Public Spending (Coventry)

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mrs Riordan, for chairing the debate and to Mr Speaker and his office for agreeing to it. It is a very important debate, in the course of which I may be joined by two other MPs. I think that both were meant to have approached the Chair to say that if time permits—I hope it does—they would like to say a few words. We will of course leave adequate time for the Minister to reply.

The occasion of the debate arises from some work done two or three months ago, shortly after the Budget came out, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). She sought to show that the Budget measures, far from being progressive, as the Government had tried to imply, and far from being gender-neutral, were in fact very regressive and would impact much more severely on women than on men. The work she did initially in pursuing those points to great effect against the Government was then taken up and taken further in some excellent research work undertaken at Warwick university by two senior researchers there, Mary-Ann Stephenson and James Harrison. I am sure their work will increasingly be seen as a landmark in taking forward the points that were made by my right hon. Friend shortly after the Budget came out.

Coventry was a very suitable place to use as a test case for examination of the impact of the Budget measures on women, because in Coventry the pay gap between men and women—between the genders—is already 10 points higher than the national average. Also, as we all know, the bulk of the cuts in the immediate future must come in the public sector, and in Coventry no fewer than 78% of the city council staff are women. We can therefore measure in a very significant way, across a major part of the economy in the west midlands—the local and the regional economy—what the effect of the cuts will be. I would like to deal with each point in turn, quantifying things in so far as that is possible. We can then look forward to hearing exactly what the Minister has to say in response. But if we take the cuts as a whole, it is obvious, given that 78% of the city council staff are women, that the impact will be worst on them; they will feel it most. That is a simple fact. The cuts will disproportionately fall on women.

The child care tax credit is being cut from 80% to 70% of child care costs. Obviously, women will also suffer disproportionately as a result of that. Together with increased child care costs, that might lead to lower rates of employment for women and further increase the pay gap. That has not been quantified yet, but work is continuing. Such is the interest in the issue at the national level that when a colleague and I co-hosted a meeting to discuss it, the Members who joined us in the Committee Room came not only from the west midlands, but from all parties right across the spectrum. The room was full to capacity, and there was standing room only; it is not often that that happens in a public meeting in a Committee Room.

The second issue is housing. Single women are the main recipients of housing benefits; again, that is pretty obvious. In Coventry, about 4,360 single women and 2,085 women in couples claim local housing allowance for private rented accommodation. LHA coverage has been cut and now applies only to the bottom 30%, rather than the bottom 50% of households. It will also be linked to the consumer prices index, rather than to local rents, which will almost certainly mean—this is why the Government have also chosen CPI for their pensions calculations—that its value will go down over time. Again, women make up by far the greatest proportion of those who take up this benefit, so they will, yet again, suffer disproportionately.

This time, we can put a figure on the cost, and perhaps the Minister can confirm or contradict my figures in her reply. In the short term, the changes will cost those who are affected in Coventry between £8 and £15 a week. If that is not right, perhaps the Minister will correct me. Again, however, those are hidden effects, and they are not spelled out in any of the Government’s background notes to the Budget or anywhere else in their calculations. Those hidden effects, which the Government have tried to cover up, are impacting directly on women in Coventry and, therefore, on their families.

On incomes and poverty, it is pretty obvious that women are poorer than men—that is a statement of fact. As I have discussed, they also get a higher percentage of their income from benefits. For example, 33,595 households in Coventry receive tax credits, and 35,000 receive out-of-work benefits. The proposed changes will, once again, impact on women. The changes include cuts to benefits to pregnant women and families with new babies, the freezing of child benefit, cuts to child care tax credits and cuts to the numbers who are eligible for tax credits. Lone parents will be required to seek work once their eldest child is just five. Those changes will have big impacts, and I will quantify them in a moment.

Disability living allowance is being cut by 20%. Someone claiming for a person who loses DLA will also lose carer’s allowance. It is a pretty heartless Government who attack the most vulnerable in our society in that way. It almost seems that the Government have zeroed in on women to prove the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.

