Autumn Statement

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It seems like the autumn statement is a tailor-made package for the marathon run that my hon. Friend is undertaking. In view of the brilliant work that he does in his community and the brilliant work of the Forget Me Not hospice, I am pleased that the VAT refund, along with the abolition of the jobs tax on apprenticeships, will be so welcome. My hon. Friend must send me a sponsorship form. Every year I sponsor the shadow Chancellor, so the least I can do is to sponsor my hon. Friend.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

As a former universities Minister, I welcome the loan scheme for masters students in the statement. However, could not the Chancellor say more about the structure of the economy? The reason why the tax receipts are so low is partly because Britain has lost 1.2 million jobs in the skilled middle section of the economy—the plumbers and the mechanics, for example. Many of those jobs have been replaced by customer services, which certainly forms the increase in London. Will the Chancellor say something about how to restructure the economy, as we have heard nothing about that today?

[Mr Osborne]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair about the autumn statement, but I agree with the challenge he presented to us—how to improve the productivity of the United Kingdom. The measures we take to support postgraduate loans and to support apprenticeships, alongside the education reforms at primary and secondary level that my right hon. Friends the Education Secretary and her predecessor have implemented, are all designed to try to improve the skills in the country. We are all working together to try to address the productivity challenge that we face. Frankly, we faced it for a long time in the past, as our productivity lagged behind some of our European competitors, let alone that of the rest of the world. We need to do more. That can be achieved in London partly by investments in infrastructure, including those in the Tottenham area.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

I will.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

That is generous.

[Ian Swales]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying about child care. I wonder whether she is going to mention the 85% of child care costs that will be paid for people who are on universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Budget debate. I begin by welcoming the Chancellor’s announcement on new housing developments at Brent Cross and Barking-Riverside, and the overground extension at Barking. Those are much needed in London. There were also important announcements for the air ambulance service in London, particularly a reduction in VAT on fuel, which I know will be welcomed by the London ambulance service. For those who have campaigned for many years on air passenger duty—the Minister will recognise that that has been a real sore in the Caribbean community throughout this country and I know that Northern Ireland Members have also raised the issue—the announcements were surprising but very welcome.

I had hoped that the Chancellor would deal with one of the central challenges in our economy, which The Spectator described as one of the biggest and most disturbing social changes of our age: the polarisation in the unemployment market, referred to in a BIS report last year. Britain now has an hourglass economy, with a significant chunk of jobs at the top end—those on huge salaries in the banking industry or those who are part of the global industrial nature of our world—and a shrinking of jobs for those in the middle level and those who are working up and hoping to take part in our economy. It is why there is such a debate about the living wage and the minimum wage. We heard nothing in this debate about how we are to deal with this hourglass economy.

Our economy has lost 1.2 million semi-skilled jobs that so many hon. Members would have recognised just a few decades ago. I am talking about the manual operators, the secretarial and administrative jobs that existed in our economy. People are being squeezed as a result. Of the newly created jobs, 300,000 are in customer services. The number of men working in customer services has risen by 46%. There is a real issue about the quality of jobs in this economy, and how working people can provide for their families. Some 88% of Londoners are now reliant on the service economy. The fundamental question for any Chancellor is whether that is satisfactory when the bulk of those services are in the retail economy. We say that the economy is looking better and consumers are spending a bit more, but can we not learn from the economic crash in the first place and ask for an economy based on creativity and innovation, and not one based on consumption and predatory practices, as the Government seem to applaud without dealing with the structural problems in our economy?

I want to see more manufacturing in our capital city. If New York can do it, so can we. Advanced manufacturing means that people are paid more. We ought to be setting that as our aim, but the Budget did not seem to deal with those issues. Of course one welcomes the extra 15,000 homes in Ebbsfleet, but the vision is poor. Eleven new towns were set up in the Abercrombie plan—look to Stevenage, Crawley and Peterborough, where I went to school. The idea that we will solve our housing crisis with 15,000 homes is, frankly, pathetic.

In London, people’s rents have increased eight times faster than their salary and an average property costs 16 times the salary of those who want to buy their own home. The average age of a first-time buyer in London is 38 and they are doing it with the help of the bank of mum and dad: 70% of them are borrowing from their parents in order to get a deposit and get on the ladder. I did not hear enough about how this Budget will deal with the big housing challenge this country faces.

