esterson]

I ask the hon. Gentleman, when he intervenes, to explain why one of this Government’s first acts was to scrap the successful future jobs fund, which the previous Government introduced and Members who are now on the Treasury Bench said they would keep.

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, after some careful thought. In answer to his question, in my constituency the biggest difficulty with the future jobs fund was that, first, the placements were not real jobs but national service, because they were from the Government or charities; and, secondly, they had no future. They did not, therefore, meet even the definition of their own title: future jobs fund.

The hon. Gentleman has heard about the situation in South Derbyshire. The situation in Gloucestershire is that the number of apprenticeships has risen massively over the past three years and has continued to go up by 20% over the past year, and that youth unemployment has fallen by 150 every month for the past three months. It is not perfect, but things are getting better.

[Bill Esterson]

I cannot decide which of those 14 questions to answer, but as a former banker the hon. Gentleman is in a good position to comment on the financial crisis, which was caused by some of his former colleagues. What he says gives no comfort. He mentions national service, and I went back to the ’80s and ’90s, but he has gone back far further than that, to something that really did not solve any problems for young people.

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I shall be very brief, I promise. I have a specific suggestion for the hon. Gentleman—in two questions. First, how many jobs fairs has he organised in his constituency? Secondly, how many apprenticeships have been started in his constituency?

[Bill Esterson]

I speak to people in my constituency all the time, and they tell me just how hard it is to find jobs. I have employed somebody who was on the future jobs fund, and they have been extremely successful, but people who have been out of work for more than six months, whether they have left school, college or graduated from university, find it almost impossible to get jobs.

The reality is that, in this situation, just as in previous decades under previous Conservative Governments, employers are already turning to people who have just left school or college or just graduated; they are not looking at people who have been out of work for a long period. The depressing reality is that we will see another generation of young people consigned to the scrapheap unless this Government take the action that the Labour party proposes in repeating the bankers’ bonus tax.

[Julie Hilling]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend, like me, sees a constant stream of young and older people coming to his constituency surgeries desperate for work. Does he agree that the future jobs fund provided something better than having to work in a supermarket for nothing?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend gained vast experience of dealing with young people before coming to Parliament, and she has been a strong advocate for them ever since. Her experience is very similar to mine. It is absolutely disgraceful that we have Ministers sitting there laughing at what is happening to young people up and down this country, who cannot get jobs because we have a Government who entered office when the economy was growing strongly—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—despite a global economic downturn and a global economic and financial crisis caused by the friends of people like the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

Let us hear what the Lib Dems have to say for themselves.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the large number of young people who have come from abroad and now have jobs in the UK?

[Bill Esterson]

I am not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can agree with me that what we need is action from this Government—action to help young people find jobs.

The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer here, mentioned several times the fact that the banks are not lending and said that that is the problem, but he forgot to say that the reason the banks are not lending is that they have no confidence in this Government—the Government who have pushed us back into a double-dip recession so that we are now one of only two countries in Europe in that position, the other being Italy. That lack of confidence is why banks would rather shore up their own position—and, of course, pay exorbitant bonuses to their top executives. The banks are not lending to the small businesses that need the money to create the jobs and drive the growth that is needed. Unless the banks start to do that, the Government need to step in.

That is why the proposal from Labour is so important. It is why repeating the bankers’ bonus tax would make so much difference to young people and to this country as a whole. But what did we get from this Government? The cut in the 50p tax rate. Three hundred thousand of the wealthiest people in the country will benefit from a tax cut paid for by the rest of us, particularly the poorest and pensioners through the granny tax. That is the reality of the Government’s proposal, which they are pushing through tonight. That is why we should oppose the Bill.

What I expected was an end to the sort of heckling we have heard from Ministers, who clearly enjoy the prospect of young people being out of work. I would like to think that that is not what they really think. I had hoped for a degree of fairness from the Government—perhaps I was being unreasonably optimistic. There is nothing fair in 300,000 of the wealthiest—

[Mr Reid]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman keeps coming back for more—I am intrigued.

[Mr Reid]

The fair thing in the Budget is that the personal allowance for income tax is being raised by a record amount, taking a large number of low-paid people out of paying tax altogether and giving a tax cut to many more. That is what makes this Budget fair.

[Bill Esterson]

If it were true that it helps the poorest people in our society, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have a point, but it does not help many of the very poorest and it does not help those young people I was talking about who cannot find a job because the Government will not take action and because they cut the future jobs fund when they first came into office.

What we really needed from this Government was a Budget of fairness. Instead, we got that tax cut. What they should be doing is repeating Labour’s bankers’ bonus tax, which raised £3.5 billion—[Interruption.] Government Members do not have to take my word for it; they can take the word of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which they themselves set up. They are even questioning their own organisation’s figures. That £3.5 billion was nearly twice as much as the £1.8 billion raised by the bank levy. The bank levy is a start, but the Government could repeat the bank bonus tax and use the money to get young people back to work and the housing industry going. The temporary VAT cut would help small businesses that cannot get loans from the banks.

I know that people want to get home. [Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Always happy to oblige. We have had a Budget for the wealthiest in our society. The Bill gives help to the top 300,000 earners, but does nothing for young people or those out of work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

During the various debates on the Bill, there have been references to the 1980s and the 1970s. Does my hon. Friend agree that there were probably comments like the ones we heard tonight in the 1930s, when people in the south of England said that there was no depression?

[Bill Esterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments —[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) would like to make an intervention, I will happily take it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are seeing a repeat of what happened in the ’30s, and we have none of the policies necessary to get us out of this situation.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

No, I am not going to take any more interventions; the hon. Gentleman can sit down.

We should be seeing the investment from the bank bonus tax and a temporary cut in VAT. The Bill—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please—I cannot hear Mr Esterson speak.

[Bill Esterson]

The Bill does nothing to help grow the economy or get us out of the problems we face. The House should vote against it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.