Public Service Pensions Bill

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I shall deal with the good reasons why further reform is needed later in my speech.

Lord Hutton’s conclusions of March 2011 set out a clear and compelling case for further reform. He found that the status quo was not tenable, that there had been an unfair sharing of costs between the employer, the employee and the taxpayer, and that previous reforms had not fully addressed the underlying issues of sustainability and fairness. His recommendations were equally compelling, and those for the future design of schemes fall into three broad categories, the first of which is safeguards to ensure that the long-term costs of pensions are sustainable. That is achieved through a link between the state pension age and normal pension ages in the majority of schemes, and a cost-cap mechanism to protect the taxpayer in the event of other unforeseen costs.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will deal with this subject in detail later in my speech, but I shall turn to it briefly. In respect of the pension schemes that are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Government—their Finance Minister, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), is in the Chamber—and the Welsh Government, those Administrations are free to negotiate within the parameters in the Bill and the cost ceiling that has been set out. I understand that such negotiations are ongoing. Should Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Ministers wish to offer more financially generous terms, they are entirely within their rights to do so, but the additional costs will have to be met from their budgets. They have complete freedom to do that and I know that they will want to consider it.

[Mr Anderson]

The Chief Secretary said that there was a fairness imbalance between employers, employees and the taxpayer. What was fair about a public body such as Royal Mail taking a 13-year pension contribution holiday when the members of the scheme had to carry on paying?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Royal Mail is a public corporation, and therefore not within the scope—

[Danny Alexander]

Let me respond to one intervention before I take another. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen for me to clarify one of my points—I am sure that I will be able to do so—but let me respond to the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). As part of our measures to support Royal Mail, we recently took its pension scheme on to the Government’s balance sheet. Many schemes took holidays during the previous Government’s time in office—

[Mr Anderson]

And the one before them.

[Danny Alexander]

Indeed. Perhaps schemes took holidays even under the Government before that one. In many cases, members regretted such action in retrospect. The Bill is about public service pension schemes—by and large unfunded, with the exception of the local government scheme—that desperately need reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

I would say that we have handled this process in a balanced and sensitive way throughout, in recognition of the fact that the changes affect millions of public service workers. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which was raised a number of times in the talks, I would say that none of us wants to see increased opt-outs from pensions, for the reasons that have been mentioned on both sides of the House. We have put in place a process for reviewing the next stage of the contribution increase in the light of opt-out data from the first year. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that there is no evidence of increased opting out in response to this year’s increase in contributions. However, we will review the matter again next year before proceeding with the third phase of the increases, so he makes a serious and important point.

The reforms treat not only the symptoms of delayed reform but the underlying problem. Therefore, they are forecast to reduce the cost of providing public service pensions by around 40% over the next 50 years, returning costs to their historic long-term average. Clause 9 deals with the principal risk that needs to be managed if pensions are to be affordable and sustainable: longevity. Longevity has improved significantly over recent decades, which is a very good thing. As a result, the state pension age has increased. The Government are therefore asking public service workers in due course also to retire later. In a society where we are all living longer and where fellow citizens in the private sector are expected to retire later, it is both fair and right that the public sector retirement age should rise with the state pension age. As Lord Hutton says, improvements have continuously been underestimated in the past, which has led to the cost of providing pensions rising significantly over recent decades. As such, clause 9 provides that in future the normal retirement age in the public schemes will be set at the state pension age. As Lord Hutton identified, this change will move the proportion of adult life in retirement for public service pension scheme members back to where it was in the 1980s. More important, by linking the scheme retirement age to the state retirement age, we will ensure that further improvements in longevity are tracked. That is the main way in which the Bill will ensure that the cost of public service pensions cannot again spiral out of control, but will remain affordable and sustainable long into the future.

[Mr Anderson]

The Chief Secretary talks about longevity, but what does he think the proposals will mean for the longevity of a mental health nurse who is 67 and a half years old, goes to work every day and ends up literally fighting with patients?

[Danny Alexander]

We will conduct a regular review, as Lord Hutton suggested, which will enable issues such as those the hon. Gentleman has raised to be taken into account. They were raised and discussed in the scheme talks. In the end, employee and employer representatives both agreed that the modelling we are using—which is similar to that used in the deal struck under his Government—is the right, fair and balanced way to take such matters forward across the whole work force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

Yes, it was shortly after the Municipal Reform Act.

The scheme is important for its members and the council tax payers who fund it. We should also not forget—I will come back to this later—that it is important for the overall British economy, because of its investment potential. Getting it right is important. It is worth emphasising that it is different from the other schemes, because it is largely funded. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury recognised that significant factor, as, I am sure, will the Minister who responds to the debate. It will have consequences, once the Bill is enacted, for how we deal with regulations and secondary legislation with regard to the scheme’s governance and other related matters. There is nothing in the Bill itself—which I warmly support, because reform of all the public sector schemes is necessary—to prevent that from being achieved.

There is clear evidence that reform of the local government scheme is necessary. Reference has been made to the Audit Commission and, at the risk of taking a little longer than I had intended, it is worth quoting what it said in order to make the point. It accepted that the local government pension scheme had funds

“to cover about three-quarters of its future liabilities”

and that it had a positive cash flow. The commission then concluded that the current approach could not be continued indefinitely, the reasons for which included:

“The cost of providing pensions for local authority employees is rising in absolute terms and as a proportion of pay because of increasing life expectancy and action needed to recover funding deficits.”

It was not possible to fund the whole lot. There is no doubt that local government pension funds

“have been affected by lower than anticipated investment returns”.

At the time of the commission’s report in 2009, the value of assets was “about 15% lower” than had been anticipated in the previous revaluation in 2007. I have to say that Opposition Members cannot escape some of the responsibility that the previous Government have for the investment performance of the funds.

[Mr Anderson]

Given his long experience of local government, does the hon. Gentleman have any idea how many councils, including the one that he led, took pension contribution holidays?

[Robert Neill]

I certainly never took any pension contribution holidays. Indeed, I only became a member of the local government pension scheme in 2000, when I was a member of the Greater London authority, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s point is realistic. The performance of the scheme is down to the investment climate in which it operates, and the investment climate is determined by the macro-economic policies of the Government. The hon. Gentleman does not accept the failure of his Government in this context. One of the by-blows of that failure was that the investment returns for the scheme were less than expected and that has added to the pressures on the scheme. It is not the sole pressure, but it has added to them.

The Audit Commission also noted that the cost of pensions affects the amount of money available for local authorities to fund services and it influences council tax decisions, so there were questions about whether the LGPS benefits were affordable in the long term. Although some of those matters have been picked up by prior reforms—I do not pretend otherwise—they were not adequate to deal with the pressures. The Audit Commission concluded that, despite the fact that the scheme had funding, unlike others, reform was needed none the less. It is not just the Audit Commission that has recognised that—so too have the professionals in the local government pensions world. In October 2009 Mike Taylor, the chief executive of the London Pensions Fund Authority—I declare an interest, having been a member of that body for a short period—said that the LGPS needed to respond to increasing longevity because it

“is not designed to pay benefits for ever increasing periods of retirement and, without change, will face extinction…Employer or taxpayer contribution rates currently take all the strain of increasing liabilities in the LGPS. This situation cannot continue and either those costs must be reduced, or employees bear a fairer share of the increasing costs.”

