Finance Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that, because it is a cause of real concern that the energy efficiency programmes that were in place have come to an end, and as a result of the introduction of the new ones—the green deal and the energy company obligation programme—the level of activity on energy efficiency retrofitting has plummeted.

I talked to a housing association, active in my constituency, that has done a magnificent retrofit of about 1,000 properties in Charlton. That has hugely improved the comfort of its tenants, who can now keep warm at much less cost. It has improved the appearance of the estate and has won plaudits from everyone, and it was done with a work force who included a number of young unemployed people from the area, who were trained specifically to be able to take up the advantages of employment as part of the scheme. It was an admirable scheme. When I was congratulating the housing association on it, the one and only disappointment came when it told me “Well of course this was funded under the old community energy saving programme—CESP—which made it possible and has now ended. We would probably not be able to do this again if we were starting from scratch today.” That is an obvious problem.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is talking about the ending of schemes. Does he agree that this is not just about renovating properties where people are living, but about the large number of empty properties in boroughs such as mine which are crying out to be renovated? They are in places where people want to live, where communities can be recovered in the way he just described, but nobody is living there now. Does he agree that the Government need to revisit the issue of funding for empty properties?

[Mr Raynsford]

The thrust of my whole speech is about the importance of the Government finding more effective measures to stimulate investment in housing in all sectors. That includes bringing empty properties into use, improving the existing substandard housing stock and building new homes that are needed to increase the supply. The case is overwhelming, but, sadly, as the figures cited in this debate so far have shown, the Government are failing to meet the needs. I am not going to go into that in detail, because it has already been covered.

I wish to draw attention to the new homes bonus. It an extraordinary scheme, and our Front-Bench spokesperson made some pertinent remarks about it. It was launched by the Government as, supposedly, the panacea for the problem of opposition among some local communities to new house building in their area. The theory was that if a financial incentive was given to councils and to communities for agreeing to build new homes, we would get a different attitude—we would have enthusiasm for new house building rather than hostility. And so the new homes bonus was launched.

The new homes bonus is a very expensive scheme. As the National Audit Office report demonstrates, it is costing £668 million in the current year, but that is due to rise to £905 million next year, to £1.1 billion in 2015 and on beyond that, because it is a cumulative bonus that is paid for a six-year period. I have given only the individual one-year costs. When we add in the cumulative costs derived from previous years’ awards, we find that by 2018-19—that is six years ahead, so at the end of the six-year period—on current trends, expenditure on the scheme would be £7.5 billion. It is a very, very expensive use of public money, which is mostly taken from local authorities. The Government talk about it as though it is a Government scheme, but they are putting in only £250 million a year, with the rest coming as a top-slice from local government funding.

Finance Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Evans]

I find myself in shock, but I agree with a member of the Welsh nationalist party. There is some merit in that idea, which is something we can look at.

This new clause presents an opportunity for the Conservatives to reverse the inequality that I have talked about—the two Britains that are starting to emerge in our society. If we agree with a mansion tax, we will be able to fund a tax cut for millions of people. We support the increase in personal allowances, but the reintroduction of the 10p tax would mean that work pays once again. I know that the Tories will say that we abolished it. We must be big enough in politics to admit that we got something wrong, and we got it wrong when we abolished the 10p tax rate, which would give the lowest in society an opportunity to go out to work and make work pay. This is what I mean when I talk about how difficult it is to get back to work once someone is out of it. We can do this today.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about how work will pay. The other side of the coin is how the 10p tax rate would make it advantageous for employers to take people on, because it becomes far more attractive to employers to do that. Does he see that benefit for employers, too?

[Chris Evans]

Yes, I do. I think this is a win-win situation for everyone. Yes, I have said that we got the 10p tax wrong, but I think a lot of employers would welcome a 10p tax rate. As I have said here before, Opposition Members agree that work is the only way out of poverty, and a mansion tax could provide a way forward on that.

The new clause deals with a mansion tax. Labour has often been accused of having no policies and of not setting out our policies or of not being forthcoming enough, but we have said that we need to introduce a mansion tax to bring about a 10p tax cut and bring some fairness into society. Fair taxation should not be a Labour issue, a Tory issue or a Lib Dem issue; it should be across party. Fair taxation should interest us all, but without a fairer and less complex system, we cannot hope to achieve what we want, which is to see more people in work, paying their taxes and bringing down the deficit that way. With that, and after a number of interventions from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall sit down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend’s knowledge in this area is well known, and he has applied it as a Member of Parliament to promoting schemes that help the life sciences industry—and not just the big companies, although we welcome the Johnson & Johnson announcement, but the small companies, too. The biomedical catalyst fund has been very successful at supporting small businesses in this sector. Without giving too much away about tomorrow’s announcements, I can tell him that we will go on funding this scheme.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Can the Chancellor tell us how many firms have been helped by his small firms national insurance holiday since it started three years ago, given that he claimed it would help 400,000 firms?