I welcome the decisions on energy in particular, but if we are really going to be a creative economy and the innovation nation that we have to be in order to compete with so many other countries, research and development is critical, but spending on it in Britain dropped again last year by 8%. What was in this Budget to support R and D and ensure that we will be the innovation nation that we have to be? Not enough.

The Budget felt complacent. It gave the impression that all is good. Apparently we are all in it together, but in fact, when this House votes on the Budget, we will be voting, in effect, for an increase in our pay, because the thresholds have changed and we will benefit. My concern is for the many out there who will not benefit from this Budget—the many who are dependent on an economy with structural problems that are not being addressed, on housing and on those jobs that that this country needs. We should see more from this Government.

Air Passenger Duty

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not want to get into the complexities of how APD is calculated, but anyone with just a basic knowledge of geography knows that the Caribbean is closer than California, yet California is regarded as closer in terms of calculating APD. Even here there are anomalies that have regional impacts.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Have the Northern Irish been able to forge any solidarity with the small nations in the Caribbean that are suffering in this way? The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are many British citizens of Caribbean background and, as they are certainly not the country’s richest citizens, many of them cannot afford, as a family of four, £332 extra in APD to fly back to the Caribbean on a once-in-a-lifetime trip.

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although this tax is regarded by some as a tax on the rich and therefore a progressive tax, it is not: it is a flat-rate tax and therefore it is a regressive tax. Many of those who are hit are travelling on holidays or to see their families, and they save up for that even though many of them are on low incomes. Indeed, 45% of those who are hit by it would be regarded as being on medium or below-medium incomes, yet they pay the same tax as those earning more than £80,000. Leaving aside the impact on growth, on exports and on industry, the regressive nature of the tax makes it an unfair tax, and that is another reason this issue needs to be looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and I will certainly think about it. My earlier remarks hinted at the existence of the Airports Commission, which will look at all the UK’s airports, the role they play for travellers and how we deal with those who come here by whichever means.

[Mr Lammy]

On the Minister’s broader point, it is incredibly interesting to hear a Conservative arguing at the Dispatch Box that the highest taxation of this sort in the world is necessary. Is that consistent with the hon. Lady’s position in Loughborough?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As a Conservative, I believe in the lowest tax possible, but I also believe in running the economy as responsibly as possible, meaning that what we get in, we spend out. That was put out of kilter by the legacy of the previous Government. We have been very clear about the reason for APD and the role it plays. We cannot choose to ignore £3 billion when we have to deal with the deficit and legacy left to us by the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was at times a member.

Infrastructure

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about infrastructure in our capital city, London. The capital is about to be hit by a demographic time bomb, which seems to have taken both the Government and City hall by surprise. The Mayor’s London plan forecast that the capital’s population would be 8.5 million by 2027, but we know that that is likely to be exceeded in 2016 or earlier, and by 2031, there will be 9.5 million people living here in London. Today’s creaking infrastructure will be burdened by 1.5 million extra people.

The House has already heard the depressing detail of the housing shortage here in London, with young couples unable to save for a deposit, families of six being squashed into flats built for three, and young professionals being extorted out of more rent by their landlord and more fees by their letting agent. Less has been said about London’s transport network, which is already at breaking point and is set to be pushed over the edge. We now require the sort of vision that gave us the London underground 150 years ago.

Right hon. and hon. Members will already know about the scrum to get on the tube at rush hour. How much worse will that become over the next decade, in which an additional 700,000 jobs will be located in central London? How much more congested will it be when High Speed 2 ferries even more passengers into central London terminals at peak times? For that privilege, Londoners are paying the highest transport fares in the world.

Yet these are problems that some Londoners are envious of, because parts of our capital remain islands of isolation. Even in 2013 some of my constituents are served by only one train an hour and at weekends none at all—here in our capital city, in one of the poorest wards, Northumberland Park, which has the highest unemployment, the highest levels of child poverty and the lowest levels of attainment in the country. Without transport links, such areas are starved of investment, bled of ambition and left marooned from the throbbing economic heart of the centre.