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I want to address some of the remarks that I have had thrown back at me as a supporter of this Bill and this coalition Government—not so much by Members, whom I have listened to carefully this evening, but in the newspapers, from the unions and from politicians in other political parties who have sought to make capital out of this issue.

Let me say clearly from the start that I—and, I believe, every single member of this coalition Government, whether from our position as Members of Parliament or from personal experience—very much support and respect the role of public sector workers across the United Kingdom. I know from personal experience about the very hard work done by the police officers in London with whom I work. I know about the paramedic who came to the aid of a member of my family recently and solved a problem for them. I also know about those who are teaching my three children the three Rs in a local state school. I know from personal experience, not just through my work, just what a good job public sector workers do, and I do not think there is anyone in this coalition Government who wants to do anything to undermine the pensions of public sector workers or undermine their role in any way whatever.

It was the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) who talked about the problems in the private sector. Although we should not be making comparisons, it is perfectly true to say that people in the private sector have lost out greatly, and they have done so partly as a result of the previous Government’s policies. We have heard all about the tax on dividends, but there are all sorts of other, subtle ways in which private sector pensions were undermined by the previous Government. They included, for example, demanding that financial institutions buy Government bonds and gilts, instead of allowing them to invest larger proportions of their money in stocks and shares, as well as enacting policies that kept stocks and share prices down. However, those are matters to be debated on another occasion.

What is clear is that we are not going to allow what happened in the private sector to happen in the public sector. We saw the misery that that caused for people—our constituents—and we do not wish to see it happen to other hard-working people. At the same time, however, we cannot ignore the fact that although people may well be doing physical jobs in the public sector, there are people in the private sector who also have to do physical jobs. We do not seem to have heard much about them. What about the lorry drivers? I used to do that job for four or five years, and it can be hard and physical. What about all the people who work in factories? What about builders? Why should they have to work so many extra years to pay for the pensions of people retiring years before them who may not be doing physical jobs at all? To some extent we have to make some comparisons.

[Mr Anderson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about workers in the private sector who should also have better arrangements. If he comes forward with a private Member’s Bill, will he allow me to become part of that process, so that we can legislate to ensure that those people are looked after properly, as public servants should be too?

[David T. C. Davies]

There is of course a wider problem. When I bring forward that Bill, which the hon. Gentleman will be supporting, I will be looking carefully at the maths, because what I think is absolutely disgraceful is promising people in the public or private sector things that cannot possibly be afforded.

I have heard the argument from trade union officials that says: “Why is this happening? It’s all because of the banks.” It has not been mentioned today, but that is something that people have come out with. However, when we examine the figures, we see that the problem has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the banks. The Treasury Committee looked at the amount of money that some banks were given—on a temporary basis; most of it will be coming back—which it calculated as about £120 billion. However, the national debt today stands at £1 trillion, which is almost 10 times that figure. Most of that debt has been caused by politicians overspending. However, when we take into account public sector pensions, the figure for the national debt goes from £1 trillion to £2 trillion at the very least. Indeed, last April the Office for National Statistics issued figures suggesting that the total amount that Britain will need to cover its pension liabilities over the next few years is £7 trillion. I must admit that I do not know how many years ahead that figure covers—I assume it covers quite a few—but it is an absolutely astonishing sum of money. I did a quick calculation and worked out that if £1 million represented 1 cm on a graph, we would need a graph that was 40 miles long, stretching all the way to Reading, to show our current liabilities. We cannot ignore the current financial situation.

Thinking about what has gone on with pensions in the past few years reminds me of an analogy. I used to work in the private sector, for a small family transport business. I wonder what would have happened if, one day, the directors of the company had gone through the books and, instead of collecting money from their workers over the years and investing it for the pensioners of the future, they had simply taken their workers’ contributions and used them to pay for the pensions of the people who were retired at that time. It would have been a sort of giant pension Ponzi scheme, and it would probably be illegal if it were ever tried out.

Anyone bringing about such a situation would have two options. One would be to pretend that there was no problem, and to try to gain short-term popularity with their work force by continuing to pay generous pensions that they could not afford. One way of doing that would be to borrow a vast sum of money from the banks to employ more people whom they could not afford, and to use their contributions to pay for the pensions of the workers who had just retired. That is more or less what has been happening over the past few years.

The alternative is far more sensible, and it is what this Government have done. We have opened up the books and said that we simply cannot afford to do this. We know that a much larger work force is going to retire in the future, and that they are going to live even longer, so there is no point in making promises that we cannot possibly keep. We have only to look at the recent history of the past 30 or 40 years to see what happens when countries can no longer balance their books. That is happening in Greece at the moment, and it has happened in recent years in Russia and Argentina, and across south-east Asia in countries such as Thailand. It happens over and over again, and we must not think that, just because this is the United Kingdom, we can somehow buck the basic rule of economics.

I am proud that this is the first Government to have gone into an election saying, “We’re not going to spend more of your money. We’ll spend as much as we can, and we will spend it well, but we are not going to make promises that we cannot afford to keep.” We are going to protect public sector workers, particularly the lowest paid, but we are also going to ensure that the country is in a financial situation that will allow it to guarantee the pensions of those public sector workers who are going to retire not just in the next few years but in the decades ahead. In other words, we are going to trade short-term popularity—the easy thing to go for—for the long-term interests of public sector pensioners in this country. I hope that Opposition Members will, for once, do the responsible thing and support us in this vital work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Let me begin by declaring an interest. For 20 years I was a member of the mineworkers pension scheme, for 16 years I was a member of the local government pension scheme, and for the past seven years I have been a member of the parliamentary pension scheme.

This is a debate about trust, or rather about the breakdown of trust. The people who are covered by the Bill are those we trust with our most precious possessions: our children, our partners, our parents, our families and our communities. As we all know, when things are going wrong it is the public servants we turn to, and in whom we place the maximum trust.

We turn to the firefighters when our safety is compromised, our homes are at risk and our lives are in danger. We turn to the police when we are in trouble, when we face the despair caused by burglary, car crime or petty theft, when our kids go missing, and when we are being persecuted by nuisance neighbours or antisocial behaviour. We turn to the nurse when we are at our lowest ebb, when we are desperate for help, and when we need real human kindness. We turn to the doctor when we are at a loss to explain our pain, when we need their skills to put us back together again, and when we feel that there is nowhere else to turn.

We turn to the social worker when we are in despair because of our parents’ dementia, when our youngsters are hooked on drugs, and when we need real help to sort out life’s real problems. We turn to the home care worker when we cannot cope any longer with our daily lives, when we need a stranger to come into our homes and become a friend, and when only an extra pair of hands will do. We turn to the teacher to take our children on to the next stage of life’s journey, to shape our kids for the world to come, and to inspire our most precious gifts.

There are so many more: the bin man, the caretaker, the school meals lady, the gravedigger, the gardener, the midwife—and, among the hundreds of others, the so-called back office staff. They are the people who make the front line work effectively, and the people whom the Government disparage most of all. All those people are trusted by us to do the right thing when we need them to. We expect—no, we demand—that they do their jobs properly, and we trust them to do so. But trust is not a one-way street: if we expect those people to do the right thing, we should do the same.

