Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Chris Law—not here.

All these Opposition opportunities are being lost, and I think that should not continue.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that schools are often targeted in warzones. A couple of months ago, I met year 7 students from Lees Brook School in my constituency, and they implored me to ask the Prime Minister to sign the safe schools declaration, which I understand has subsequently been signed. Does that declaration mean that she will now veto future arms sales to brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which has been targeting schools as part of its military campaign in Yemen?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot of questions to get through, so we do need to speed up a little bit.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the work of the legal working group on seafarers and the national minimum wage.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I respect the spirit in which he has raised it. My understanding of the situation is that a Member who shouts Aye must not then vote in the contrary direction, or vice versa. I do not think, although I entirely respect the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s point, that it reflects in this case because a Member is not obliged to vote simply because he or she has shouted. What he or she must not do is shout one way and vote the other. But the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is an important one, and I thank him for raising it.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether there is a modern-day precedent for the use of imperial legislation, as outlined in new clause 1, which looks more like an attempt to prevent stories from appearing about more divisions in the Conservative party over Europe and about the date of referendum being before the general election.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot say I am very grateful for that point of order, for the simple reason that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is a point that he could and should, if he is so minded, raise in the debate, rather than detaining the House with a bogus point of order now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

T5. Yesterday, the Chancellor said that those who opposed austerity had lost the argument, but wages are falling, child poverty is increasing and he is presiding over the slowest economic recovery in over 100 years. Unless the Chancellor is living in cloud cuckoo land or residing on planet Zog, he will surely admit that his record of economic competence has been less than satisfactory—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we have a lot to get through, so much shorter questions are required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Steve Baker, not here. Sir Bob Russell, not here. I call Chris Williamson.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

T3. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Local Government Finance (Rural Authorities)

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks?

[Chris Williamson]

In the interests of brevity, I will sit down and allow the—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman does not need to make a speech about it, but we are grateful to him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

The Chancellor says it is essential to cut unnecessary public expenditure, but the review of the inter-city express programme by Sir Andrew Foster shows that the Thameslink rolling stock programme will cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than necessary. How can the Transport Secretary justify wasting British taxpayers’ money to create highly skilled manufacturing jobs in Germany when he could have re-run the procurement process in a matter of months, with a tender process that better ensured that this massive investment of taxpayers’ money led to manufacturing jobs in Britain? I am worried that the same thing is going to happen with—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman; we have got the gist of it.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that yesterday the fire Minister, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), inadvertently misled the House in responding to a question from me about reductions in funds for the fire service. He said that I

“might like to have a look at the figures, which show that the cut for fire authorities last year and the year that we are now in was 0.5%”.—[Official Report, 12 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 15.]

I double-checked my figures yesterday with the House of Commons Library, which confirmed that the reduction in funds for fire authorities over that period was at least 6.5%, and that if specific grants were taken into account, the figure was even higher. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you might like to invite the Minister to return to the House to correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

I have no need to invite a Minister to do that, but I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he has made his own point in his own way, with great clarity, and I hope he feels satisfied about that. Secondly, all Ministers are responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of their statements to the House. In the event of an inaccurate or incorrect statement, a Minister is responsible for correcting the record. The hon. Gentleman’s point will, I trust, have been heard.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is always a delight to hear the hon. Gentleman’s mellifluous tones, but on this occasion I will deny myself that pleasure, on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a matter of earnest interest to him and of considerable debate, no doubt, but there is no matter for the Chair here. If he strongly disagrees, he can come and have a cup of tea with me and I will talk to him about it. If I am wrong, I shall concede it, but I do not think I am.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether it is appropriate for the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) to book a meeting room on the parliamentary estate for a meeting with a company, Siemens, involved in bidding for a major rail procurement contract—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the conduct of a Member, there are established methods by which to pursue such complaints, including reference to the commissioner. If he is not convinced of that, he can pursue it at a lower level, but it should not be pursued on the Floor of the House via the device of a point of order. I know his intentions are good, but so are mine in trying to advise him on how to proceed.

