Racehorse Protection

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I represent Derby North, where we do not currently have a racecourse, although we do have a park called Racecourse park because we used to have one. I, no doubt like other hon. Members, have been lobbied by many constituents. I have had lots of letters from constituents who are concerned about horse welfare, use of the whip, and the number of horses that have died in horse-racing. They are keen for the House to press the Government to introduce an independent regulatory body.

I joined the League Against Cruel Sports back in 1976, so I have paid some attention to cruel sports, and some elements of horse-racing are undoubtedly incredibly cruel. I have paid much attention to the Grand National. The League Against Cruel Sports, along with a number of other organisations, has made representations about the cruelty associated with that event for many years. The course has been modified somewhat, but it is incredibly gruelling nevertheless. Other hon. Members have made glowing references to the British Horseracing Authority, but in my opinion it has proved itself to be singularly useless on animal welfare since it was founded in 2007. Why do I say that? Since that time 2,000 horses have died in horse-racing. On the barbaric use of the whip, in the order of 500 abuses are recorded every year, and there is no sign of a reduction in that number.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested rather absurdly that the whip does not hurt. He said, “Get a whip and hit yourself with it—it won’t hurt.” Let me put a challenge to him: give me the whip, go stand somewhere and let me hit you with it and see if I can hurt you. He will probably find that I could hurt him.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has a reputation for spouting off without having the first idea what he is talking about, and he has demonstrated that again. He has clearly never come across the new design of the whip in horse-racing—the whip is cushioned. I appreciate that he never feels the need to know anything about a subject before telling us all about it, but I advise him to try to find something out. He should visit racing stables and see for himself the new design of the whip, because it is cushioned and it does not hurt. Old whips may well have had problems, but the new, latest whip does not. He should know that.

[Chris Williamson]

Many people would beg to differ. The challenge still stands to see whether I could hurt the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we can get some witnesses together and see whether that is possible—but perhaps he is tougher than me.

The hon. Gentleman also asserted that he is an animal lover. That is an interesting observation from someone whom I understand is in favour of repealing the Hunting Act 2004. Someone in favour of ripping wild animals to pieces claims to be an animal lover—that brings his assertion into question.

[Philip Davies]

To emphasise the point that the hon. Gentleman comes here without knowing anything of what he is talking about, I have made it abundantly clear that I do not support changing the law on hunting at all. The law should stay in place. Again, he makes the case for me that he comes here spouting off about things of which he knows nothing.

[Chris Williamson]

I am delighted to hear that, because organisations have sought to find out how Members of Parliament would vote on a repeal of the Hunting Act and the hon. Gentleman was down as being in favour. However, we digress, because we are not here to talk about blood sports.

A self-governing body in any area leaves a lot to be desired. We see it in a host of things, from financial regulation to the governing of the horse-racing industry. The British Horseracing Authority has a range of different responsibilities, including race planning; disciplinary procedures; protecting the integrity of the sport; licensing and registering racing participants; setting and enforcing standards of medical care for jockeys and other participants; setting and enforcing common standards for British racecourses; research and improvements in equine science and welfare; regulating point-to-point racing in the UK; the compilation of the fixture list; and setting and enforcing the rules and orders of racing. There is only one reference to welfare, and that is in the context of research and improvements in equine science and welfare.

To be frank, I do not understand why any hon. Member would have a difficulty with an independent body having oversight of welfare in the industry. If a body is dedicated exclusively at looking at the welfare of horses, surely that would make it more accountable and better at the job. The BHA’s responsibilities include a host of things, which I have just listed, and welfare receives just a minor reference. Having an organisation dedicated to enforcing and improving welfare standards would improve the welfare of horses.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) tried to widen the debate and question the motives of the organisation behind the petition. He suggested that it wanted to abolish horse-racing, but that is not what we are debating today. All we are debating is whether an independent body should oversee the welfare of horses that participate in horse-racing. Why would anybody have a problem with that?

[Mr Robertson]

I certainly do not have a problem with a body overseeing this issue. However, the BHA can suspend a jockey for overuse of the whip—which is about not only disciplining jockeys but the welfare of the horse—and it is also responsible for the integrity of the sport. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that those functions fit rather nicely with welfare issues? A new body would take away those functions from the BHA and isolate the issue, when the fact is that other issues also come into play. Does he understand that point?

[Chris Williamson]

I take the point to an extent, but having an independent body would not mean that the BHA would then have no interest in or responsibility for welfare. An independent body would make sure that the BHA did its job properly and it would also have an overarching responsibility to prevent the same number of horses being killed or dying during horseraces. There have been 2,000 deaths since the BHA was founded and there does not seem to be any sign that the barbaric use of the whip is diminishing, notwithstanding the view of the hon. Member for Shipley that it is all lovely when a horse is hit with a cushioned whip and it does not hurt. The case for an independent body is unanswerable, in my opinion and that of many thousands of British people, whom we represent. Many hundreds of my constituents feel strongly about the issue, to the point that a number of them have lobbied me about it.

In conclusion, an independent body dedicated to stopping the tide of death and abuse in the horse-racing industry, is—

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I have only a few more words to say, but go on.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way, but he seems to dodge the issue by saying that we are not talking today about a ban. Does he want to ban horse-racing? Does he want to ban national hunt racing in this country? Would that be the end product if he were running the show?

[Chris Williamson]

No, I am not calling for that at all. What I want to see is welfare standards upheld in the industry. I would hope that all of us wish to see that. There is a difference of opinion: some seem to think that the BHA is capable of doing that, but it has proven itself incapable of doing so, because if it were, we would not have seen so many horses being killed and we would not see the grotesque use of the whip. In a sense, however, that is irrelevant, irrespective of my views. That is not what we are debating today and I am not calling for it.

I am a vegan and, indeed, the vegans will inherit the earth—there is no doubt about that. We have to reduce the amount of meat we are eating because we are killing the planet, but we are not getting into that now. We are not having a wide debate about the rights, wrongs and wherefores of various different topics. The hon. Gentleman and others have sought to muddy the waters by questioning the motives of the people behind the petition.