For decades, many of those workers have been putting their trust in us as representatives of the state, and have paid into pension funds every week or every month in the belief that they will be rewarded properly for their work. Let no one in the Chamber claim that public servants somehow get a free ride when it comes to pensions. As was pointed out earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), they have given up a percentage of their pay in order to have a decent retirement and not to have to rely solely on welfare payments in old age.

There is no free lunch for those workers, no matter how much the divisive policy of the Conservative party or the TaxPayers Alliance may try to claim it is so. The Bill clearly undermines the trust that these workers have been able to place in their pensions for decades. Just five years after the agreement to changes that were supposed to be affordable and sustainable, they are seeing the imposition of changes that will significantly weaken their potential to plan properly for their retirement.

We should hear no more about unaffordability until we in the House face up to our culpability in terms of where we find ourselves today. It was Members of Parliament who allowed public sector scheme employers to take lengthy contribution holidays while the lads and lasses at the front end had no such luxury. The classic example, which I raised earlier—and it is not the only one—is Royal Mail. Between 1998 and 2001, it made no contributions whatsoever to the pension fund. Now we are told that the service must be privatised because there is a huge black hole in the pension fund.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Why didn’t you do something about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

Actually, we did do something about it in 2001.

Just think what ordinary postmen and postwomen could have done with a 13-year contribution freeze. They could have bought a new house or a new car, or taken better holidays. But no, these were not things for the workers; they were just for the employers, and now the workers are feeling betrayed again.

The Government are using the economic mess that global capitalism got us into, and which they have entrenched, as an excuse to attack the future well-being of the people in whom we place our trust. Instead of letting sensible negotiations take place on sector-specific schemes, they are pressing ahead with a Bill that will have huge consequences for millions of dedicated public servants. Yes, Hutton means change, but it does not mean destabilisation and mistrust.

If people do not have trust in their pensions, two things will happen. First, those who are already in schemes will opt out, and secondly, new starters will not join. What will be the result? Ultimately, the schemes will fail, and that will not just be bad for scheme members who will not be able to rely on decent pensions when they retire. It will impose an enormous burden on the welfare system, and—as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—there will be a huge impact on the country’s investment potential if the schemes do not flourish.

Can anything be done to prevent such an outcome? We are starting from a pretty bad place. Public servants are feeling badly bruised as they face pay freezes, cuts in living standards and job losses. Three quarters of a million will be on the dole after receiving their P45s from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They face service cuts—people who have worked for donkeys’ years will go out of the door—and they have already been hit by increased pension contributions. They are having to work longer to receive their pensions, and when they do receive them, the payments will be smaller. Only a radical rethink in Committee will give us an opportunity to rebuild the trust that those people feel has gone. We must clarify what is being said here tonight and secure some real commitments from the Government if we are to have the slightest chance of giving them any confidence.

Clause 3 grants huge and retrospective powers to the Government to make further radical public sector changes without real consultation. That must be wrong. If the Government can include measures in the Bill that make it clear that the retrospective changes will not have an impact on pensions, that must be done.

Then there is the issue of the link between the state and normal pension ages. A number of Members have raised the worrying discrepancy affecting people who have worked from the age of 15 or 16, perhaps for more than 50 years, in very hard circumstances. The Government have shown a lack of faith by pressing ahead with these changes while a review is being undertaken jointly by unions and employers in the NHS. It is incredible that they should say that they will pay attention to the review after they have passed the legislation, as if it had no meaning whatsoever. What will we end up with? The potential for 68-year-old nurses to be working in mental health establishments, for 67-year-old home care workers to have to put older people to bed, and for prison officers aged 65, 66 or 67 to be fighting with men who are locked away. That is lunacy.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the establishment of a pensions board in the NHS. We need a real commitment from the Government to allow member representation on those schemes. Clause 10 empowers the Treasury to take control of valuations of pension schemes. That has never been the case before; there has always been partnership working. If the unions are cut out of the decision making on pension schemes and the schemes are seen to be determined by the Treasury, people will lose faith in the new system, as they will if the actuarial valuations are dictated by the Treasury. People do not trust the Treasury to look after them properly. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne spoke about the local government pension scheme. I hope the Minister takes on board the points raised, because it is different from other schemes.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told us that the trade unions and the Government have come to a collaborative view. I know he is from another part of the country from me, but I think he must be from another planet. The fact that the Government have done what they want to do and the unions have faced that reality and have done what they have to do, day in and day out, to try to get the best deal for their members should not in any way be mistaken for collaboration.

It always used to be said that pensions were saving for a rainy day. Well, I have got news for the Government: “It’s raining cats and dogs, and you’ve stolen the umbrellas.”

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Alarm bells are ringing from a number of eminent institutions across the country, and they are not those that one might necessarily feel were natural allies of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Nevertheless, they are saying exactly the same thing as us: when will the Treasury wake up and realise that the Government’s strategy on infrastructure—this laissez-faire approach—is singularly failing? Rather than driving new schemes forward, with their Bill and the rest of their strategy, the Government seem to be waiting for others to come forward with various schemes; they seem to be saying, “Please will you dream up some ideas?” They are hoping that something will turn up, but that is an approach characterised by drift rather than leadership when it comes to capital investment.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Is the situation not worse than that? In the early days of this Government, one of the first things they did was stop the Building Schools for the Future programme, which had been clarified and was seen as the way forward to develop new schools. There were projects involving five schools in my constituency, which would have put £80 million into the local economy, with the money spent on the private sector and building schools for those children. Those projects were frozen—the same thing happened across the country—but if they had gone ahead, we would now be in a much better position.

[Chris Leslie]

It is the long-term cost to public service quality and communities up and down the country that is the most frustrating thing about the Government’s approach. They have scrapped Building Schools for the Future. Who knows? Perhaps in a couple of years’ time they will realise the error of their ways and devise a “Funding building for schools” scheme, or cobble together some other name. It is no wonder that we are in this prolonged double-dip recession, with the Government pulling the rug from underneath the economy in the way that they have, chopping capital infrastructure investment away at its knees. It is no wonder that, for example, the construction sector has shrunk by, I think, 10% in the past 12 months. Nor is it any wonder that the “State of Trade” survey published by the Federation of Master Builders today—apparently it is the only survey of its kind looking at SME construction activity—says that 39% of respondents reported a decline in private new house building workloads in the third quarter of this year or that 40% predicted a further decline in the next quarter.

The Government’s record on capital investment and their approach to infrastructure are lamentable. It has never been clearer that they should be focusing squarely on the needs of infrastructure within the United Kingdom; hence amendment 11. Contrary to the claims of the Government—we will probably hear this from the Minister—figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the Government will have spent £6.6 billion less over the three-year period from the spending review than Labour had planned, with budgets for schools, such as BSF, and affordable housing hit especially hard.

Jobs and Growth

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). I must admit that I did not really agree with much of what he said, but I did agree with his comment about low interest rates. It has not been acknowledged enough that, without low interest rates over the past four or five years, the economy would be in a far poorer state than it is today. In the light of that, we need to be careful. At the moment those low interest rates are a foundation on which we can build. I acknowledge that we are going through difficult times, but I am convinced that the Government must stick to their guns, use some gumption and keep making the tough decisions to reduce the deficit. It is good news that we have already reduced it by 25%, but we must keep showing the world that we are serious about getting on top of our debts, reducing the deficit and dealing with the mountain of debt left by Labour. I have listened to some Labour Members’ speeches today, and they still seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way out of recession. If it were that easy, we would be doing that—[Interruption.] We are not taking the easy route, and that is not for ideological reasons. It is because we want to protect those people with mortgages and business loans, and keep as many jobs as possible.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Austin Mitchell]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

We are two years in: two years since the rose garden, two years of failure, two years of intransigence and two years of incompetence. Over those two years, the public have seen that the coalition parties are, quite simply, not up to the job that the nation has given them. The last eight weeks have seen them exposed: the reverse Robin Hood budget, the devastation at the polls and the dampest of damp squibs disguised as a Queen’s Speech. Surely somebody should apologise to Her Majesty for wasting her time.