The benefit and tax changes in the 2010 Budget will cost women in Coventry £29 million, which is an awful lot of money. On a broad calculation, that is more than £180 per woman per year, so the Budget will have a significant impact. However, the impact on the budget of the average family and the average woman was set out nowhere in the Government’s figures. The cost to men will be half the cost to women. Again, I would be happy for the Minister to try to challenge my figures—if she can.

On education, many women have to balance a job with looking after the kids and getting them to school. Like most authorities—I do not think Coventry has been unduly affected in this respect—Coventry has had its schools grant cut. The 24% cut to the schools budget has resulted in a cut to special needs and mental health support in schools—that is where the impact will be most heavily felt. In no sense is that to be taken as a criticism of the council. Indeed, I am pleased to say that in certain parts of the report, the authors go out of their way to say just how responsibly the council is trying to carry through the cuts. The council appreciates that the cuts have to be made and is trying to make them in the least regressive way it can to protect children, women and other vulnerable sectors of society. It is not picking out those with special needs, and nor is it in any sense exaggerating the cuts that have to be made; it is simply making the cuts that are necessary to stay within the law.

In passing, I have heard it said—I hope the Minister can discount this at once, and she probably can—that the Government could be in breach of Equality Act 2006 and, on an individual basis, the European convention on human rights, given the effects of so much of the 2010 Budget. I am not clear whether test cases are being brought, although I did try to find out. However, it would be interesting to learn from the Minister whether any are being brought and if so, how far they have got, because some of the Government’s measures are clearly so discriminatory—as well as being at least questionable under the terms of the 2006 Act—that they could be subject to judicial review, as I hope they will be.

On violence against women, the report produced a figure that shocked everybody—from my researchers to the report’s researchers. Let me give the numbers, shocking though they are. Some 30,397 women in Coventry are likely to have been raped or sexually abused at some point in their lifetime. If we remember that there are 310,000 people in the whole of Coventry, and we divide that by half or slightly more to reflect the percentage of women in the total population, it is clear that that statistic for the likely number of women who will face some form of sexual abuse at some point in their lifetime is frightening and really rather offensive. Some 38,537 women are likely to experience some level domestic violence in their lifetime. Again, I do not think the researchers wanted to attach any undue importance to the exactitude of their estimates, but the broad measure is shocking.

The provision that was made to deal with that situation was already inadequate, although heaven knows we pushed for a higher level of support from the council and the Labour Government—I am not pretending that the Labour party did a marvellous job. There are eight specialist domestic abuse officers to deal with the situation I have described.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I have been waiting for my hon. Friend to get on to the section of the report that deals with violence against women, because it really is most disturbing. Organisations such as the Coventry rape and sexual abuse centre are worried about funding, although the council has agreed to give it part-time funding, which is not secure. However, it is not just a matter of the sharp end of abuse against women. If women become more dependent on men as a result of the cuts, some will be inclined to stay in homes where they are potentially vulnerable and where they may be abused. That is clearly brought out in the relevant section of this first-class piece of work.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is spot on. The cuts to housing benefit will make it harder for women to move from the area to get away from their attacker. That is precisely the point made in the report, and my right hon. Friend rightly emphasised it recently in the press in Coventry.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I apologise for having been a minute or two late, although the debate might have started early. My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend make a valuable point. For a long time, the rape crisis centre in Coventry has struggled, to say the least, to get resources, and the cuts will make the situation worse. Do the figures for women who are abused or raped in Coventry—or anywhere else for that matter—not call into question the Government’s policy on cutting legal aid and funding for citizens advice bureaux, because vulnerable people, and particularly women, will often use those agencies?

[Mr Robinson]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Perhaps I may take a second to say that I think my hon. Friends want to say a word, if they are able to catch your eye, Mrs Riordan, and if we have time, about the wider aspects of the issue. After all, if more women are trapped in violent relationships there will be greater mental, physical and sexual health problems for them as a result, with an increased cost to the taxpayer. The NHS will have to cope when it is already under tremendous pressure and its budget is being dramatically cut. The issue is wider than just the reduction, although the Minister needs to explain how anyone can justify cutting the number of Coventry’s specialist domestic abuse officers from eight to two and reducing rape support resources, at the same time as other measures will clearly increase the likelihood of the problem that those staff and resources are meant to deal with. It seems crude and harsh, and we wonder whether it is strictly necessary to go along that path.