[Conor McGinn]

I do not question for a minute the right and entitlement of anyone to say that horse-racing should be banned. My hon. Friend and other Opposition Members have a long track record of campaigning and speaking out on these issues, and while I admire that, I just do not agree with it. It is important to say that, although ostensibly this debate is about moving to an independent regulator, the ultimate aim of those behind the petition is to ban horse-racing. I do not agree with that, but it is an entirely legitimate view and we should at least be up front about the motivation behind trying to disaggregate the component parts of racing, which is to end racing altogether. I do not doubt my hon. Friend’s motives or his sincerity.

[Chris Williamson]

I appreciate that, but I do not necessarily see the logical, sequential steps that my hon. Friend has outlined. If we agree that there is a need for an independent body, that does not inexorably lead to the abolition of racing. In many ways I think it would preserve it, because the concerns of the many thousands of people who were spurred on to sign the petition would be dissipated if they could see a body that was effective in reducing the number of horses killed and in reducing—or, indeed, eliminating—the use of the whip. Why would people call for the abolition of horse-racing, if they were that way minded, if the cruelty associated with it were eliminated? Contrary to what my hon. Friend has suggested, eliminating the cruelty would help to preserve the longevity of horse-racing.

My last few words are that the time is long overdue for an independent body of the kind called for by the petitioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect on matters of sport in general—and particularly given his love of darts, which I share; we are both in the all-party darts group. Yes, the authority claims to have horse welfare at its heart in the way that he mentioned, and that must be the case; but there is a need for increased transparency and better reporting. There is also a potential conflict of interest with its other activities. Those are some of the issues that the very discerning public are bringing into question. Is not it time, therefore, to consider an independent regulator, if the issues cannot be ironed out and we cannot make the necessary strides forward in horse welfare? I take the point that there have been improvements at the Grand National, but there is still some way to go in making the improvements needed to ensure that horse welfare is at its heart. I think the public are fully behind such improvements. I agree with the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) that improved horse welfare standards would ensure that the industry could continue.

[Chris Williamson]

On the welfare point, does the hon. Lady agree that although, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said, welfare might be at the heart of things and a top priority for the BHA, it is not very good at maintaining welfare if 2,000 horses have been killed and the whip is used as much as ever?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Who can ask a single-sentence question? I call Chris Williamson.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Public services define a decent society, but analysis by the Local Government Association has revealed that councils face a £8 billion black hole by 2025; public services are in meltdown. When will the Chancellor stop behaving like a public services vandal and start resourcing the public services that communities desperately need?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly a devoted fan of the semicolon.

Budget Resolutions

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the Shadow Chancellor, although I am grateful that, for everything we have heard in the past half hour, he did not literally throw the book at me.

On Saturday, it will be exactly two years since the right hon. Gentleman cited one of history’s worst mass murderers in defence of his own economic policies. So let us take a look at some of the great leaps forward our economy has taken in those two years. Employment: up. House building: up. Inward investment: up. Borrowing: down. Last year, the British economy grew faster than that of any other G7 nation. This week, the CBI said that manufacturing order books have not been this full for almost 30 years. Siemens has said that it is cutting jobs on the continent, but expanding its UK operation, investing more money and creating even more jobs.

Whatever way we look at it, this is a Government that are getting things done—a Government that are growing the economy, and a Government that are building a Britain fit for the future. Yesterday’s Budget builds on that success and lays the way for much more to come. It is a Budget that will lead to us building more homes in the right places and at the right prices, a Budget that will protect and enhance our precious public services, and a Budget that will tackle the burning injustices that still plague too many people in this country.

First among those injustices is the state of the housing market. As I have said before, our home is so much more than just the place we go to sleep at night. It shapes who we are, provides stability and security and shapes our life chances, opening up or closing off all kinds of opportunities. A fair, affordable housing market builds strong families and strong communities. A broken one is, of course, a barrier to social mobility and a root cause of intergenerational unfairness.

The way to fix the broken housing market is to build more homes, and that is exactly what we are doing. Last year there were 217,000 net additions to the housing stock—the highest such figure in almost a decade. But we are under no illusions about the fact that there is much, much more to be done.

Labour’s answer to the housing crisis—in fact, Labour’s answer to everything—is simply to throw more of someone else’s money at the problem and hope that it goes away. The last time Labour tried that, we ended up with house building at its lowest level since the 1920s and an economy on its knees. This country needs at least 300,000 new homes a year. Do you know how many Labour started in its last full year in office, Madam Deputy Speaker? It was 75,000—the lowest number of starts in peacetime since the 1920s.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Secretary of State says there will be a renaissance in house building. Can we therefore look forward to an announcement of a renaissance in council house building? Does he accept that the cost of building council houses is in large measure covered by the income generated from the rental stream? It is basically a free hit, so why will he not admit that it is important that we start to build the council houses that we need to tackle the housing crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just about building homes; it is about building communities. That means, among other things, supplying the infrastructure that is required, and I will come on to that.

[Chris Williamson]

The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. Can he give us an indication of how many additional council houses will be built as a consequence of the lifting of the debt cap to the proposed level? I do not think it is very many—fewer than 10,000.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman keeps making that point, and I welcome it. I thank him for giving me another opportunity to remind the House that under the Conservatives, more council houses have already been built than were built during 13 years of Labour rule. How many more houses are built will depend on how ambitious local authorities are, but the objective is to ensure that thousands more are built each year by increasing the cap.

We have set out measures to support the workforce in this industry by providing an additional £34 million to develop vital construction skills such as plastering and bricklaying. As I have said, getting the country building will require more than just money. Planning reform is also required. We will focus on getting homes built in urban areas, where people want to live and where the most jobs are created. That will include making the best use of our urban land while continuing the protection of our green belt. We will focus on creating high-quality, high-density homes in city centres and around transport hubs.