This country is going backwards, for three reasons: the joint incompetence of the coalition, the simpering connivance of the Liberal Democrats and the ignorance and arrogance of the leadership of the parties on the Government Benches. They were going to sort out the mess that they blame us for and, yes, there is no doubt that the country was in a bad state, as were many others, but that was because of the failure of the global capitalist system. It needed repairing, but, sadly, the Government’s remedy is worse than the disease. The real sadness is that it was so predictable because the Tory boys use exactly the same methods as their predecessors in the 1930s, 1980s and 1990s. They, like those who went before them, decided to make the workers, the poor, the old, the young, the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable pay for the failures of the rich, the wealthy, the billionaires, the bankers, the tax evaders and avoiders, the market traders and the money movers who believe that they are entitled to live in a different universe from the rest of us.

How else can we explain why workers are being made redundant, having their pay frozen and their pensions cut, and being made to work longer and harder for less, while the chief executives of the FTSE 100 companies have seen an average 11% rise in the past year alone? While ordinary folk struggle to make ends meet, the masters of the universe receive an average of £3.65 million a year—an annual increase in the past year of more than £1,000 a day. That is not pay at £1,000 a day, but a rise of £1,000 a day. All in this together? If only.

That all comes only weeks after we were told that the richest 1,000 people in this country own £414 billion, but of course the leaders of the coalition believe that the fairest way to get our country back into balance is to give those rich folk even more money by giving them a tax handout while freezing pensioners’ tax allowances.

The facts are there to be seen. Under the previous Government, we saw a genuine mixed economy in which the public and private sectors worked together in partnership to the benefit of all concerned. Nowhere was that more marked than in the north-east of England, where we had a decade of growth led by our regional development agency. What do we have now? The regional growth fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) referred earlier to the damning report on that subject and she said exactly what a mess the RGF has been. We should remember that the RGF is supposed to make up for the 710,000 public servants whom the Government have decided to get rid of to pay for their policy. What a farce. What a mess they are in.

For their next trick? Let us make it easier to sack people, make it harder for people without money to seek justice in the workplace and cut so-called red tape around health and safety. Where does that leave us? It leaves us as a nation with mass unemployment, with 1 million or more kids on the dole, with a work force facing insecurity, pay cuts, worse pensions and unsafe conditions, with an economy that has gone from stagnation to recession and a Government who have no strategy. They have been in government for too long and they have been flushed out. It is time for them to go, and to go now.

Budget (North-East)

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Mearns]

That would be the case if it had not been for the hikes in VAT, which as an indirect tax particularly disbenefits the very poor in regions such as the north-east. There are significant figures showing the genuine disbenefits of that for poor people.

When William I sought to quell the north following the Norman conquest, he developed a slash-and-burn policy to subjugate the unruly barons and the Saxon citizenry, and the people of the north-east could be forgiven for thinking that the Government had developed exactly the same approach—a 21st-century scorched-earth policy for the north. In just two years, they have abolished our Minister for the north, our local authorities have had to deal with massively disproportionate cuts, our regional development agency has been eradicated and there has been a miserly investment in transport and infrastructure projects, at the same time as disposable income has been sucked out of our pockets and our high streets. My local Gateshead authority has had to cut £70 million from its budget—equivalent to £88 per head of population—losing 1,500 staff into the bargain. The average cut for the 12 north-east councils was £84 per head of population, while the 12 least-deprived local authorities in England, including Windsor and Maidenhead, Richmond upon Thames, West Berkshire and West Sussex, each lost an average of less than £20 per head of population, so we are clearly not all in this together.

Almost every aspect of the Budget looks as if it was designed to have a negative impact on the north—on our people and on our businesses. VAT on takeaway food not only most affects people with the lowest incomes but has reduced the value of Tyneside businesses, including Greggs plc, which saw £20 million to £30 million wiped off its share value when the “pasty tax” was announced. I have no doubt that the measure will also have a negative impact on the work of the Greggs Foundation, which last year donated £1.4 million to support breakfast clubs for 65 north-east primary schools, at least four of which are in my constituency. The foundation also supports youth groups in some of the most deprived communities of the north-east, and also in Scotland and Wales. So much for the big society.

In addition, the Government’s welfare benefit changes will have a massively disproportionate impact on regions such as the north-east. Currently, 11,000 people in Gateshead claim incapacity benefit and, together with the numbers on jobseeker’s allowance, almost 24,000 people are claiming out-of-work benefits. National figures show that of those people undergoing the work capability assessment, 37% have been found fit for work and 34% have been placed in the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance, but for the vast majority of them in the north-east there is no real prospect of work in the near future. If the national figures are mirrored in Gateshead, almost 8,000 people will be moved off incapacity benefit and receive lesser benefits, if anything at all.

I am told by Gateshead council that the introduction of universal credit will result in 14,500 tenants having to manage a larger personal contribution each week, which will increase demand for budgeting and money management skills, and risk more tenants being unable to manage their household budgets and resorting to expensive borrowing, including legal and illegal loan sharking. The risk of non-payment of rent, based on a calculation rate for sums not covered by housing benefit, could result in an additional £20 million not being there to be collected by local authorities, which are already struggling to cope with the punitive cuts they have endured.

Benefit reductions for under-occupancy will affect 3,478 of our current tenants in Gateshead—18% of all those with the Gateshead Housing Company. Of those, nearly 3,000 have an extra bedroom and could therefore face a 10% to 15% reduction in their benefit, and the 815 who have an extra two bedrooms could face a 20% to 25% reduction. If we magnify those numbers across the region, we could be dealing with a widespread social crisis.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is the bedroom tax not an example of how much the Government are out of touch with real people? It is not just about the costs. People who have lived in a community for decades will be forced to move because they will be unable to afford to live there, and everything they have built up over many years will be thrown away as if it means nothing.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend hits on an appropriate point. Regarding how out of touch the coalition is with the vast majority of people in regions such as the north-east, its lack of understanding of how the housing market works in such places is absolutely spot on.

I am a north-east Labour MP, so I suppose that no one will be surprised to discover that I am not impressed by the Chancellor’s support, or lack of it, for the region. However, the north-east’s business community is equally unimpressed. The North East chamber of commerce has said:

“The extra cut in corporation tax is welcome and will help stimulate investment in the UK. However, relatively few North East firms will benefit from this, and we would have preferred to see a greater focus on strengthening investment allowances and cutting employment taxes, to address the two key weaknesses in the North East economy.”

Although it does not deal specifically with the north-east, the Federation of Small Businesses wrote to me when it found out that I had secured this debate, asking that I highlight its concerns. The FSB said:

“We asked for a Budget with long-term measures to help to instil confidence, rather than a barrage of micro-measures that have a limited impact on the ground. We are pleased with some of the actions to cut the burden of red tape, help to get our young workers into employment, and measures to improve access to finance…However, petrol prices remain a major concern for small businesses and we would have liked some further action on reducing the level of fuel duty to help struggling small firms.”