Housing

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

With all due respect to the Minister, I know it is his first day but it is his party that is in government, his party that is responsible for this housing crisis, his party that is presiding over a huge increase in homelessness and a significant rise in rough sleeping, and his party that is catastrophically failing in its duty to provide the houses that people need in this country.

What do the Government do in response to this huge and growing crisis and massive demand for housing? Rather than build the homes that people need, they tinker with measures that deny housing benefit to people under 25, inflict a crude housing benefit cap and impose a bedroom tax on people deemed to be under-occupying their homes, forcing people up to the age of 35 to live in a single room if they happen to be on a low income.

The human cost of the calamity with which we are faced as a consequence of the failure of the Government’s economic and housing policies is tragic and shameful. More people are homeless as a direct consequence of their policies, and more people are having to sleep on the street—as I mentioned, rough sleeping is increasing. This is completely unacceptable in the 21st century in one of the richest nations on the planet. I just hope that the new Housing Minister is not blinded by the failed ideology that resulted in the abject failure of his predecessor.

The country is crying out for, and demands, real action now, not more meaningless initiatives. We need a clear plan, because plan A has totally failed. The new Minister said that he was committed to increasing housing supply. I hope that he can deliver on that. We need a new tax on bankers’ bonuses to build tens of thousands of new homes, and we need a cut in VAT on home improvements to help people undertake that work and generate more jobs. These are the sorts of measures contained in our motion and that would give a boost to the construction industry. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Britain is the only G20 country in a double-dip recession, youth unemployment is at record levels, poverty is on the increase, public services are in meltdown, and the Government are borrowing around £4 billion more this year than they did last year. The lessons of the 1930s demonstrate that the austerity programme that the Chancellor is pursuing will not work. Will he learn the lessons of history—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful, but I am afraid that we do not have time to go back to the 1930s now. We have the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 30, page 22, line 28, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

[The Temporary Chair (John Robertson)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 48, page 23, line 9, at end insert—

‘(5) The regulations must make provision for safety-net payments to be made to relevant authorities whose calculated funding is less than the relevant funding calculated in regard to the authority fulfilling its integrated risk management plan.’.

Amendment 31, page 24, line 28, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Amendment 32, page 24, line 37, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

New clause 2—Major redevelopment schemes: non-domestic rate income—

‘(1) In any case where a relevant authority proposes a major redevelopment scheme resulting in a substantial loss of non-domestic rate income for a period exceeding one year, the authority may make an application to the Secretary of State for a safety-net payment to be made to the authority each year for the period of the scheme. The Secretary of State must determine whether to make such a payment having regard to—

(a) the proportion of non-domestic rate income which will be lost to the authority for the period of the scheme, and

(b) the future social and economic benefits of the scheme.

(2) The Secretary of State must notify the authority of his or her decision on whether or not to grant a safety-net payment and allow the authority 28 days to make representations about his or her decision before issuing a final determination.’.

[Chris Williamson]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

Amendments 30, 31 and 32 were dealt with in some detail in the previous debate, so I shall not detain the Committee unduly by going over old ground. However, I shall speak in more detail about amendment 48, which would add a new protection in the Bill to ensure that fire authorities are enabled to fulfil their integrated risk management plans.

The plans enable fire and rescue services to develop a balanced approach to reducing risk within the communities they serve, and I hope that the Minister will look with some sympathy on the intentions behind the amendment. The plans combine prevention, protection and emergency response on a risk-assessed basis to improve the safety of local communities and to create a safer working environment for firefighters. They also include measures to help the community speedily recover from the aftermath of an emergency and to minimise the impact both to people and to the local economy. It is thus absolutely essential that funding for the fire service does not fall below the minimum amount required for it to carry out its vital duties. The amendment has the aim of ensuring that the obligation is on the face of the Bill. It would protect, through a safety net payment, authorities that might otherwise receive less funding than was required for them to fulfil their duties under the integrated risk management plans.

I understand that Ministers believe the financial risk will be mitigated by fire authorities receiving a percentage of the rates of the district authorities in their area, but what if they are wrong? They would be putting the safety of the general public at risk. If they are confident that their predictions are right, the safety net payment mechanism would never need to be evoked. Either way, I hope the Government will support the amendment.