Not only is London failing its commuters and entire swathes of its suburbs, but the very status of the capital as one of the world’s greatest cities is under threat. It is not difficult to comprehend why London has been so successful. London’s triumph over the centuries is that it has constantly been open to the world as a centre for trade and finance. Today London is a magnet for some of the brightest and most innovative talents from every corner of the globe. That opportunity is being rivalled by cities such as Frankfurt and New York, and the growth in India and China.

How have the Government prepared London to meet the challenges of the next 20 years? They almost cancelled Crossrail 1. The Thameslink programme is beset by delays. They cancelled the third runway at Heathrow and kicked the search for an alternative into the long grass. They cancelled the four-tracking of the West Anglia line that would finally have provided a decent train service from one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the capital. The only ambition that this Government seem to have for the capital—the only vignette of a solution to the challenges it faces—is the two-station spur of the Northern line to Battersea power station. Small increases in capacity are set to be outstripped and overwhelmed by the forecast growth in the number of commuters. Now the Government look set to drop the ball once again, this time on Crossrail 2.

The Chancellor and the Minister will have the seen the report published last week by Lord Adonis and the London First group that details the case for a new line linking the south-west of London with the north-east of London, including three stations in my constituency. As my noble Friend made clear, this is the only way that London will be able to cope with the challenges presented to it over the next 20 years; it is the only way that London will be able to handle the growing number of commuters; and it is the only way that passengers arriving in London from High Speed 2 can be efficiently dispersed from Euston station. It is the only way that we can relieve the dangerous levels of congestion on London’s major north-south tube lines—the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines—the severe overcrowding that Londoners experience on mainline routes into Clapham junction and Waterloo, and the overcrowding across the tube.

Most important are the economic benefits that the proposal would bring to some of the poorest neighbourhoods in our capital. For areas such as Northumberland Park in my constituency, Edmonton, Hackney and large parts of our capital city, we need these infrastructure projects. We need a renewed vision for transport in our city. We must have Crossrail 2, building on Crossrail 1. We need a commitment from the Minister that the Government will get on with that. We need a Bill before the next Parliament to introduce Crossrail 2 so that we can see the infrastructure here in the city, and the city can provide the economic boost to our country that is so desperately needed.

Autumn Statement

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning assiduously for that project. He has made a strong case for how the new link road will open up the prospect of real economic development as well as dealing with traffic congestion. That is exactly the kind of programme that we can undertake—it did not happen under the last Labour Government—because we have made the switch from current spending to capital spending. Again, I congratulate him on the campaign that he has fought, which I think has involved quite a few Adjournment debates in the House.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Given the falling number of nurses in the NHS, does the Chancellor recognise that people will view with scepticism what he has said about protecting the NHS? Will he also acknowledge that passing on a 2% cut to local government will involve cuts to adult social services across the country, affecting the vulnerable, the disabled and the elderly?

[Mr Osborne]

We have provided billions more for social care—[Interruption.] I just want to make this point to Labour Members. They want to be in government, and they claim that they want to cut the deficit, but what would they cut? They object to the local government settlement, the defence settlement, the NHS budget and the education budget, even though the budgets on the NHS and schools are going up, so what exactly would they do? It was evident from the shadow Chancellor’s response today that they do not actually have anything to say on these matters. If they had a credible deficit plan, we would listen to their questions about the priorities for these plans.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I have already pointed out three times that it was a pork pie, including to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), to whom I do not intend to give way. I will give way, however, to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend has done a very good job of demonstrating that the Government are not at all clear on the figures and the money that will be lost. Does he think that the Government have more clarity about the Mayor’s position on this issue? Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, made eight separate interventions to get this tax reduced, but made no interventions on VAT, no interventions on an increase for pensioners and no interventions on charities. He sought to intervene on behalf of the richest Londoners. My hon. Friend may agree that the Government ought to publish those interventions, so that we can be absolutely clear whether or not the Mayor has any evidence.

[Owen Smith]

Again, I am pleased that I gave way, as I think that is an excellent suggestion, which we really should take up. Of course the series of interventions on the 50p rate from the current Mayor of London—I say current; I hope he will not be Mayor for much longer—and, indeed, the series doubtless coming from the Chancellor’s and Prime Minister’s other wealthy mates, backed up the ideological decision to get rid of it. In fact, I am tempted to say that the cut in the 50p rate gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “mates’ rates”.