The cost of fuel, although important to all UK businesses, is crucial to maintaining competitiveness in regions such as the north-east. One local business that makes plastic milk bottles informed me that its biggest cost is the cost of fuel. Let us face it: in effect, that business’s biggest cost is transporting its product, which is 90% fresh air, around the UK. Given the geographical location of the north-east and the vital importance of manufacturing employment, was it too much to ask that the Government reduce fuel costs for businesses and maintain jobs in the regions?

The Federation also commented that it welcomed the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, but said that recent figures clearly show that lending under the scheme is falling rather than rising, and that the Chancellor must do a lot more to encourage banks to increase their lending to small firms without requiring the excessive personal guarantees that deter small businesses, particularly in areas such as the north-east.

The Association of North East Councils, which represents the 12 north-east authorities, was also unimpressed, reporting that almost 50% of businesses in the region have no plans to increase staff numbers in the coming months but are hanging on before deciding on reductions. Weakening sales and poor service sector performance are still preventing much-needed growth to offset public sector employment cuts. Job loss in the north-east as a whole is four times deeper than in the rest of the country. None of that has been helped by the complete lack of recognition or action in the Chancellor’s Budget.

This Government are now doing to public services in the north what they did so successfully in the 1980s to our traditional industries of mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering: bringing them to ruin and laying them waste. If the Government’s plan to replace those jobs is to build the private sector, why are they doing virtually nothing for the north-east? The main problem is not that they are doing nothing but that they are making things worse. For the young in particular, they are removing hope.

The Government have not recognised that for a region such as the north-east, geography and the new politics of the United Kingdom are realities that must be considered. Scotland is just over the border. The Scots at Holyrood still have economic development and tourism strategies and are still offering inward investment incentives, all important determinants whether a company invests in Scotland or the north-east, but the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills seem oblivious. For example, Amazon, despite considering a site in the north-east, has located in Edinburgh, purely on the basis of the grants available. Given the existing imbalance in Edinburgh’s favour, the decision to locate the Green investment bank there seems like a political and economic knee in the groin for regions such as the north-east of England.

In last year’s autumn statement, the Chancellor made much of the Government’s plans for our national infrastructure, emphasising the importance of capital spending on infrastructure to support the UK’s long-term growth prospects. He outlined £30 billion in spending, including an immediate increase of £5 billion in Government spending. As one of their central economic priorities, the Government have defined a number of ways in which they wish to rebalance the economy away from over-reliance on public sector jobs and towards private sector employment; away from over-reliance on financial services and towards manufacturing and export industries; away from over-reliance on the south-east and towards more balanced economic growth across the UK.

The Chancellor’s statement emphasised that every region in England will benefit from that infrastructure spending. He even listed a host of road and rail projects in England in his speech. However, research by the Institute for Public Policy Research on the detail behind the Chancellor’s statement paints a different picture. Behind the empty rhetoric and claims of rebalancing, we find that 11 of the 20 largest infrastructure projects will benefit London and the south-east, only five will benefit the three northern regions and more than half of regional transport projects involving public funding will benefit London.

Considered together, London and the south-east account for 84% of planned spending, compared with only 6% for the three northern regions and an unbelievably minuscule 0.04% for the north-east. That equates to £2,731 per head of population for London and the south-east, more than all the other regions combined, compared with £201 in Yorkshire and Humber, £134 in the north-west and just £5 in the north-east of England. A fiver is what we are worth, in comparative terms, in the UK of today. For each £1,000 of gross value added generated in 2009, £81 is being spent on transport projects in London, £38 in the south-east, £12 in Yorkshire and Humber, £8 in the north-west and less than 50p in the north-east.

This Chancellor and this Government have spoken in duplicitous terms, but I now wonder whether they have given up even trying to talk a good fight when it comes to rebalancing the economy. They have clearly been saying one thing and doing another, looking after their home patch while slashing and burning the regions of England. To make matters even worse, they prefer to exemplify the north-east as a basket case. Before this bunch came to office, nothing could have been further from the truth. Thanks to the support of its 12 local authorities and the regional development agency, the north-east had developed an economy that was strong, dynamic and diversified compared with when a Conservative Government last laid waste to it in the 1980s.

However, in a typically knee-jerk, ideological and spiteful reaction, this Government have abolished our RDA, despite the fact that during the last three months of 2011, the north-east enjoyed record high growth in exports. Goods worth £13.5 billion were sold overseas from the north-east, up from £12 billion the previous year. If every other region in the United Kingdom were performing as well in those terms as the north-east, we would be doing rather well indeed.

Only yesterday, I received e-mail confirmation from the largest private sector employer in my constituency—AkzoNobel, known locally as International Paints—that last year it received an essential grant from One North East to support the establishment of its fire protection research and development facility. Recently produced documentation on the legacy of One North East showed that during the past 10 years, the north-east enjoyed the greatest level of economic growth outside London, and that during the last Government, the development agency helped to increase the region’s employment massively and its number of businesses and GVA to among the highest in the country.

Before the RDA’s inception, our regional economy was falling further behind other English regions. Since it was established in 1999, only London has experienced greater economic growth, but this Government have replaced the RDAs with local enterprise partnerships, which have no powers and little or no funding, and the much-heralded regional growth fund, which has delivered only modest amounts of direct aid to companies in the north-east.

From 1999 onwards, employment in the north-east rose at the third highest rate in the country after London and Yorkshire and Humber, and 116,000 jobs were created, representing growth of 11.2%. We also had the highest growth in new businesses, 18.7%, and the highest growth outside London in GVA per head of population. Tourism, conferencing and inward investment were all significantly boosted by the RDA’s “Passionate people, passionate places” campaign. The agency’s work on low-carbon vehicle production and green energy generation are legacies on which we could build if only the Government had a credible policy for the economy.

We had a credible policy for growth in the region, a credible policy for jobs and a credible policy to rebalance England’s economy, which included the idea that the north-east is a place to do business. Sadly, this Government have none of those, and prospects for my region remain bleak. Disposable income is being sucked out of our communities through public sector job losses, wage freezes and benefit cuts.

Before the recess, the Newcastle Journal published an editorial headlined “Never mind a Heathrow runway”, which stated:

“It would be a terrible shame if the row over party funding deafened the Government to the findings of the OECD. Its report makes grim reading for the region, but not simply because it highlights the problems caused by rotten infrastructure, poor connectivity and the lack of continuity in government. No, what really hurts is that a Paris-based organisation has been able to recognise basic, obvious, well-known facts that should not have been possible to ignore. Yet successive administrations in London have managed that feat damagingly well. Never mind arguing about a third runway at Heathrow, how about helping the North East instead?”