I want to mention the women’s voluntary organisations. Overall, the council, in line with other councils, faces cuts of about £38 million in its grant from central Government. A number of streams from that are for voluntary organisations, and those are due to end; some have already ended. Those voluntary organisations face increasing demand from the communities they serve, for the reasons we have been analysing. As hardship increases and cuts bite in all the areas I have mentioned, demand will increase. As resources are cut there will be greater pressures on hospital services and the police, which are also being cut. There will be a double whammy—cuts on one hand and increased need on the other.

Women’s voluntary organisations appear from the study to be particularly vulnerable, with some expecting cuts of up to 70% of their funding next year. I can inform the Minister, if she wants to deal with them individually, of the types of voluntary organisations that are particularly badly affected. Can that be looked at again? We do not expect answers to everything today, but we would like some undertaking from the Minister to check out the research funding and reconsider Government policy in the light of that. She could then tell us, “Yes, that is indeed our policy, and although we did not intend the consequences, those are the consequences and you will have to live with it.” If that is the Government’s message, they should be straightforward with the people of Coventry—the women of Coventry—and say, “This is the price that we are asking Coventry women to pay to put right the faults, and the massive irresponsible financial borrowings.” That is all, of course, in the context of reducing the deficit caused by private sector bankers.

That seems a pretty harsh message to send to the women of Coventry, and if that is the best the Government can offer, I warn them now that the people of Coventry will not be impressed. They will in due course have occasion to express their own opinion about a Government who have been as hard-hearted and indifferent to the cause of women and children as the present Government appear to be.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

I remind any other Member who wishes to contribute that the Minister will need time to reply, so perhaps they can keep their comments brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, in what we would all agree is an important debate in relation to the difficult challenges that we face. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on securing the debate, and I understand why he has raised the issues. In the time available, I shall do my best to respond. If I feel that I have not done so, and if there are specific points on which he would like further clarification, I may well also drop him a line.

We all understand that the backdrop to the debate is the need to get the economy and public finances back on to a sustainable footing over time. As a country, we were always going to have to do that. The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect, talked about the deficit being caused by the private sector. We would all accept that there has been a banking crisis, but many people also recognise that something more fundamental was going wrong with the working of our economy and public finances, and that was due to the fact that we had a structural deficit. Even in the boom times—the good times—when tax revenues were rolling into the Treasury as fast as they were ever going to, that money was still not enough to cover the country’s outgoings.

The Treasury Ministers dealing with public finances in the present Government are therefore in a position in which I assure the hon. Gentleman that we never wanted to be. We had to take the decision that it was in everyone’s interest to get the problem sorted out during the course of this Parliament. When we look at the problems in countries in the rest of Europe—we need only look at Greece—we see that there is still an economic crisis, and our country needs to stay out of it. Our deficit reduction plan is critical in enabling us to do that.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of what is the fairest way to approach the situation. How can we achieve a balance between getting our public books back into order and making sure that the process is fair—that is one of the key points of the spending review and the Budget—while stimulating growth at the same time? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one thing that we chose to do in the emergency Budget was to reduce corporation tax, and we built on that with a further cut in the most recent Budget. We tried to strike a balance between cash-flow issues—the money side—and putting ourselves in a position to ensure growth in the economy, particularly in parts of the country such as Coventry and the midlands that suffered in the recession.

Some research now shows that the west midlands in particular suffered disproportionately, and that gives us a double challenge. When I was an Opposition MP, I would have argued that, during the boom years preceding the recession, parts of the country outside the south-east did not do well enough. According to statistics, between 2002 and 2006, for every 10 jobs created in the south-east and London, just one in the private sector was created outside.

[Mr Robinson]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

I will give way in a second.

What I have described was a big problem. In addition, because of the continued hollowing-out of manufacturing in the previous decade, the west midlands suffered particularly, and I recognise that women also suffered as part of that.