[Mr Osborne]

About 20,000 firms have been helped—[Interruption.] Well, 20,000 firms have been helped, small business creation is at the highest level since the 1980s and there are over 1 million new jobs in the private sector. And we will bring before Parliament new legislation to make sure that the first few thousand pounds of their national insurance bill is completely wiped out—they will not have to pay it at all. That is a real success story, and if the Opposition want to vote against it, they can be my guest.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16988/1/12, a Commission Communication on a Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU: Launching a European debate, an Un-numbered European Document dated 5 December 2012, a Report from the President of the European Council: Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union, European Union Documents No. 15390/12, a draft Council Decision authorising enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax, and No. 6442/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Council Directive implementing enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax; observes that the European Scrutiny Committee has reported on these documents and concluded that they raise questions relating to parliamentary sovereignty and primacy as well as fiscal and monetary issues; notes that the European Commission Communication states that ‘Interparliamentary co-operation as such does not, however, ensure democratic legitimacy for EU decisions. That requires a parliamentary assembly representatively composed in which votes can be taken. The European Parliament, and only it, is that assembly for the EU and hence for the euro’, and that the report from the President of the European Council concludes that ‘further integration of policy making and a greater pooling of competences at the European level should first and foremost be accompanied with a commensurate involvement of the European Parliament in the integrated frameworks for a genuine EMU’; further notes that the proposals for the Financial Transaction Tax have been challenged by the Government in the European Court of Justice; notes that recent European Treaties and protocols have emphasised the role of national parliaments throughout the European Union as the foundation of democratic legitimacy and accountability; and believes that this role is the pivot upon which democracy in the United Kingdom must be based on behalf of the voters in every constituency.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these important issues and thank the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending them for debate. I shall focus on the financial transaction tax before turning to the matter of economic and monetary union. As many hon. Members, and certainly members of the European Scrutiny Committee, will know, the Government have applied to the European Court of Justice for the annulment of the Council decision authorising an FTT under the enhanced co-operation mechanism. I am pleased to be able to set out our concerns about the initiative.

Many Members will know that we have been here before, in 2011, when the European Commission proposed a wide-ranging financial transaction tax that would have applied across the entire European Union. Just like the current proposal, that tax would have applied to all trades, market participants and financial instruments; it would have applied to Government bonds, corporate bonds, equities, derivatives and other financing instruments, and to long-term and short-term transactions. Just like the current proposal, too, that tax would have affected the entire financial system, reducing returns to pension funds and savers, increasing companies’ and Governments’ financing costs and reducing European competitiveness at a time when the EU, frankly, needed competitiveness and growth. It might have been conceived as a way of raising revenue from a small number of people in the financial industry, but it would in fact have been paid by savers and by companies. The Commission itself forecast an impact—a negative impact, I need hardly say—on EU-wide gross domestic product of 1.76%.

The Chancellor made it clear that we would not accept the measure—certainly not at a time when the EU was trying to grow and attract business. He said the UK would have no part in it, and partly as a result, the proposal was dropped. Sadly, however, it was not dead, and this January, under a procedure known as “enhanced co-operation”, 11 member states chose to resurrect it. We believe that member states should be free to set their own tax policies, and if they choose to co-ordinate their tax policies, that, too, is their right. Although we believed and continue to believe that the proposed FTT is a bad idea, it is of course open to member states to pursue it—provided it is lawful, complies with the EU treaty and respects the rights and competences of those member states that choose not to participate.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for apparently making the argument for international co-operation in order to overcome the concerns that he has raised. President Obama has made the point that Wall street was responsible for the financial crisis, so Wall street had a responsibility to solve the problem. Does not the same apply here, provided that there is an attempt at international co-operation?

[Greg Clark]

I will come on to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would point out that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary are deeply concerned about the progress of this financial transaction tax, which does not meet any of the in-principle ambitions that people have had for some time. It is a cause of a great alarm among those who believe in free trade around the world.

The proposal under the enhanced co-operation procedure is modelled substantially on the 2011 version. It contains a feature known as the “establishment rule”, under which a UK financial institution would be deemed to be established in the FTT area for the purpose of the tax by virtue of the mere fact that its trading counterparty is headquartered in a country participating in the tax. So in practice, a UK pension fund purchasing a UK Government bond from a UK branch of a German bank would be obliged to pay the tax, and it would pay the tax not to the Exchequer in this country, as would have been the case if we had signed up to the FTT, but to an overseas authority. Likewise, a UK company with significant Treasury operations would potentially be in scope of the FTT when its counterparty happened to be headquartered in the FTT area.

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.