To put the needs of our young people first, we will ensure that councils in high-demand areas permit more homes for local first-time buyers and renters. We are also launching an independent inquiry into so-called land-banking, with the promise of serious action if developers are shown to be holding back supply for financial rather than practical reasons. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has agreed to lead that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that if this country had taken Labour’s approach to the economy, we would be heading for bankruptcy again, and there would be no new money for the NHS. I hope that she will join Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the additional £2.8 billion going to the NHS in resource spending next year and the additional £3.5 billion that has been made available for capital spending over the next five years.[Official Report, 27 November 2017, Vol. 632, c. 1MC.]

[Chris Williamson]

On the point about the country becoming bankrupt, will the Secretary of State remind the House how much extra this Government have borrowed since they came to power?

[Sajid Javid]

This is a timely point at which to remind the hon. Gentleman that when a Government leave this country with the biggest budget deficit of any industrialised country, there are consequences, and Labour Members have not once—I repeat, not once—got up at the Opposition Dispatch Box to apologise for what they did to this country in their 13 years in office.

The Chancellor has also promised to provide additional funding for a future NHS pay settlement, so that our nurses are properly rewarded without taking money out of patient services. We are investing more in our schools: they will get £600 extra for every pupil who takes A-level or core maths; £27 million will help to improve how maths is taught in 3,000 schools; £49 million will go towards helping students resitting GCSE maths; and £350,000 of extra funding a year will be given to every specialist maths school that has been set up across the country. That is a massive investment in numeracy—sadly, it comes too late for the shadow Treasury team—that will help to ensure our young people have the skills they need to compete in the future high-tech jobs of the 21st century.

Not all public services are the responsibility of central Government; many are delivered by our brilliant local councils, whether parishes, districts, counties, metropolitans or unitary authorities. I am well aware of the pressure that local authority budgets are under, particularly with regard to social care. That is why this year’s spring Budget provided an extra £2 billion to help to meet the immediate needs in this vital area. I remain totally committed to delivering fair, effective funding for councils at all levels, and we will obviously return to this in next month’s local government finance settlement.

In the meantime, we are pushing ahead with our pilot schemes for 100% local business rate retention, including in London, and we are reforming business rates themselves. Revaluations will switch from every five years to every three years, avoiding the cliff edge that currently confronts many businesses, particularly smaller ones. We are changing the law so that businesses affected by the so-called staircase tax decision can have their original bills reinstated and backdated. We are bringing forward the change in uprating from RPI to CPI, which will now take effect from next April, saving businesses £2.3 billion over the next five years.

One council, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, has had to deal with an unprecedented tragedy this year. The fire at Grenfell Tower should not have happened, and it should not have been possible. Since the blaze, the people of north Kensington have shown themselves to be remarkably resilient, courageous and proactive, and they deserve the full support of this Government and this House. We have already provided financial support for the victims of this terrible tragedy. This Budget sets aside a further £28 million to pay for community mental health support and to provide regeneration support for the area around Grenfell Tower and a new space for the local community to come together.

Budget Resolutions

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Before I start, I just want to pay tribute to a working-class hero whose funeral is taking place today. Derek Robinson once said:

“I can sleep sound at night because I never betrayed the workers”.

It is important that we acknowledge this towering figure of the Labour movement.

A Cabinet source is quoted as saying that this Budget had the worst build-up in history. I do not think he was wrong. I hear a number of Government Members went absolutely bananas about the Budget ahead of today. What is clear to me is that the Budget caps off seven years of abject failure, first by the coalition and now by the Conservative minority Government. Contrary to the warm words we have heard from Conservative and Democratic Unionist party Members, the Budget proves that the Government are out of touch, have no idea about the lives of ordinary people and certainly have no plans to improve them. What we are seeing is an irrational ideology trumping plain common sense. They are driven by a neo-liberal ideology that has proven they are certainly not a Government for the many.

Where is the help for low-paid workers? The measures the Chancellor announced on universal credit were absolutely pathetic. It is also worth making the point that they do not come into effect before Christmas, so people will be left penniless over the Christmas period. Where is the support for public sector workers? Let us remember that public sector workers, such as firefighters and social workers, define a decent society. I did not hear any mention of support for them. Where is the significant investment in infrastructure that this country desperately needs? Where is the boost for health, education and local government? Social care is in crisis and support for vulnerable children is in crisis.

We heard the Chancellor say he would make money available for fire safety, but when local authorities approached the Government for support with retrofitting sprinklers they were refused that support. The IFS estimates that local government funding will fall by 79% by 2020. Ahead of the Budget, the chief executive of the NHS warned that without funding, waiting lists will climb further to 5 million and the 18-week target will be scrapped. Key targets, such as the 62-day cancer treatment target, will also be missed. The extra money announced will not tackle the crisis. Last year saw a 40% cut in the adult skills budget, meaning 1.3 million fewer adult learners. We heard the Chancellor say that he wanted to make the dream of home ownership a reality, but where is the meaningful plan to enable working-class people to buy their own home? Where is the council house building programme?

The former Chancellor George Osborne promised that austerity would wipe out the deficit. Well, we have certainly not achieved that, have we? The failure to do so means that austerity has simply amounted to nothing more than conscious cruelty. They have failed to eliminate the debt, too. The Chancellor said today that debt is peaking. All the Chancellor is doing is fiddling while Britain burns. His fiddling around with housing association debt—taking it off the balance sheet—is really nothing more than a bit of trickery. On any measure, the Government have been a spectacular failure on the deficit. It is a case of rearranging the deckchairs in relation to debt. I wonder whether the Chancellor might have a new job as a deckchair attendant on Brighton beach when he is sacked as Chancellor.

The Chancellor went to say that there are more jobs than ever. The problem, as other hon. Members have said, is that after seven years of austerity productivity is woefully low. Every ONS productivity forecast since 2010 has been wrong, causing it to significantly downgrade its projections. Businesses are simply not investing, because they lack confidence in the economy. The Tory ideology is wrong. The doctrine of neo-liberalism says the state should be rolled back, but it is clear that we need an entrepreneurial state. I wonder if Members of the Government Benches recognise that many technological advances have been made by public sector investment. It is almost as if the Government were indulging in the wilful sabotage of the economy with the cuts to the adult skills budget last year, which, as I have already mentioned, have resulted in 1.3 million fewer adult learners. It is little wonder that the growth forecasts are so anaemic.