In their response to the consultation on the changes, the Government said that if some fire authorities had their funding outside the business rate retention scheme, they would not be incentivised to make savings. We believe that is both unfair and untrue; fire authorities have all the incentive they need, which is to make their communities safer places by maximising their resources. The changes would also play fast and loose with the health and safety of the general public. The essential principle is that funding for fire services should be based on the risks and needs of the area, not solely on local economic circumstances.

Many local authorities engage in significant redevelopment schemes. I invite the Committee to look at how city centres have been revitalised in Derby, Leeds, Leicester, Manchester and many other cities, but some developments involve more than changing the shops or regenerating old buildings. They can involve a significant amount of demolition before a new project begins. New roads may be required, and some buildings may not be suitable for conversion, or they may not be worth saving.

That was the case when we regenerated the centre of my home city of Derby. Had that scheme gone ahead under the Government’s proposed new system, a significant amount of business rate income would have been lost to the local authority. Those situations can be addressed when the rates are pooled, but we fear that such projects might not go ahead under the new scheme because of the uncertainty it will create.

If shares of business rate income are to be decided year on year, an authority cannot plan effectively for a long-term project. They could use tax increment financing to fund the project itself, but that has two drawbacks. If they use a TIF 1-type scheme, there are problems if the scheme extends beyond 10 years because there may be a reset of the system by the Secretary of State. Such a time scale is possible for some major schemes, and we should like resets carried out before 10 years. A TIF 2 scheme has to be in an area designated by the Secretary of State and can only secure income to the authority when it is completed. The borrowing in such schemes is likely to be used to pay for the project; it is capital, not revenue.

New clause 2 is therefore intended to assist local authorities when they are undertaking such schemes. It would enable them to make an application in advance to the Secretary of State for a safety net payment to be made to them for the duration of the scheme. The Secretary of State would decide whether to make such a payment based on a consideration of the proportion of its income the authority would be losing and the future social and economic benefits of the scheme. That would allow a kind of cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken before a decision was made.

We have also sought to include social benefit in the calculation. The purpose of that is to ensure that issues such as the types of job to be created, rather than the number of jobs, could be looked at if there was an economic imbalance in the area. It would also enable other social benefits to be taken into account, such as improved transport access, community facilities, and access or provision for disabled people.

We have deliberately chosen not to limit any examination of social and economic benefits to the area covered by the local authority undertaking the scheme. That is because schemes may be on the border of another local authority, or may benefit those in a larger travel-to-work area. It is right that all the benefits to a wider area should be taken into account, especially when only one local council is bearing the loss of business rates.

If a scheme proposed by a local authority was deemed to have a social and economic benefit, the Secretary of State could agree that the authority would receive a safety net payment for the duration of the scheme. That would give the local authority certainty that its loss of business rates would be compensated for throughout the scheme, rather than it having to wait to see, each year, whether it had received a payment. That would encourage local authorities to go ahead with schemes that had real benefit, and would protect local services.

The new clause would also allow local authorities to make representations to the Secretary of State once he had notified them of his decision, and prior to a final determination being made.

Points of order

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer to her inquiry is no, I was not given any indication by any Minister on that matter. Naturally, the timing of Government statements is a matter for Ministers, as is whether a Minister chooses to make an announcement via oral questions or during a debate in the House. However, the basic point stands that policy announcements should first be made in the House and not through the newspapers. I understand the very real concern that exists on this matter because it is shared by me, and I have discussed it with the Leader of the House.

More widely—I will entertain the point of order from the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) in a moment if he wishes to pursue it—let me emphasise my approach to today’s proceedings. I hope that the House will understand that I felt the matters in question had been rather fully aired outside the House, and it is therefore entirely to be expected that the opportunity should be provided for matters to be fully aired in the House. I know that the Chancellor would accept that as being entirely right and proper. The issues have been explored very fully. That, at least, is a satisfactory state of affairs.