I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that once he has intervened, I shall speak about some of the matters that he raised, particularly in respect of women.

[Mr Robinson]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. On this occasion, I am not going to disagree terribly about whether things are regressive, not fair or not sufficient, nor about whether they are too fast. The point here is to have a close look at the effect on women, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has stressed—the Minister herself has a keen interest in the matter. If we could consider the impact on women, I would be very grateful.

[Justine Greening]

We were careful in the spending review not only to consider its impact on women, but to understand its impact across the deciles. The hon. Gentleman asserts that the spending review and the Budget were regressive. However, research shows that it is the very richest people in our country who are bearing the brunt—they bear the biggest load—of tackling the deficit.

We have tried to ensure that we provide support for women through tax measures and several of our public spending measures. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the difficult decisions that Coventry city council is having to make. He has doubtless raised the matter with local councillors and the council leader, and discussed especially whether the deficit reduction piece that has fallen on Coventry is being carried out locally in the right way to deal with the local people’s priorities.

I take seriously what the hon. Gentleman said about particular issues, such as rape and support for women. As a local constituency MP, I have taken a particular interest in ensuring that refuge and support are in place for women. Many of these women who need such support are not from my community, but come to it because they must get away from difficult situations. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the matter.

The Government have allowed councils more freedom in how they spend their money. A lot of ring-fencing has been removed precisely to enable councils to take more locally focused decisions in these difficult times about where money goes.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about voluntary organisations. I assure him that we are committed to supporting them—not because of the difficult spending review settlement and the difficult situation with public finances in which we find ourselves, but because it is the right thing to do. One of the less publicised parts of this year’s Budget was the big package on philanthropy and there was also a package in support of gift aid. We need to consider what can be done to help voluntary organisations. We also changed AMAPs—approved mileage allowance payments—to help voluntary organisations in terms of volunteers and passengers.

We have taken further equally important steps. For the first time, we published an overview of the impact of the spending review on groups protected by equalities legislation, including women. The increase in personal allowance will help 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers—they will stop paying tax altogether—and we know that the majority of those at the bottom end of the low-income scale are women. We are also pushing the personal allowance higher. One thing that we have in the back of our minds is the fact that many of those workers were hit by the withdrawal of the 10p tax rate. In a sense, my challenge to the hon. Gentleman is whether he was making such points when the Labour Government were withdrawing that rate, as that change affected a number of women.

We have also tried to support families. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the House of Commons Library research, and if I have time—no, I shall make time—I shall say why we do not agree with its analysis, although it clearly made an important contribution to the debate. We increased child tax credits because we were particularly concerned to ensure that we did not go backwards on child poverty, even in these challenging times. As he pointed out, the change will be important for the many women in single-family households.

As for pensioners, we have re-established the earnings link and put back the triple guarantee. We know that women are far more likely to rely on a state pension than men, and of course they are also likely to live longer, so that will help them, too. Those are the sorts of things that were missed in the research carried out by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

[Justine Greening]

I recognise the debate that is taking place about that, but I also recognise that we have to be fair to everybody, and that means ensuring not only that our state pension system is fair to women today, particularly those nearing pensionable age, but that it will be fair to women of my age and to younger generations. They deserve to know that they can rely on state pension into which they pay through national insurance and any occupational pension that they might set up. For the women of the future who are now in our primary schools, the huge problem of our deficit and the public debt needs to be sorted out so that it does not fall on their shoulders later.

I now turn to the important point of what the hon. Member for Coventry North West said about the Library analysis. As a Government, we disagree particularly with its assumptions about where benefits go and who actually benefits from them, which were understandable but not necessarily accurate. For example, the research made the broad assumption that only the person who received a welfare payment would benefit from it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing benefit, but that is meant to help the whole household, not just the person who receives it.