The previous Chancellor also said that the Government would not balance the books on the backs of the poor, but that is precisely what they have done with the additional £12 billion in social security cuts for working-age people in the pipeline. As we have heard, NHS waiting lists are going to get longer, while the extra funding for the NHS will simply not tackle that very real problem. We have also seen a skewed level of investment around the regions, with the ludicrous spectacle of rail investment in the east midlands running at £91 per head, whereas in London it is running at £746 per head.

We need a different approach. It does not have to be like this. Labour would offer a different approach. We would end the public sector pay cap; pause and fix the universal credit debacle; introduce a real living wage; bring in an energy price cap; bring forward infrastructure developments in every single region of the country; create high-wage, high-productivity jobs; start a large-scale house building programme and introduce rent controls; scrap tuition fees and stop penalising people for getting a higher education; reverse the tax cuts to corporations and the super-rich; clamp down on the disgraceful industrial scale tax avoidance in this country; and reject the Tories’s Brexit cliff edge and the race to the bottom that will turn Britain into a deregulated tax haven.

The Chancellor claimed to be embracing the future, but the truth is the Government are stuck in a Thatcherite past, dogmatic in their commitment to neo-liberalism, despite the fact that it is not working. Ministers will no doubt remember, from their ideological training in their public schools and elite universities, that the market is supposed to distribute wealth like an invisible hand. It is as if the Tories believe in ghosts. This Budget shows that they still believe in the invisible hand of the market. In reality, no such thing exists. They are deluding themselves, blinded by ideology. What Britain needs is the steering hand of an entrepreneurial state. What Britain needs is a Labour Government to provide it.

Economy and Jobs

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will give way in due course.

Let us measure the impact of that record of tax cuts on the rest of society. It is important that we do so, because the Queen’s Speech promises more of the same. This could have been the Queen’s Speech that ended austerity once and for all, but it certainly does not do that.

This is the record that the Chancellor says he is proud of. Is it a matter of pride for the Chancellor that nearly one and a quarter million food parcels were handed out in food banks over the past year? Are we proud of a Government who cannot feed their population? How can anyone be proud of the fact that more than 77,000 households—an almost 8% increase on last year—were in temporary accommodation this year? How can anyone be proud of the 134% increase in the number of people sleeping rough in this country? There are now 1.2 million households on waiting lists and 70,000 of our children are being brought up in temporary accommodation, while house building has fallen to its lowest level since the 1920s.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of research by Professor Danny Dorling stating that Britain is the second most unequal country of the richest 25 nations on earth? [Interruption.] It is not rubbish; it is a fact based on research by an eminent professor. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we continue on the same trajectory, Britain is on course to be the most unequal nation on the planet within the next decade?

[John McDonnell]

One of the warnings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies is that inequality will increase on such a scale if the Government’s austerity programme continues. Are Government Members really proud that we have a Government who cannot adequately house their population?

Finance Bill

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman touch on why he objects to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)? I have not heard any criticism or, indeed, any reference to it so far.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

As I said to the shadow Minister, capital allowances are very close to my heart. I believe they are the way to go, but they have to be linked to other financial policies, which the Government have to put in place to work with them. Capital allowances on their own are no good. We must have other structures within the Government’s scheme of things to ensure companies have confidence. It is no good saying, “You can have a capital allowance against a new machine that you want to buy, but we are not prepared to give you the confidence to do that because we are going to increase our taxes so you aren’t going to make any money—so why would you really want to invest in the UK?” We need to create an environment whereby companies will say, “We’ll invest in the UK because the tax regime in the UK is good. We’ll invest in the UK because we feel that the training programmes in the UK will train our young people to do the jobs. We’ll invest in the UK because of the apprenticeship programme that is going ahead, and because we know we will have the future work force to deliver products that we will be able to sell around the world.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and in particular to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who has been a great advocate for manufacturing industry over the years he has been in Parliament. He has provided a strong voice on the issue of capital allowances.

Labour’s new clause asks that the Chancellor review the impact on business investment of changes to the Capital Allowances Act 2001 made by the Finance Act 2011. The new clause is identical to the new clause 5 we opposed in Committee and we will be opposing this new clause for the same reasons. As set out in our corporate tax reform road map, the Government’s central objective is to secure a low corporation tax rate, with fewer reliefs and allowances. We remain of the view that that strategy provides the best incentives for business investment. As part of that approach we reduced the annual investment allowance to £25,000 a year in the Finance Act 2011, at the same time as we were setting out our plans to reduce corporation tax—we have extended those plans and as of next April our corporation tax rate will be 20%, the lowest in the G20.

[Chris Williamson]

The Minister is trying to set out the Government’s position, which he would assert is one of success. If their policies are really so effective, how does he explain the fact that we are living through the slowest economic recovery for more than 100 years?

[Mr Gauke]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate that, I am happy to do so. We faced a crisis in the eurozone and we had to deal with the impact of the financial crisis that occurred on the last Government’s watch. Clearly that had a considerable impact on the growth of the UK economy and the economies of other developed countries, but the reality is that our economy is now growing strongly, and we need to ensure that that continues to be the case. There are risks to a recovery, but if we are to compete and succeed, we need to ensure that we have a competitive tax system, the conditions for growth and credible fiscal plans, all of which this Government are delivering as part of our long-term economic plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

The Minister has just asserted that the economy is growing strongly, but I am surprised by that. Will he help the House by comparing that “strong growth” with the growth that took place in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even in the 1980s, at a time, before the regrettable election of Margaret Thatcher, when regulation was significantly greater than it is today and when trade unions were more numerous than they are now? How does this “strong growth” compare with what happened in the period I have just outlined?