[Chris Williamson]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his response to my question, the Chancellor inadvertently misled the House when he said that the previous Government had signed the contract for the Thameslink rolling stock programme. Can you, through your good offices, invite him to come back to the House to set the record straight so that there is no doubt about the situation—that the contract has been signed, at least to preferred bidder status, by this Administration and not by the previous one?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a testing point of order from the hon. Gentleman. All hon. Members, including Ministers, are responsible for the content and accuracy of the statements they make to the House. If an error has been made it is the responsibility of the Member who made it to correct it. I am sure that the Chancellor’s attention will have been drawn to the point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman and there may or may not be a response from him. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, I feel sure, on the strength of my 18 months’ acquaintance with him, that he will pursue the matter like the veritable woodpecker he has proved to be. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

With more than 1 million people living in substandard privately rented accommodation, and with massive front-loaded cuts to council budgets making it harder to tackle slum landlords, the Housing and Local Government Minister is clearly failing in his responsibilities. However, as Henry Ford once said:

“Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”

Will the Minister therefore adopt a more intelligent approach and abandon his laissez-faire attitude to regulation, which is creating a charter for slum landlords, by implementing the light-touch licensing system recommended by the Rugg review, adopted by Labour and welcomed by the National Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Lettings Agents?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I think we have got the gist of it.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. Questions are to the Government about the policies and proposals of the Government. ’Twas ever thus and ’tis still so.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on how to secure the future of the British train manufacturing industry, following the decision to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder for the Thameslink contract, which will potentially cost 3,000 jobs at Bombardier based in Derby and a further 12,000 jobs in the supply chain? This could spell the end of the British train manufacturing industry because, come this autumn, Bombardier’s order books are empty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the statement by the Foreign Secretary.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, that points of order, without fail, come after statements. The hon. Gentleman—

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity at the appropriate time, but not at the inappropriate time.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to unparliamentary language by the Prime Minister, which is why I was keen to make a point of order before he left the Chamber. I apologise if I appeared a little over-insistent. I believe that I heard the Prime Minister accuse me of being misleading, which is unparliamentary language.

[Mr Speaker]

I can deal with the point very simply. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that nothing unparliamentary was said, but for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and of the House, let me make clear what a lot of hon. Members know, but some perhaps do not. To accuse someone of misleading the House is unparliamentary and a breach of order. The use of the word “misleading” in the way in which the Prime Minister used it is not unparliamentary or out of order. That is a statement of fact, and I hope that it is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that I have surveyed every fire and rescue service in the country about the impact of this year’s financial settlement. Fire chiefs have told me that his cuts to their budgets will result in fire stations being closed, fire appliances being taken out of service and more than 1,000 firefighters losing their jobs in the next 12 months alone. Is he confident that his cuts will not compromise public safety? Will he accept that the feedback from fire chiefs proves that he has singularly failed to deliver on his commitment to give some protection to fire and rescue services? Will he come clean and admit that his cuts—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Three questions is too many; the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Bahrain

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that points of order follow statements, so we will deal with the business statement first.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way this evening and I am very grateful to him for his kindness in giving way to me on this occasion. Does he agree that restricting the debate to five hours will give scant time for me to raise the concerns that I know exist in Derby in respect of Derby university? It has been calculated that, as a result of the 80% reduction to which he referred, that university will have a financial black hole of about £30 million. It will find it extremely difficult to increase tuition fees to the level that would be necessary—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, there is the issue of scope. Secondly, I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very well-behaved man, would not seek to make a speech when he is supposed to be making an intervention. [Interruption.] Order. He has registered his point, to which I know the shadow Leader of the House will want to respond.

Finance Bill

Debate between Chris Williamson and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend is right. Conservative Members are reverting to type. We saw what they did—I have outlined some of the implications—when they were last in power. The policies that they are pursuing now will have exactly the effect that he describes in undermining manufacturing, because they are the enemy of manufacturing industry in this country.