What are the Chancellor’s answers to these regional conundrums—a brain wave, a stroke of genius, an innovative investment package? No, what we got was the concept of regional pay. If that is the direction that he wants to take, perhaps we could also ask him to consider regionally reduced utility bills for gas, electricity, water and telephones, and while we are at it, cheaper council tax and grocery bills. If the Chancellor or the Prime Minister fancy paying £250,000 for the privilege of dinner with the chief executives of Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons, they could ask them, “Could the supermarkets reduce the cost of shopping in the regions, please?” They could also ask representatives of the east coast main line to charge regionally reduced fares for journeys to London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I shall break with the habit of a lifetime and say something good about the Government. I welcome the news about what is happening with Nissan, but the context is that without intervention from our Government four years ago, Nissan might not have been in the position that it is in now. We introduced the scrappage scheme and reduced VAT. We gave grants so that battery electric cars could be developed and brought forward the training budget, which kept people from being laid off. Compare that with what the present Government did in respect of the building schools for the future fiasco. In Gateshead alone, £80 million was earmarked for five schools in March 2010, but the Secretary of State for Education took that money away in May, despite recognising, in meetings with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), that the schools needed to be refurbished and rebuilt. The crazy thing is that, although the money would have gone to Gateshead council, it would just have passed it on to the private sector to build and furnish the schools and put the infrastructure in. So now everybody loses, including the public sector, the children and the private sector.

The RDAs have been mentioned a lot. The RDA was successful in the north-east of England. We have been here before; this is not new for us. Exactly the same programme and attitude that we saw in the 1980s and ’90s is being repeated now. People are being thrown on the dole with no hope or support, no way forward and no framework for intervention. The RDA worked because people came together—unions, employers and the public sector—partnership building, working together, bringing in international support and making things work. That is why it is a real shame that the RDA has gone and has been replaced by the regional growth fund, which is nothing more than a farce and a joke.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend tells me that during discussions on the RDAs in the main Chamber, on more than one occasion senior Ministers—in fact, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills—said that the RDA in the north-east was the flagship RDA and was working very well indeed.

[Mr Anderson]

I could not agree more. People will remember when they could believe what the Liberal Democrats said, although that was some time ago. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills now says that he supported the RDAs, but the leader was not sure. It is now clear that the Liberal Democrats are being dictated to for ideological reasons. Anything that smacks of being positive about the public sector has to go. That is why we are suffering in our region.

Look at chaos and incompetence that has come from the Budget. People at the bottom have been hit: people with disabilities, old people, vulnerable people, children and women. Benefits have been cut. Millionaires have had tax cuts while pensioners’ tax levels are frozen. Government Members talk about taking people out of tax. They have taken a lot of people in Gateshead out of tax: 1,600 people have been taken out of tax because they have been put on the dole by the cuts, and 710,000 people from the public sector are being put on the dole and will not be paying tax or national insurance and will not be buying goods and services. Lessons from the past have not been learned. These things will have an impact on the economy.

The pasty tax is, to some extent, a joke. However, I am worried that it is classed as a harmonisation and simplification of the tax system; if that is so, will the Minister tell me what else she is going to simplify and harmonise that does not have VAT on it? Are there any other plans to increase the scope of VAT? Will she give us a guarantee today that VAT will not be extended to any other part of the tax system?

We all know about the impact of the charities tax. Because the Government cannot control the people who are avoiding and evading tax, the charities that the Government expect to cover for the job and service cuts in the public sector will not be able to do so. Charities in my region tell me that they are already suffering because of funding cuts and that, if money does not come from private investors, they will go even further down that road.

The application of VAT to listed buildings has had a disastrous impact. Ryton Holy Cross church in my constituency magnificently raised £300,000 in 15 years. Now, it would have had to raise £360,000 to do exactly the same work. People are telling me that that fills them with despair.

This Budget exposed the Government’s incompetence. They are not up to the job. The best thing that they could do for our region and our country is to go now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to do that as well as to respond to other hon. Members in three minutes, but I value his Back Benchers more than he does, and I wish to talk about local pay. The hon. Member for Gateshead focused much of his contribution on that issue, and I wish to reassure him about something that he already knows. At this stage, the Government are not setting out detailed proposals; they are asking experts how public sector pay might better reflect local markets. Localising pay has the potential to improve the resources available to private sector businesses that need to compete with higher public sector wages. It can improve or reduce unfair variations in the quality of public services, and tackle a limit on the number of jobs that the public sector can maintain created by having to support disproportionate wages. The principle of local pay has already been established, and I confirm, as has been mentioned, that the Labour party did that in 2007.

I will move on briefly to pasties and the sausage rolls mentioned by the hon. Member for Redcar. The point is that the Budget closes loopholes and addresses anomalies to ensure a level playing field. The National Federation of Fish Friers states:

“There should be a level playing field. Why should the UK’s fish and chip shops have to pay 20 per cent. on all the hot food they sell…when the bakery next door sells hot pies, pasties and sausage rolls free of VAT?”

The Budget seeks to introduce that level playing field.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid that I do not have time because I must respond to concerns about local government funding and the claim that local authorities in the north-east have taken disproportionate cuts. As I have made clear, the previous Government left an appalling economic and financial mess, and we have a moral obligation to pay back our debts as quickly as possible. Therefore, tough decisions are necessary. The hon. Member for Gateshead will know that the formula grant in his area will be nearly £555 per person in 2011-12, compared with an average of £372 across England. That reflects the higher level of need in Gateshead, and I expect him to welcome that. In the light of issues raised by hon. Members, the Government’s key priority is returning the UK economy to sustainable, economic growth.

Before time runs out, I want to talk about local enterprise partnerships. Such partnerships have radically reshaped the way businesses and the Government interact at local level, and they mark a sharp break from the top-down, politically driven regional policy of the previous Government. The winners of the first two rounds of the regional growth fund are expected to create over 13,500 direct jobs and 25,000 indirect jobs in the north-east, including at Gateshead college in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The Government are taking forward an ambitious work programme that will assist with city deals for core regions, and I encourage all hon. Members present to engage with that.

Amendment of the Law

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

I received a letter this morning from my local county council, Northumberland, saying how pleased it was to have got £7 million for the roll-out of broadband. I take from that letter that the council is quite satisfied. I know the council ran a campaign and met the Minister, and I wrote to him as well. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out. I am not sure that £7 million is enough to cover rural Northumberland—it is a big county and sparsely populated, so we will need some money to get it right—but I hope it works out.

I am disappointed that we did not get our enterprise zone on the River Blyth. The Chancellor mentioned in the autumn statement that he would look at the programme—we submitted a programme for 100 hectares on the river and port of Blyth—but it was not mentioned in the Budget statement. There are to be two enterprise zones in Scotland, up the road from us. I hope that he has not forgotten us and that we are still in with a chance. We have high unemployment in Blyth Valley, south-east Northumberland and Wansbeck.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Perhaps my hon. Friend should get some wealthy Northumberland business men to pay a quarter of a million pounds to have lunch with the Chancellor. Then he might get an LEZ in Blyth.

[Mr Campbell]

The only place I could take them is the canteen. I might get something there, but I am sure I would not get anything in Downing street.

The 50p tax rate has been widely discussed since the Budget statement. We were told it does not do anything and that no one is paying it, which makes me wonder why we have it. We have just heard the previous Chancellor explain why he put it on, but I have to ask: if people can fiddle a 50p rate, surely they can fiddle a 45p rate? And if they are fiddling the 50p rate, what else are they fiddling?