Amendment of the Law

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

This is my first opportunity to speak about a Budget following the spotlight that fell on my constituency in the summer, so I want to begin by supporting some measures in it. Business and shopkeepers on Tottenham high road recovering from the mayhem and violence, burnt shops, broken windows and the loss of business will welcome the simplification of taxes. Many of those small businesses still grumble and talk about the complexity of such regulation.

There has been a lot of concentration in the House over the past few months on the undeserving poor. There has been heated debate, and I have certainly made my views clear on issues such as housing benefit. I therefore welcome the fact that the Chancellor has concentrated his attention on those who play the system in another way, and that he has looked at unearned income and property taxation. The changes to stamp duty and capital allowances are to be welcomed.

I represent the constituency with the highest unemployment rate in London, and it is right that I ask, on behalf of my constituents, whether the Budget does enough to alleviate that tremendous problem. This is only a week after we discovered that 56% of young black men in Britain are unemployed. That is a huge concern which should be shared across the House. All unemployment, among all members of our population, is a disaster, and long-term unemployment leaves serious scars, but we should be particularly concerned about that statistic.

Much has been said about a feral underclass. I do not like the term. The word “underclass” summons up visions of the caste system in India and we ought to reserve the word “feral” for discussion of rodents. However, those in the House who either grew up on working-class housing estates or have significant housing estates in their constituencies will recognise a workless class—those on housing estates turning from being working class to members of a workless class.

I do not want to be completely partisan about that because there was structural unemployment in our system under Labour. We talked about that largely in the context of those not in education, employment or training. NEETs have remained a long-running sore in this country. However, it should be of huge concern to the House that in a constituency such as Tottenham, 6,000 people are unemployed and 21 are chasing every vacancy.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the particularly high unemployment rate among young black men? It is a scourge that has existed in our society for far too long. The recent figures fill me with dread not hope, but the Government’s policies do nothing to help them.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend, like me, recognises that problem and will know, from the history of Hackney, that this is of such concern because in constituencies across the country, in areas as different as Middlesbrough, Hull, Tottenham and Hackney, we are seeing intergenerational worklessness. I hoped that the Budget would make some attempt to deal with that problem.

In my lifetime, there have been serious levels of unemployment twice before. There was huge unemployment in the 1980s, when it was higher than today, and it was even higher as recently as 1996, when more than 10,000 people in the constituency of Tottenham were unemployed. We are talking about a group of young unemployed people, aged 18 or 19, whose parents were unemployed and sometimes whose parents’ parents were unemployed. That is a disaster for our economy. When I looked at the scenes in August with tremendous and deep concern for what was happening on the streets of London, I realised that often some of the children of those who rioted last time were causing the same the problems this time. That is how scarring unemployment is and why we needed a Budget that got to the heart of growth.

It would be wrong, of course, if I did not welcome what has been said about the film and games industries, but it is right that in London I reflect on whether that will come to the constituencies that need it and matter. Although I of course welcome the decisions on capital allowances in the royal docks area of the east end of London, I want to make what may feel like a parochial point, but which is in fact a serious point. Are we committed to one London—where there are not inner cities, but just one city—or will we continue to show a preference for certain parts of London? Despite the huge problems that exist in the east end, it has Canary Wharf and the Olympics, and it now has a Mayor committed to a new airport in the Thames estuary. In north London, in a concentrated area of poverty in Tottenham and Edmonton, we have seen nothing like it.

With regeneration coming around the Spurs development, I would hope that we, too, might get those allowances. To deal with the jobs problem—I am talking not about highly skilled jobs, but about semi-skilled jobs and some jobs that do not require skills—we will need to attract private investment to give us those jobs. The danger now is that there is an incentive to go to another part of London, concentrating poverty even more deeply in north-east London in particular.

There is another issue in the Budget: not those without employment, but the working poor. We should remind the House that someone working in a constituency such as mine, here in London, might be a dinner lady at lunchtime and likely a cleaner in the evening, or a minicab driver during the day and a security guard at night. Such is the situation for those who are unable to make a living wage in our capital city. Of course, the changes to the personal allowance are desirable for those who are working. However, I might add that these are the very same families who saw their tax credits taken away in the last Budget, so this really is robbing Peter to pay Paul. As we know, those who will benefit from the changes will largely be middle-class families and those who are really well-off.