[Mr Gauke]

It is a little difficult to compare a period in the 1980s before the election of Margaret Thatcher, given that she was elected in 1979. What I say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are forecast to have the fastest growth in the G7 this year. Clearly, Members on both sides of the House should welcome that, but we must not be complacent because we have further to go and we need to ensure that we stick to the plan to deliver that growth on a sustainable basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I am interested in the Minister’s comments. Will he comment on the fact that corporation tax in the United States is up to 35%? Furthermore, does he believe that businesses have a responsibility to contribute to public services and infrastructure investment in our country? If we enter into this arms race and continue to reduce corporation tax, we end up in a situation where we either put the burden of funding our public services and infrastructure investment on ordinary taxpayers, or are forced to make even deeper cuts than we have seen under this Government over the past four years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady does not seem to recognise that there is a link between the annual investment allowance and corporation tax; it is an allowance set off against corporation tax. The two are not separate subjects. Of course, if we are discussing certainty within our tax system, one has to look at the bigger picture, and this Government, through the corporate tax road map, have provided much greater certainty for businesses in this country. The biggest threat to the certainty of our tax system at the moment appears to be a Labour party that is at least considering increasing corporation tax to 26%, which would be a huge increase and deeply damaging for the UK’s competitiveness.

[Chris Williamson]

Let me return the Minister to the historical context. He keeps implying that a Labour Government would be anti-business, but I challenge him to compare the economic growth record of previous Labour Governments with that of this Conservative Government. I think he will find that the Labour record compares extremely favourably. The truth is that Labour Governments have invested in our economy; what we should be concerned with in this place is improving the living standards for the British people, and they have always achieved that.

[Mr Gauke]

We saw the economy shrink by 7% in a year or so under the Labour Government. That is not a record of which to be proud.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way one last time.

[Chris Williamson]

The Minister seems to imply that the worldwide downturn—the economic recession that was a consequence of the banking crash—was the responsibility of the previous Labour Government. It is a ludicrous assertion. Surely he will accept that there was an international banking crash that led to the economic difficulties with which the Labour Government were faced in 2007.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me summarise the hon. Gentleman’s position: when the economy grows under a Labour Government, the Labour Government get the credit, but when it shrinks under a Labour Government, that is to do with international factors. At least we know where he stands.

We have heard a lot of criticism of the reduction in the annual investment allowance, and I have attempted to try to put that in the context of what we have generally done within our tax system. The impression given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North at all times was that it was a disastrous decision that resulted in business investment being slashed. I do not accept that position at all, and I have made it clear, by putting this in the context of what we are doing with corporation tax, that we are encouraging investment.

Just this week, the Labour party set out its plans for business tax. As far as I am aware, nothing was said in those plans about the annual investment allowance, or about extending the increase to £500,000 beyond December 2015. We heard a lot about an allowance for corporate equity, but I do not think that I heard anything at all from the Opposition on this subject. If it is so important to them, why do they not have a policy in this area? Indeed, at one point, it seemed to come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North that this was a temporary measure, although subsequently in her speech it became clear that she was aware of that. What is Labour’s position? If Labour Members feel so strongly about this issue and it is a priority for them, why have they said nothing on the subject? On that point, I urge the House to reject new clause 10 if it is put to a vote.

Office for Budget Responsibility (Manifesto Audits)

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Let me start with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He is a very clever man—he went to public school, I believe—but he was being deliberately obtuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out, he suggested that somehow the OBR would have to take account of every possible nuance and potential spending commitment that a shadow Minister might make at an obscure public meeting in a village hall in some obscure little village, perhaps in North East Somerset. Perhaps he has not had time—he is a very busy man—to read the motion tabled by the Labour party, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, we are asking the OBR to audit the manifesto, not inadvertent comments that may have been made off the cuff at an obscure meeting in a village hall in North East Somerset.

The Minister had the temerity—I will put it like that—to suggest that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor was using this proposition as a fig leaf. How dare she! If anybody is responsible for indulging in trying to use a fig leaf, it is the Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government Front-Bench team. They suggested that somehow the OBR could not manage this proposal and that it would be unable to scrutinise things as an independent body. They said, “It is a new organisation, it is very young and it couldn’t quite manage it; let’s get the general election out of the way first.” However, members of the Treasury team know full well that our propositions are properly costed and would be doable. This is about the sort of country and society we want, and perhaps about the ideology and values that underpin Labour, compared with those that underpin the Government.

The truth—this is no coincidence—is that the Chancellor is not here because he is frightened. If I may quote the words of the late Margaret Thatcher, he is

“Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Could not take it? Cannot stand it?”—[Official Report, 19 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 159.]

That would be especially so if the Labour proposition was actually subject to an independent audit by the OBR. That is the real reason why the Government are opposing the Labour motion.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is this not also about wanting to maintain the status quo, and is it not revealing what that says about the Government and their political priorities?

[Chris Williamson]

Very much so. For all the great talk about a different approach to politics that the Prime Minister suggested he wanted to herald in, this is the very worst of the old politics.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) thought the proposal a bad idea in principle, but the British people deserve better than what they have had, and they certainly deserve better than what they get from the Conservatives. Routinely, what we see from Conservative Members, with their friends in the right-wing media, is a hysterical outpouring of misrepresentation of Labour manifesto proposals.

I remember Labour’s “double whammy” of tax and spend that the Conservatives used in 1992, and the VAT bombshell and all that nonsense, when we had actually gone to some lengths to be straight and honest with the British public and produce a shadow Budget. Yes, it was clear there would have been some tax increases, but they would have been for the richest people in society; eight out of 10 people would have benefited from Labour’s shadow Budget, but that was not what the Conservatives said or what was portrayed by the right-wing media. Had we had the opportunity of an independent audit of that shadow Budget, it would have been clear that the Conservatives were misrepresenting—or not, as the case might be—Labour’s proposals.

I understand why the Government are trying to resist the motion, but I want to see our proposals audited. On housing, for example, instead of giving billions of pounds to private landlords, it would be better value to invest that money in building houses for people. Surely, that would be a better use of money. It would be good for the OBR to scrutinise and audit that.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is doing a great job of getting rid of some of the misrepresentations and nonsense that we talked about earlier. The shadow Chancellor made it clear earlier that he was proposing that the OBR would only provide independent scrutiny and certification of the policy costings of political parties with at least 5% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is an important point. We are not referring to every draughty hall or every party, however few seats it holds. Those points should be made clear, and I hope that he agrees that this shows that Government Members were just not listening.