There is an alternative. Historical precedent proves that investing in the economy at a time of economic fragility is absolutely the right course of action. Government Members should look at their history books. We had a lecture from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who referred to the 1930s. I refer him and other Government Members to Roosevelt’s new deal. Roosevelt demonstrated that by using the power and instruments of the state to invest in the economy, Government could get the economy moving again and put people back to work. Do not forget that when Roosevelt came to power, 25% of the American people were out of work, and his new deal put them back into work. By contrast, in this country we were pursuing a deflationary policy that resulted in millions of people losing their jobs and remaining unemployed for many years.

Indeed, President Obama agrees. He wrote to all the G20 leaders—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot have a general discourse on the merits of the policies of respective American presidents, however strongly he and others feel about those matters? I am sure that it is only a matter of seconds before he returns to the substance of the Bill.

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I merely wanted to make a brief reference to President Obama’s letter. I think that Government Members are familiar with it. I referred to it in a previous speech, and I will therefore move on.

From the historical precedents to which I have referred, and indeed the precedent of the Attlee Government in 1945, it is clear that by investing in our economy and not taking the course of action that the Government are taking in relation to VAT, corporation tax and the insurance premium tax, we can secure greater opportunity for recovery. If we can put people back to work by investing in our economy, that will ensure that the tax take is increased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Chris Williamson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen a retail-led regeneration of the city centre in Derby, and the increase in VAT will certainly have a negative impact. Already retailers are struggling in the difficult economic circumstances with which they are confronted, and clearly an increase in VAT is bound to have a negative impact.

What we wanted to achieve, and what we believe is the right way forward, is the creation of an economic virtuous cycle through investment in our economy. That would lead to more jobs, which would increase tax and national insurance income, which in turn would lead to the opportunity for more investment, and so on. The Government are pursuing a course of action that will lead to an economic vicious circle. The cuts in investment will result in more unemployment and a reduction in the tax take, resulting in more cuts and more unemployment, and so on. The VAT increase will clearly hit the poorest people in our community. The Treasury figures say that, as do the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

What I find astounding is the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats. On 7 April the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“Our plans do not require a rise in VAT. The Tory plans do. Their tax promises on marriage and jobs may sound appealing. But they come with a secret VAT bombshell close behind.”

It is little wonder that support for the Liberal Democrats in the latest YouGov opinion poll has slumped to 15%. Furthermore, another YouGov poll last month showed that 48% of Liberal Democrat voters were going to abandon the party as a direct result of its supporting the Tories on the issue. Even the Prime Minister said last year that VAT was regressive and hit the poorest hardest. He went on:

“It does, I absolutely promise you.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer told The Times on 10 April that the Tories had no plans to increase VAT this year.

The Chancellor keeps telling us that we are all in it together, but there is a world of difference between the impact on privileged former Bullingdon club members, such as the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and the families on modest incomes in my constituency who will have their tax credits cut—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A rather unseemly exchange is going on between the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne). I would not want to find that, as a result of excessive noise, I miss out on what I am sure is coming soon, namely the peroration of the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson).

[Chris Williamson]

There is an even bigger difference between those privileged former Bullingdon club members and the people whom they will throw on the dole—the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of people who will be thrown out of work as a direct consequence of their policies.

The Chief Secretary concluded his remarks today by saying that the Budget was tough but fair.

[Chris Williamson]

I agree—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The fact that there is a generally convivial spirit is good, but the House must come to order because, as I said, we must shortly hear the hon. Gentleman’s peroration.

[Chris Williamson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he is cynical.

How is it fair to increase VAT when the Chief Secretary said that he would not do that? How is it fair to hit the poorest the hardest? How is it fair to cut tax credits from families on modest incomes or to scrap child trust funds, which give young people a nest egg? How is it fair to slash free school meals? How is it fair to short-change pensioners through the failure to operate tax allowances? How is it fair to blame public sector workers for the deficit and the national debt, when international bankers are at fault? Let us remember that Conservative Members resisted any additional regulation of those bankers, many of whom have more in common with Government Members than they have with Opposition Members. How is it fair to chop benefits, including the swingeing cuts to which my hon. Friends referred, for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country? The shameful Finance Bill is the antithesis of fairness. That is why Labour Members will vote against Second Reading.