The decision to give a further tax break to those earning more than £150,000 a year will seem bizarre to my constituents, who have seen their incomes fall. Anyone travelling into central London on the tube from Seven Sisters station, either to look for a job or go to a job, is looking at spending £6.20 a day, whereas someone who decides to come down into central London on the 341 bus will have to pay £4.20 a day. Fares are up by 12% on the bus and 16% on the tube, under the reign of Boris Johnson. Those costs are huge for families with babies, who have already seen their monthly costs go up by £8.20 in just the last 18 months.

The cost of living is going up for the working poor, and there are huge concerns about worklessness, yet we heard nothing about how we are going to deal with that. We still have to wait for the introduction of the youth contract. We have also seen two thirds of apprenticeships in London go to those who are over 25, and it is not at all clear that we have got apprenticeships in the right areas of the economy in our country. What is the growth story? My constituents are still waiting to see what it is. There are huge concerns about equity and fairness in this Budget. I predict there will be further disturbances and concerns until we get a grip and deal with this emerging problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of trends in the rate of inflation.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of trends in the rate of inflation.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government consider a range of factors when making their assessment of the United Kingdom economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility is responsible for producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts. The OBR published a full analysis of recent developments and the prospects for growth and inflation in its forecast at the time of the Budget.

[Mr Gauke]

First, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said that he would have done the same. Secondly, a cut in VAT would do nothing to reverse the rise in global commodity prices, but would do a lot to reverse the Government’s hard-won credibility for getting the deficit down.

[Mr Lammy]

In the light of what the Minister has said, may I invite him to Tesco’s in Tottenham high road, where he will meet some of my constituents who must deal with higher food prices, rising electricity and gas prices and, now, redundancy and the loss of most of the services on which they rely?

[Mr Gauke]

I should be delighted to accept the right hon. Gentleman’s invitation. However, he will be aware that VAT is not chargeable on food, and that we have not raised fuel duty as the last Government did. You do not have to be a mastermind to know that.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, this is a missed opportunity. If we followed through on the rhetoric and showed that we were not only fair but tough on the banks, we would be able to stand in front of our constituents and say that we had stood up on their behalf to those responsible for the crisis that hit this country, which our constituents are all paying for today through the austerity affecting them, and that the mess we got into as a result of the crisis a few years ago will not be repeated. If they do not do that, the Government will have to review and change, because otherwise the electorate will do it for them. The Government will not be able to stand up and say that somehow they have been tough, that they have followed through on the rhetoric and, more importantly, that they have made sure that such a crisis will never happen again.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), whose eye for forensic detail and lucidity in these matters are second to none. He could not be described as brief, and on this occasion I intend to be a bit briefer. The amendment seeks a review of this proposal because, at its heart, this is about equity and fairness. You, Dr McCrea, understand better than anyone what fairness and equity mean.

There has been much talk about small business men. A small business man came to see me a month ago about the lack of finance from Barclays bank. It is true to say that even though we all have stories of small businesses that are unable to get loans, many constituents come and ask Members specifically not to contact their banks, because they are scared, frankly, that they will be cut loose and that the intervention of a Member of Parliament could make things worse. The fact that across the Chamber no party is suggesting that we have got back to a situation in which there is access to loans indicates that industry and small businesses in this country are in a very serious way.

That brings me to the other deceit, or conceit, that lies at the heart of what has been suggested. Much has been made of the manufacturing sector. Yes, it is hugely important, but it employs 4 million people or thereabouts, whereas 23 million are employed by the service sector, which is a depressed sector. That is perhaps why, alongside the public sector cuts we are now seeing, unemployment in Tottenham is the highest in London. The levy, set at the right amount and consistently reviewed, could have done something to ameliorate that.

It is about fairness and equity, and it is also about what the Government’s story on growth really is. Some of what we are hearing on how they see the levy and the box into which they want to put it, with the constraints of £2.5 billion only, can only mitigate the growth that we want to see in our constituencies.