In the Budget statement, we heard the Chancellor say he opposes people fiddling their taxes. I have been here 25 years—I suppose I am an old man compared with some—and I have heard that time and again. Every Chancellor in history—certainly while I have been here—has said, “I’m going to come down heavy on tax evaders”, but what do we see? People making profits in this country and swanning off with their swag to some tax haven—an island somewhere. They cannot go to Switzerland now, because the Swiss will give the show away, but the Government should remember the old saying, “There’s honour among thieves.” There is honour among bankers as well, so I doubt they will be getting much information from the Swiss.

The Liberals have been telling us how wonderful the Budget is, but 14,000 people in this country are going to get a £40,000 tax rebate at the expense of £3 billion from old people—pensioners. I always thought the Liberals had a little heart in them. I do not know what deal they did to get what they wanted, but I am getting a weary feeling in my bones that they sold out the health service to what they think is a good deal. I am sure, when it comes down to it, that is what they did. They sat round the table and told the Tories, “We’ll get your health Bill through Parliament, but we want this and we want that.” Well, they have come unstuck, because in fact they are getting nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I would certainly remind them of that, and of the fact that the need to maintain the credibility of this country’s fiscal position should override any such considerations.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In the assessment the Chief Secretary is undertaking, will he let us know about the extent of the income tax and national insurance losses that will result from the sacking of between 7,000 and 10,000 public servants? Does he expect the benefit bill to go up, and if so, by how much?

[Danny Alexander]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had to make some very difficult decisions in order to deal with the enormous Budget deficit left to this country by Labour. If his party had not left a mess, we would not have to clean it up.

Living Standards

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge, having formerly worked for the Child Poverty Action Group, and what she says should hold great sway with the House.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In response to the question from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about people being taken out of tax, will my hon. Friend agree that more people are being taken out of tax—and put on the dole? What is that costing us? Some 700,000 public sector workers have gone on the dole in this country. Not only will they not be paying tax but they will not be paying national insurance, which will make things even worse for this country.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we all know, unemployment is at a 17-year high and youth unemployment at an all-time high. That is taking more people out of tax and costing taxpayers more and more every day, as the bills of this failed economic policy add up.

The Economy

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The shadow Chancellor makes the point that the Government are trying to borrow their way out of a crisis. I suggest that we are actually borrowing our way into a bigger crisis. [Laughter.]

[Ed Balls]

Government Members may laugh at an 80% rise in youth unemployment, but that is not a laughing matter for the young people concerned, or for our economy. [Interruption.] I am going to make this point because it is very important. It goes to the heart of the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, I welcome a number of things set out in the autumn statement, such as the increased money for infrastructure that will come to Northern Ireland. It will not make up for the 40% cut in capital spending announced in the Budget, but it will fill some of the gaps. Secondly, I wish the Chancellor well in his battle with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and perhaps the Prime Minister, as he takes on the green lobby and seeks to strike a balance in the economy and redress the damage that many green policies are doing to industry.

I will focus on some of the points that have been made on the need for growth. All the problems that have been identified as impeding growth in the UK economy overall are magnified in Northern Ireland. First, there is the heavy dependence on the public sector, which means that public sector spending cuts have a greater impact. Secondly, there is the difficulty businesses have in obtaining finance from banks in an economy that is heavily dependent upon failed Irish banks and where penetration by UK mainland banks is not great. Of course, the problems in the eurozone have been magnified because we live next door to, and are heavily dependent upon, an economy that has been greatly affected by what has happened in the eurozone and the austerity measures that the Irish Government have had to take. Indeed, many more such measures were announced yesterday in the Irish budget.

One of the things the Chancellor has focused on, and rightly so, is the importance of keeping interest rates low, and I do not think that any Member disagrees with that. It has an impact on businesses and mortgages and on those who have taken out loans, so it is correct that we should be following policies that keep interest rates low. However, I do not accept that they have been kept low in the UK only because of his plan A and his austerity measures. Looking at the reasons, one sees that of course economic management and confidence in it is important, but so too is the fact that the Bank of England has been buying up £220 billion-worth of Government bonds as a result of quantitative easing. That has injected confidence that other European countries that have been mentioned today would perhaps not have had because the European Central Bank has not done the same.

Secondly, we also have the flexibility to adjust our exchange rate and so have a way of stimulating some growth, whereas many European countries that are tied to the euro do not have that. Thirdly, even though the Government have admitted that their plan for getting rid of the deficit will not be fulfilled in the set period and that they will have to borrow more than expected, the financial markets have not deserted the UK. In fact, they have remained solid. I believe that one of the reasons for that is that we are not regarded in the way that some of the other European countries are, for the very reasons I have given. If anything, the Government ought to capitalise on that. If the markets are prepared to lend to pay for unemployment, would they not be even more willing to lend to pay for investment in infrastructure that could give growth which, in turn, could provide the ability to pay back the debt we already have? Rather than walking away from borrowing, and from borrowing—perhaps only modestly—to do the things that Members have mentioned today, the Government should capitalise on the reputation that their management and our flexibility outside the eurozone gives the Chancellor when it comes to borrowing money.

There are already signs that the Government know their plan is wrong: they are engaged in quantitative easing, which is a way of stimulating the economy by monetary means; and in the autumn statement they indicated that they were prepared to spend more money on infrastructure. They ought then to look at what they can do and at what borrowing they can undertake not to pay to leave people sitting at home, but to pay to get them into work, growing the economy and generating tax revenues.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said that he did not want to see the public sector increase, but such borrowing would not have to be for the public sector. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) mentioned VAT cuts for the building industry. That would not increase the size of the public sector; it would stimulate the private sector and grow the economy.

[Mr Anderson]

In reality, can the two sectors not work together? My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned a classic example, Building Schools for the Future, for which we had money earmarked in our constituencies. In my constituency, there was £80 million, and it would have gone not to the public sector but to Gateshead council, which would have passed it straight on to private sector builders to build the schools that we need. Is that not the way we should be working our way out of this crisis?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. Borrowing does not necessarily have to mean a bigger, bloated public sector; it can be directed in many other ways that would meet the demands of even some Government Members. In Northern Ireland, tourism is a huge industry, and selective cuts in VAT could stimulate spending there and help the Finance Minister to realise the potential to increase tourist numbers by 3.5 million over the next two years, thereby generating private sector growth and helping us to rebalance the economy.

Things can be done and there is potential. The Government have more flexibility than they accept, and if we are to deal with the social strain, the economic hardship and the impact on businesses we need to see examples of that flexibility in order to get back on to a path to growth and back into a position where we can repay our debts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Last week was the week when the bubble burst and the Conservatives had to accept what everybody else knew: that the Chancellor had got it wrong on growth, this year and next; on unemployment, up by half a million next year; on borrowing, going up to £158 billion; on children in poverty, again set to rise; and on hitting women the hardest. The House of Commons Library says that the effect of cuts to tax credits and attacking public sector pay will impact on 73% of the women involved. There is complete humiliation for the Chancellor and even more damage to our economy, but who carries the can for the failure of the system? The old, the young, the jobless, the disabled and the women of this country.

As always, when capitalism fails, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. We should look back to the 1930s. Only a few weeks ago, young people marched to London in a sad echo of the crusades of those who left Jarrow 75 years ago. Those brave souls in 1936 did not march to London for the exercise—they did it because they were starving, jobless, and desperate. Just like today, they were turned away empty-handed and made to carry the can for a mess they did not create.