[Chris Williamson]

I very much agree. It is pretty clear that Government Members have closed minds and closed ears. Nobody is so deaf as those who refuse to hear. It is an inconvenient truth that our proposal would take the partisanship out of election campaigns to some extent and ensure that the British people get a clearer picture of the respective merits of the Conservative offer and of Conservative values. It is perfectly legitimate for the Conservatives to say, “We want to look after and enrich the wealthiest people in our country.” They are perfectly entitled to do that—perfectly entitled to impoverish the vast majority of people and force down wages—and we are perfectly entitled to propose our alternative.

We want to ensure that the vast majority of the British people—ordinary working people—actually benefit from the economic growth that, thankfully, we are seeing now, but most of the economic growth in the country today is going not into the pockets of ordinary people, but to the top 1% of society. I want to take away the opportunity for us to misrepresent each other’s policies and limit the opportunity for negative campaigning. A lot of people are turned off by negative campaigning, but it can be very effective. Our proposal would be a force for good. It is what the British people deserve, and the British people will make up their own minds if the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat poodles vote against this motion tonight.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Consumer Rights Bill

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

Many people feel that because they are buying a ticket online they are not engaging in behaviour that is associated with a criminal activity, but few of the people who would buy a ticket online would speak to a ticket tout in the street outside a venue and buy a ticket off them. Therefore, part of this may be about educating people so that they understand that when they are buying these tickets online, they are helping some people who are often engaged in criminal activity and they are also working with a group of organisations that are not putting money back into the film and music industries. I am not able to support these new clauses. Although I agree with the spirit of them, I do not feel they would do enough to eradicate the scourge of ticket touts.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 22 which is an important first step in addressing a private rented sector into which many hundreds of thousands of people who would previously perhaps have been allocated a social housing dwelling have been forced because council houses and housing association properties are currently in short supply. Many of them have to move over and over again: often these are people on very low incomes and they are hit with punitive charges by profiteering rogue letting agents. I say that this is an important first step because it is not just about the charges associated with establishing a tenancy in the first instance.

A letting agency in Derby, Professional Properties, hits people not only with the sorts of charges we are debating, which would be covered by the new clause, but with additional spurious charges when they end their tenancy. I am dealing with one case in particular where a young woman who looked after the property in which she had been living very well was hit with an enormous charge of more than £1,000 for spurious repairs. As a result of my intervention that charge was dropped, but there has been a refusal to allow her to have her deposit back. Those are shameful tactics by letting agents who are exploiting a very vulnerable group in society, and it is incumbent on us in this place to stand up for people who are being exploited in this way.

It is important to acknowledge that the private rented sector does have a role to play, but we want a responsible private rented sector and a responsible letting agents sector. Rents in the private sector have gone through the roof, so there is ample money in this system without these additional charges being heaped on people, who, as I have said, are often on very low incomes. I strongly support new clause 22 as a very important first step to regularising the private rented sector in our country.

[Andrew Percy]

I want to speak primarily to new clause 22, but first let me briefly speak in support of new clause 14. I thought I was the only person who had problems with switching, believing it to be another in the long list of failures in my life, but since I got elected I have realised that there is a massive issue to address so I fully support that provision. I have some sympathy with new clause 13, as I would like to see better labelling, but I am not sure I can support it as drafted.

On new clause 22, I should declare that I do not have any buy-to-let properties—I struggled enough to qualify for one mortgage, so the idea of qualifying for a further mortgage is probably a bit of a joke. Going through the list of other Members who have relevant interests, I noted that an awful lot of them were on the Opposition Benches. I assume that no Labour Members who rent out a property do so through a letting agent that charges fees, because to do so would be to fall foul of a word we are not allowed to say in here.

With this new clause we have a campaign going on. We have student union politics at the moment whereby the Opposition pick an issue and throw it out there in the hope it gets some traction. They do not think it through; there is nothing more to it than that. This time the issue is letting agent fees. It is my belief that they have not spoken to the letting agents or to many of the tenants who have to pay the fees—if they had, they would not be proposing this measure in such a way. I want a sensible debate on this, but we do not get it. As I have said, what we have had is an orchestrated campaign in which Labour opponents, many of whom live in massive houses in particular constituencies, have been told by the Labour party centrally here in London to parrot a particular line. They do not care about it to the extent that they have ever stood up and talked about it before. My Labour opponent, who wrote to me about this, certainly never had a word to say about it before she was told to do so by Labour headquarters in London. That is what is going on here. We are not having a sensible debate about this measure, which hits some of the big cities such as London, or about repeat fees. Labour has taken this scattergun approach in the hope of trying to drum up support for the measure, but what will happen is that rents will go up, because these charges will not disappear; the tenant will have to pay them in some way.

In many houses in my constituency, particularly in Goole which is relatively poor, the landlords do not charge bonds. They say is that if they cannot charge a relatively small fee—the biggest company in my constituency, Goole Property Centre, does not charge repeat fees or fees to people who do not then get a property—they will charge bonds instead. The cost of getting into a property to begin with could double or quadruple in my constituency.

I can tell Members what some of the letting agencies use their fees for. A large number of those who are renting are foreign tenants, and the agencies try to provide somebody who speaks their language and who gives them additional support, often getting them signed up to gas and electricity. They also help out with some of the simple things, which lead to a huge number of letters in my postbag. I am talking about things like bin collections—how to follow the rules—and community cohesion problems, which occur when large numbers of foreign migrants live in homes in multiple occupation. Landlords use their letting fees to subsidise such activity, and that is what will disappear. This is an ill-thought out policy from the Labour party. Let us have a sensible debate about it. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that it was too early to make a decision, because we need to see what happens with the trial in Scotland. Unfortunately, Labour has decided not to wait, but wants to continue with a student union type approach to try to build something around the cost of living issue. It is a bit pathetic in my view, which is why I will not support this measure until we have a proper and sensible debate.