The single mums who came to see me a few weeks ago because the after-school activity club is being cut for their young children and they are wondering how they are going to get back from work by half-past 3 to pick them up need to feel that bankers, too, are making a contribution. The elderly suffering from Alzheimer’s in one of my local residential homes, against a backdrop of three being closed because the local authority is being squeezed, need to feel and want to believe, because of the age they have reached and the contribution they have made to this country, having paid into the system, that the banking sector is also making a contribution that is fair. The many public sector workers who received their payslip for the last time just a few days ago also want to believe that bankers are making their contribution.

These people cannot understand why, despite the fact that growth in our economy is so sluggish, at barely 2% over the most recent period, City workers are taking home an increase of 7% on average. Why have 231 workers at Barclays bank managed to receive bonuses of £554 million between them? How is that possible, when the dividend for those who have shares in that bank was just over £600 million? That is a bonus culture that has not been checked, that has not been sorted out, and that feels brutally unfair.

When I was canvassing in Slough at the most recent general election, a 90-year-old said to me, “Love, you know what it is? The poorer you are, the more you give in this country.” That is how it feels at this point, when we have to come back to a subject on which really we ought to agree. We know that the banking sector led to this depressed economy, so why should it be let off the hook at this time?

When my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked, “Where did we get this £20 billion from?”, I asked the Minister to begin his contribution with the answer. Where did that £20 billion allowance come from? It is a staggering amount of money to slot in at the last minute so that the figure drops beneath the £3.9 billion mark which the industry itself originally predicted. Where did that money come from, and how did we secure the millions in tax relief for that sector? We owe a bigger contribution from the banking sector to the young people of this country, one in five of whom is currently unemployed.

This Government have led us to a situation in which the new arrangements for funding higher education are between the student solely and the university. They have taken the state entirely out of the picture, cutting teaching funding by 80% and abandoning arts and the humanities and any contribution to them. Effectively, with a proper banking levy they could have said that the state could stay involved. Industry, the other sector that benefits, could have made a contribution, too, but the banking sector is certainly somewhere where we could have started. The Government, however, turned their face against that, saying, “No, we’ll land the debt on our young people and let the very people who have led to their unemployment off the hook.”

I want to understand why the Minister has made that decision, and how we will get back to growth, given that young people are to be dealt with in that way.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend asks why. Is it not clear why? This is a Government of millionaires and toffs, and they are in the pocket of the banksters. That is what it is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right.

The Government’s rhetoric prior to the general election about what they would do with the bankers, and about recklessness and bankers paying their dues, led some to believe that at least we could agree that bankers were responsible for the situation and that they should make a contribution—and a serious one at that, which we should constantly keep under review for obvious and clear reasons. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, the amendment is incredibly tame: it simply asks for a review and says to the Minister, “Can you look at this again?” It seems reasonable to ask him to do so, given that the state of our economy could change between now and Christmas, but he has said no even to that. As other Members have suggested, that can only be because of the slightly peculiar relationship between the Conservatives and the many friends in the sector who bankrolled them. That is unfair, and it is not right, and the public know it. I suspect that on Thursday we will see that they have sensed this injustice in the balance of how we should deal with the difficulties that we face.

It is not the first time that we have had a debate in this House about how we deal with an economically depressed situation. There are those who believe that we should invest—in fact, reinvest. That is a Keynesian approach to growth from the same party that did not back away after the second world war, when this country was in rubble, but invested in the NHS. Then there is the party that says we should cut, and the cuts fall hardest on the poorest while those who can afford to make a bigger contribution get let off. Yes, there is a balanced argument as to why one would support a reduction in corporation tax: in order to see growth in the economy. However, when people set that tax reduction against this levy, which is minuscule relative to the huge sector that has brought us to this point, and then against the £20 billion tax relief that has come out of nowhere, of course they get suspicious. I hope that the Minister will explain why this proposal is fair to a young person who is one of the one in five who are unemployed, to someone who is experiencing their local authority cutting services that they desperately rely on, or to a public sector worker who has just received their last payslip because they have lost their job. Will he also explain how it gets us back to growth? If he is to let off this sector of all sectors, how are we to develop that growth strategy and generate the funds for the investment that we need to stimulate recovery?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we must move from retribution to recovery. That is an interesting play on words. What most Labour Members want is not retribution but reciprocity—a bit of give and take, and something that is fair and honourable. I have to say to the Minister that this proposal is deeply dishonourable, unfair and wrong, and he should come to the Dispatch Box and explain why the simplest of reviews is not possible on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I am going to continue my speech.