We all know that history repeated itself in the 1980s, when the country was led in a series of recessions by a neo-liberal Government who saw the deindustrialisation of this nation as a price worth paying. They destroyed not only the coal mining and shipbuilding industries of this country but the manufacturing industry that those industries helped to create and that was making leading, cutting-edge technology for the coal-mining industry. Why did we do that? Because the market demanded that we did it. It said that British coal was too expensive and that we needed cheaper coal to deliver cheap power. The Government’s response was, “That’s okay. It’s a price worth paying.” They were not paying it and their constituents were not paying it; the people in my part of the world were paying it. The outcome was that hundreds and thousands of lives were decimated, local communities withered and died, and support industries died off.

The truth remains that it is the less well-off, the poor, the frail, the poorly educated who lose the most, while those in charge—the ones to blame—get off scot-free. What else can we say when we face a situation where a quarter of our children will be living in poverty, record numbers of people are out of work, and those lucky enough to retain a job face pay freezes, an unprecedented drop in living standards, and a real lack of security, while at the same time Barclays makes a £11.6 billion profit and pays only £113 million in corporation tax, and its poor chief executive is paid only a measly quarter of a million pound salary but, luckily for him, it is topped up with a bonus of £6.5 million?

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate argument, as ever. The Chancellor said earlier that the only people who were calling for an alternative were, in effect, communists. Does my hon. Friend share my sense of disgust at the Chancellor’s slurring the democratically elected Government of Denmark, who are engaged in a stimulus programme and have seen their bond yields fall?

[Mr Anderson]

I am very clear that the Chancellor is trying to pretend that nobody else in the world wants what we want. The whole world is crying out for a change to a system that has let it down.

The people of this country—the nurses, the doctors, the care workers—are carrying the can for the failure of global capitalism. We now know that 98 of the top 100 FTSE-listed companies are avoiding £20 billion-plus of tax by putting their money into offshore tax havens.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about high pay and tax evasion; we are trying to do all we can about that. As regards stimulating the economy, what would he say about the situation in America, where that stimulus has been tried and it is now £15 trillion in debt?

[Mr Anderson]

I will come to what the hon. Lady’s party has had to say and pick up her point then.

It is little wonder that we are in a mess. We are told that even in the City of London—the heart of capitalism—job vacancies have fallen by 16% in a single month. In the past month alone, retail sales have dropped by 1.7% despite huge pre-Christmas discounts. The Engineering Employers Federation says that it expects a drop in its production from 2.2% to 0.9% next year. But do not worry—the Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the hon. Lady’s party, tells us that he is going to crack down on top corporate pay. Does that mean that he will do what he and his friends in the Conservative party are doing to public sector workers—to nurses, doctors, firefighters and policemen—by putting a two-year pay freeze and a 1% cap on to private sector pay and the fat cats? Of course not. The Deputy Prime Minister tells us:

“I don’t mean the government starts going around setting pay rates in the private sector...I believe that people should be well paid if they succeed.”

Can he tell me where the nurses, the doctors, the firefighters, the police, the home care workers, the child care workers, and millions of others are failing?

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

As everyone is aware, the Prime Minister referred to last week’s day of action as a “damp squib”. I think that it was anything but a damp squib. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the coalition Government stay on the course they are on at the moment, there will be many more squibs and none of them will be damp?

[Mr Anderson]

I certainly hope that there is no need for any more squibs, damp or otherwise. It was absolutely wrong that people felt forced to go on strike last week, but they felt that they had no option because the Government were clearly not listening; I hope that they are now.

All in this together? What a laugh! Has Bob Diamond really become 5,000% more successful than his predecessor was 30 years ago? Of course not, but his salary is 5,000% more than his predecessor’s was in the early 1980s. The people who are running our public services are asking, “Where is the fairness?” At a time when other people are wandering around with massive pay packets, they are losing their jobs by the bucketful. Last week, in a throwaway line, the Chancellor dropped in the horribly disrespectful term, “headcount”, when he said that the headcount of job losses in the public sector would rise from 400,000 to 710,000. The headcount! These are men and women, flesh and blood—people with kids, with mortgages, with debt, and with holidays, cars and Christmas to pay for, and they face a future with no hope because this Government put the interests of the market before the interests of the people. It is economic madness driven by an ideology that does not care about the impact on real people.

Of course, the Conservatives will argue that this is all necessary. Perhaps we could accept that if it was actually working, but we see now that it is not. This year, in the north-east alone, 32,000 public sector jobs have gone, 1,080 of them at Gateshead council, with another £38 million cuts to come next year. We will have more people on the dole, poorer service delivery and more hardship all round. It is the classic Tory remedy, and we have seen it all before. Mervyn King may well be right—this might be the worst crisis in our history—but, sadly, the Tories are using exactly the same old methods to get out of it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) said, we need a real dialogue that puts the needs of ordinary people first, and not the demands of the market. We need to move away from the appalling situation that we are in yet again, where bankers and people in the money markets are acting like the arsonist who burns your house down and then comes back next week and offers to rebuild it for you and charges you twice the price for doing it. This is a challenge to all parties in this country, including mine. We need to go beyond the narrowness of the past 30 years and look to develop an economic system that ignores the markets and does right for the people of this country.

Autumn Statement

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I want to ensure, in the way that I set out, that the national loan guarantee scheme is available to companies with a turnover of less than £50 million. As I mentioned in my statement, the business finance partnership, which has not had as much attention as the national loan guarantee scheme, is a £1 billion fund—it can be more if it succeeds—specifically targeted at mid-cap companies to provide non-bank financing for those companies alongside, for example, pension and insurance funds.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

At a time when inflation is 5% and when the average nurse in this country has had a two-year pay freeze, faces two years of a 1% pay limit, a 3% theft on her pension and frozen or capped increments, does the Chancellor agree that over this Parliament the average nurse’s living standards will fall by 10%, and that, if the plans for regional pay go through, people in the regions might be even worse off?

[Mr Osborne]

First, we have committed to real increases in the health budget, and the official—

[Mr Anderson]

Talk about pay!

[Mr Osborne]

Well, the pay comes out of the health budget, and the official policy of the Labour party is not to increase health spending in real terms. [Interruption.] This is rubbish: that is the stated position of the shadow Health Secretary; that is what he says. On pay, I want to hear from the shadow Chancellor at some point this evening whether he supports a 1% average pay rise in the next few years, because then we will know whether the complaints that the hon. Gentleman has just made have any force.

Northern Rock

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

If this is the best time to sell Northern Rock—a time when it has made a loss, with the implication of what the Minister has said being that it has already made a loss for part way through next year—does that not show what the real story here is? It is not about the bank, but about the fact that the Government are tacitly agreeing today that the economy will be no better, or worse, in the next two years than it has been in the past year and a half, under their stewardship?

[Mr Hoban]

I do not agree with that at all. If the hon. Gentleman had spoken to Northern Rock employees over the past few months, as I have, he would have found that they clearly have the capacity to expand their services beyond what is currently on offer; they can cope with a bigger flow of savings and mortgages. That is good news, because it will enable Northern Rock to cope with the volumes that should flow from the acquisition by Virgin Money. If we did not sell Northern Rock now, the risk is that there would be further job losses to try to cut the cost base in line with the current business book. That would not be a good outcome for Northern Rock or its employees. The prospect of moving to Virgin Money has lifted the uncertainty from over the heads of Northern Rock employees. As one of them said to me on Thursday, “This is like an early Christmas present.”