Banking

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

This is why this Government’s narrative is beginning to crumble around the edges. Most people realise that the banking sector was totally dysfunctional and causing great difficulties. Of course we need better policing throughout the international community and by the regulators, but if we are to rehabilitate the banking sector, we cannot shy away from the tough decisions needed to change its structures and behaviour. There are still too many areas in which the Government have left banking reform unfinished.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Returning to the point about complacency, did my hon. Friend see the briefing note from the British Bankers Association prior to this debate? It says that

“no other industry is subject to such influential pay supervision”.

I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Does he agree that this “influential pay supervision” is patently failing in its job?

[Chris Leslie]

We have to feel sorry for senior bankers facing a bonus of merely the same amount as their basic take-home pay, as 200% bonuses are obviously vital for their survival—for the record, this is sarcasm. It is complete nonsense, of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

Part of the answer might be that manufacturing was decimated under the last Government. Its share of the economy fell from about 17% to the 10% to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, of course, lending fell with it. If the hon. Gentleman were honest and recognised the damage that his party did to the manufacturing sector, perhaps what he says would be taken more seriously.

We need a more stable, resilient, efficient banking sector, and it is on that requirement that we have focused our reforms. As Members will know, back in June 2010 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the establishment of an Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, to explore how the sector should be reformed in the wake of the financial crisis. Last year the House passed the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which has enabled us to implement the commission’s recommendations. The changes will mean that banks must ring-fence the deposits of individuals and small businesses, so that everyday banking can be separated from volatile investment banking.

As all Members, and, indeed. all members of the public will know, the financial crisis saw taxpayers bailing out the banks that got into trouble, but we have taken steps to ensure that that will not be repeated. Our banking reform Act introduces a bail-in tool, as a result of which shareholders and creditors, not taxpayers, will be first in line to bear the costs of future bank failures.

[Chris Williamson]

I think that the Minister should admit that the Government have watered down the Vickers commission. Will he now come clean with the House, and tell us that that is what they have done?

[Sajid Javid]

That is exactly what we have not done. We have accepted the central recommendations of the Vickers commission.

We have not just been working to prevent a repeat of the crisis. Many Members on both sides of the House have been rightly appalled by the revelations of poor behaviour on the part of some in the industry, such as payment protection insurance, interest rate swap mis-selling, and LIBOR manipulation. Those practices were going on right under the noses of Labour Treasury Ministers, including the current shadow Chancellor, who did nothing at all to stop it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

That is exactly what I was coming on to next. It is important for taxpayers that any proposals by RBS are considered fully and properly. The Government have not yet received a proposal from RBS on bonuses; once we do, we shall be in a position to judge whether it represents value for taxpayers.

The Government do not support the EU cap on bonuses. The Government have fought against it and we are currently challenging it in court. The bonus cap creates perverse incentives by removing the link to performance. It is damaging to financial stability; it is opposed by the PRA and the Bank of England; and, indeed, the cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards rejected crude bonus caps as unworkable.

Let me turn finally to the bank levy.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will the Minister give way?

National Minimum Wage

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I think it is £2.68, and it was going to be frozen at £2.65. [Interruption.] It is a very small increase, but there was an issue of principle involved, which is why I intervened to change it.

Let me proceed on the issue of the mandate. The Low Pay Commission has consistently regarded jobs as an important objective of policy—rightly, and we must respect that judgment because it is based on serious analysis. Let me quote a good study carried out by the Resolution Foundation, and I believe the National Institute of Economic and Social Research was involved, too. It analysed the effects of a general increase to the living wage level, which Labour Members would like to see happen.

The analysis suggests that if other things were equal and if all low pay were increased to the level of the living wage, there would be a net loss of 160,000 jobs. Worse than that, there would be a loss of 300,000 jobs among the unskilled and among young workers, because massive substitution would take place. That does not mean that the living wage is a bad idea as a voluntary principle, but it does spell out very brutally what would happen if Governments ignored the Low Pay Commission and took a cavalier view of the impact of the minimum wage on jobs.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Is that not precisely the argument that was used by those who opposed the introduction of the national minimum wage in the first place? Is this not just a repetition of that flawed argument?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Last Wednesday was fat cat Wednesday—the day by which top executives in FTSE 100 companies had, two days after returning to work from the Christmas holidays, earned more money than the average worker, let alone someone on the minimum wage, will earn in the entire year.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), I undertook a job centre survey in 1996—in Derby—and I was absolutely shocked by the number of jobs on offer at £1 an hour or less. It had a hugely civilising effect on our country when the Labour Government, who were elected in 1997, introduced the national minimum wage and took millions of people up the income scale as a consequence.

We know that the national minimum wage was opposed by the Conservatives in this place and elsewhere in the country, and that the Liberal Democrats could not really make up their mind: some were in favour and some against. True to form, since returning to power, they have frozen the amount of resources available for its enforcement. That is utterly disgraceful, because the consequence of the freeze is to make it that much more difficult to bring to book exploitative employers who pay below the minimum wage.

I have to say that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was all over the place when he addressed the House. He said that the political process should not interfere with the Low Pay Commission, but he went on to say that he had interfered on some occasions, and let us remember that it was a political decision to bring in the national minimum wage in the first place. Given the Government’s parsimony in relation to ensuring that the necessary resources are available to the enforcement body, I want the Secretary of State to make a political intervention by conferring a formal third-party role on the trade union movement. Trade unions could help to monitor and enforce the minimum wage by ensuring, when they complain about non-compliance, that such complaints are investigated by HMRC as a matter of course, which would make a big impact.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Williamson]

I will not take any interventions, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I know that some of my hon. Friends want to speak and they may run out of time.

We certainly need better enforcement. It annoys me that the Conservative party is quite happy to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise the well-heeled in our society. Not enforcing the minimum wage and, indeed, not supporting the living wage is a case in point, because taxpayers’ money goes to subsidise low pay in our country. We therefore need not just support for the living wage, but greater penalties to ensure that the national minimum wage is enforced. It is welcome that penalties are being increased, but that is still not enough; more needs to be done.

Let us be clear that, as my hon. Friends have already said, when people on low incomes have more money in their pockets, they spend that money, which creates economic activity and growth, and helps to sustain and create jobs in other industries and businesses. In my view, that is really important.