We were clear at that time, as we are now, that the bank levy yield far outweighs the benefits that banks receive from the corporation tax change. Other sectors will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax, but the banks will not benefit because of the levy. In the March Budget, the Chancellor went further in helping our economy to grow, and announced an additional 1p reduction in the main rate of corporation tax. At the same time, to offset the benefits to banks from that further cut and maintain the same incentives for them to move to less risky funding, we announced that the rate of the levy would increase from 1 January 2012, to 0.078%.

The threshold has prompted some discussion. The initial announcement on the bank levy last year proposed that it would include a threshold of £20 billion. However, as part of the subsequent consultation exercise, we explicitly sought views on whether it would be preferable to make it an allowance rather than an all-or-nothing threshold. A threshold would provide a cliff edge that banks would avoid by restructuring. Respondents to the consultation made that clear to us, and even suggested that banks, or indeed building societies, might avoid growing their UK operations to avoid the threshold and to avoid paying the levy. We accepted that argument, and have therefore decided that there should be an allowance on the first £20 billion of liabilities liable for the levy. That means that smaller banks, building societies and foreign banks with a small UK presence—that is, those whose liabilities are less than the £20 billion allowance—will not pay the levy.

The allowance will ensure that the levy is proportionate to the risks inherent in banking businesses of different sizes. It balances the probability that the failure of a bank could pose a systemic risk against the relative burden imposed in order to gather additional revenue at the margin. While size is not the sole factor in determining risk to the system, it is an important one. Increasing the allowance would risk excluding banks or building societies that are highly likely to pose a systemic risk if they fail. Similarly, setting the allowance at a lower level—which Opposition Members seem very keen on doing—would risk imposing an unnecessarily high burden on institutions that do not pose a systemic risk to the UK economy in the way that larger banking institutions do. These details, along with many others, have already been made public, and I am sure that the Opposition Members who tabled the amendment are aware of the steps the Government have taken to explain the basis of the decisions. All tax measures now have a tax information and impact note, which sets out clear information relating to the measure and its impact, and which has provided a significant amount of analysis on the levy so far. It is clear that there is no need for a report to provide an analysis of the rates and threshold of the bank levy.

Let me turn to the second element of the amendment.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Financial Secretary give way?

[Mr Hoban]

Let me make progress. The hon. Gentleman spoke for over an hour and I am responding to the speeches made in five hours of debate. I therefore think the hon. Gentleman should hear me out, after which I may consider taking interventions.

Let me turn to the second element of the amendment, on the adequacy of the levy in the context of other reforms to the wider banking sector.

[Mr Lammy]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. In Committee, when Ministers have not answered questions from Back Benchers, is it normal for them not even to give way? Surely the Financial Secretary could simply photocopy what he is reading out, and send that to all of us so we can go home?

[The Chairman]

That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to decide how he wishes to reply to the debate.

Bank Bonuses

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Of course it is right that they attract both income tax and employers’ national insurance contributions. I know there is an issue with the economic credibility of the Labour party at the moment but it is worth reading what the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said when he explicitly and directly addressed the question of whether the tax he introduced a year ago could be reintroduced in exactly the same form. He said that it would be difficult to do and that it would have to be a one-off because people would find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in future. We have to deal with that reality, but as I have made very clear, we seek a new settlement with the banks and if we do not agree a new settlement—if they are not able to meet our requirements—then nothing is off the table.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Unemployment in Tottenham is now the highest in London, benefits have been cut and students are being asked to bear the burden. Will the Chancellor take the opportunity to condemn the statement of Bob Diamond this morning that bankers should stop apologising for the economic crisis?

[Mr Osborne]

The apology should start with the previous Labour Government. Unemployment is high in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency because it rose under the previous Labour Government and we are having to deal with welfare costs because they soared under the previous Labour Government. When it comes to student fees, I believe that he was the Minister responsible for higher education who commissioned Lord Browne to do his report. Frankly, opportunism and the Labour party go hand in hand these days.