Having listened to the Conservatives today and knowing their record from history, it seems to me that one thing is pretty clear: we cannot trust them—or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—with the national minimum wage. It will take a Labour Government coming to power in 2015 to ensure that the national minimum wage is enforced, that appropriate penalties are imposed on recalcitrant employers and that we can move rapidly towards a living wage to bring all citizens up to a decent standard of living. We owe that to the people of this country, but it will take a Labour Government to achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

This afternoon’s debate has been a good one, and we have heard interesting contributions from all parts of the House. I counted 13 Back-Bench Members of Parliament who have been able to contribute in the couple of hours available to us. I will try, shortly, to address as many of the points raised as possible in the time allowed to me.

The shadow Secretary of State and many Opposition Members have taken great pride in pointing out that 17 years ago some members of my party had reservations about the impact that a minimum wage might have on UK businesses. The Opposition are right to point out that some of those fears—[Interruption.] I think they might want to listen to this. They are right to point out that some of those fears have been unfounded and that the minimum wage has been important for our lower-paid workers. I hope Opposition Members will realise that acknowledging mistakes is not terribly hard. The shadow Chancellor might want to think about that when he realises who crashed our economy.

What we have to remember is that this is all about finding the right balance. Yes, we would like to see a faster increase in the national minimum wage and everyone sharing in the recovery, but if an increase were to cost people their jobs or to slow down the recovery, then it would, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last week, be completely self-defeating. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has asked the Low Pay Commission, whose judgment and expertise we value greatly, to consider the conditions that we would need for a faster increase.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Lady deprecate those employment agencies that seek to use the Swedish derogation model to get around the implementation of the minimum wage? Is that not a gross abuse of that derogation, and does she deprecate it?

[Nicky Morgan]

I will come on to that point, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned it in his speech. If Members will forgive me, I will accept only a few interventions because I want to reflect on the points that have been raised this afternoon.

As all Members are aware, the Low Pay Commission will report to us next month on the recommended wage for 2014, and the Government will respond shortly after. As we have heard this afternoon, we must ensure that the existing wage rates are properly enforced, which is why this Government’s steps to hit those firms found guilty of failing to pay the wages with penalties and publicity will be so important.

Let me turn to the points that have been made by Members across the House this afternoon. We started with a typically thoughtful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has looked a great deal at this area. He mentioned the reintroduction of the 10p tax band, which is an interesting suggestion. [Interruption.] Yes, who did abolish the 10p tax rate? I think it was the Labour party! My hon. Friend also talked about making some changes to national insurance contributions, but the most important thing he said was that we want to leave workers with more money in their pockets, and that is what this Government are all about.

The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) reminded us all that the Low Pay Commission is independent, which is critical. It was set up by the previous Government and we need to wait to hear what it recommends before we make any further decisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) was absolutely right about the importance of low inflation. I am sure that he, like all Members, will welcome the recent fall in inflation and the impact that that will have on people’s wages and the amount of money that households have to spend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who is not in his place at the moment, talked about the policy to abolish national insurance contributions for those under the age of 21, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the autumn statement. He was absolutely right to say that we must encourage businesses to take on as many young employees as they possibly can.

Let me move on to the contributions from Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) and the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Corby (Andy Sawford), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) all talked about enforcement. I am sure that others did as well. In 2012-13, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs collected £3.9 million in arrears for workers; 26,500 workers benefited. That was a 33% increase in the number of workers benefiting and a 26% increase in the number of arrears identified. Seven hundred employers were penalised last year for failing to comply with the national minimum wage rates, and the value of fines, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, was seven times higher last year than it was in 2009-10.

In 2009-10, 381 penalties were charged, and last year it was 696, although it had risen to more than 900 in the previous two years. Opposition Members talked about the amount of money that was given to the enforcement agencies. However, it is not necessarily about how much money is given but how effective those enforcement agencies are with the money that is given to them—a principle that Government Members take very seriously.

I must comment on the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) about the fact that although it had taken the Labour party nearly 100 years to deliver the national minimum wage, it got there in the end. It looks like it is going to take the shadow Chancellor 100 years before the Labour party comes up with a long-term economic plan. He has plenty of time and we look forward to hearing it.

Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, did not tackle the fact that the rise in the income tax threshold introduced by the Government has left more money in workers’ pockets. The hon. Gentleman talked about comparisons with the minimum wage and what it was when Labour was in government, but the fact is that constituents come to MPs from both sides of the House and say that they have more money in their pockets as a result of the fact that the personal allowance has gone up.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) talked about UK employees being undercut. We have asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to explain what enforcement action it is taking against employment agencies that discriminate against our nationals, for example by advertising UK jobs exclusively overseas. That is an issue we are aware of and we have asked the EHRC to address it.

I thought that the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) was very fair in his remarks about enforcement in his constituency. There is clearly more to come and I heard what he said about the new penalty figures and the penalties that have been levied. I am sure that my colleagues in BIS will take note of what he said.

The hon. Member for Blaydon talked about care workers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the guidance on travelling time has been updated. It is right that we should do more to get that guidance out. I have been approached about it in my constituency office as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough and we certainly need to disseminate it better.

We had some interesting contributions from Members this afternoon and I thank all Members for their contributions. I am aware that I have not necessarily been able to respond to all the points that have been raised this afternoon. I shall certainly take away what has been said and I will read the debate to see whether we need to tackle any other issues.

It is fair to say that almost everyone who has spoken in the Chamber today wants to achieve the same goals. We want to see those who receive the minimum wage paid fairly and we want to see those who do not pay the minimum wage treated harshly. I am sure all Members welcome today’s announcement, mentioned by Government Members, that the fines have been quadrupled from £5,000 to £20,000. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we would also like to increase those fines to £20,000 per worker, which will send a clear message to employers who think that they can flout the minimum wage regulations that that is not an option and that they need to pay a fair wage for a fair day’s work.

We want wages to continue to rise, unemployment to continue to fall and our economy to continue to recover, and we want everyone in this country to share in that. I ask the House to wait for the Low Pay Commission’s report, to reject the motion and to support the Government amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.