On child benefit, the research apparently showed that the spending review and the Budget hit women particularly hard. Child benefit and child tax credit—the latter went up this year and will increase again next year—are designed principally to help the child, and the child can be of either gender, so it is not particularly accurate to say that our approach would necessarily hit women.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s statistic on the proportion of lone parents who are women. However, the analysis missed out the fact that in some of the areas that we have protected, such as health, women particularly benefit. We are taking steps to improve the amount of breast screening for cancer. At the moment, the breast screening programme offers screening every three years for all women in England aged 50 and over. Women aged between 50 and 70 are invited for screening routinely, while women over the age of 70 can request free three-year screening, but we are extending that programme to include women aged 47 to 49.

[Mr Robinson]

We have reached the interesting part of the debate—I wish we could have got on to it earlier. The debate is obviously about Coventry, but the points being raised are of general significance—they are major policy matters throughout the country. Will the Minister tell us on which particular points the research is weak, because I do not agree that it is? Lone parents is an obvious area to consider, because they are mainly women, and the disproportionate impact on women is precisely what we are discussing. We will not have time for that today, but will the Minister reply to the point about the research?

[Justine Greening]

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on those points that I cannot answer now.

We cannot consider only one aspect of the decisions taken in the spending review and ignore the weight of the rest of those decisions. They affect not only women, but everyone. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to ensuring that the difficult decisions that we have to take—they will be difficult—are fair. We have produced more analysis with the emergency Budget, the spending review and this year’s Budget to help people to understand how those decisions fall across our communities, and I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed, and there are ways the bank levy could be improved. It might be appropriate at this point to refer to the Government amendments 32 to 50, which are technical amendments. It would be useful if the Minister said whether the bank levy’s yield will be affected by those technical changes. Generally speaking, although the bank levy is a fine idea in theory, the way the Government are implementing it in practice is inadequate. It has been designed around a fixed yield of £2.5 billion to £2.6 billion, but when the Treasury originally published its design for the bank levy last June the banks complained that it would cost them £3.9 billion. The Chancellor listened to their complaints and, as a result, watered down his original plans. Indeed, he gave the banks a £20 billion tax-free allowance before they start paying the bank levy, thus bringing the yield back down to £2.5 billion to £2.6 billion.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s bank levy was watered down as part of an agreement in their Project Merlin to secure a wider arrangement for lending by the banks into the economy, which we desperately need? Merlin has turned out to be an absolute flop: the first quarter figures for private sector lending to small and medium-sized businesses show that they are £2 billion short already. What a deal!

[Chris Leslie]

It is difficult to see how the Government thought that that would be the moment of catharsis—the moment when everybody said, “Yes, aren’t the banks doing their just bit? They’re now completely free from their obligations to the taxpayer.” Project Merlin clearly did not achieve that. The Chancellor made some tweaks to the negotiations on the Project Merlin arrangements—he did so in February, on the day of Treasury questions—and he then tweaked the rate again in the March Budget, after criticisms of the big corporation tax cut that the banks will enjoy. However, the bank levy is set at a relatively low rate, especially when we look at what is happening in France, Hungary, Portugal or Austria. Indeed, we even read in today’s Financial Times about the quasi-bank levy arrangements pursued by the Dutch Government.

In future years, the Government should increase the bank levy to ensure that the banks continue to pay their fair share of tax and so that taxpayers are not left picking up the bill for the crisis caused by the irresponsible actions that the banks pursued. That is why in May we called for the Government to review the bank levy and to publish a report of the analysis behind the rates that they had set and the thresholds that they had chosen. They refused to do that; however, as we have seen, they are now refusing even to review the possibility of repeating the bank bonus tax.

Why has the Chancellor failed to take action on excessive executive banker bonuses? At first, the coalition agreement suggested that the Government might well do something about this. It promised to

“bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.”

That is on page 9; it is one of the first things that the coalition put into its agreement. The Business Secretary recently described the bankers’ bonuses paid for this year as “offensive”, yet the Government could not even promote proper transparency on bonuses and remuneration, never mind taking action to ensure that they were fair and reasonable. The most that the Government could extract voluntarily from the banks was an agreement in Project Merlin to report anonymously on the total remuneration of the five highest-paid bank senior executives outside the board. The Government are not even forcing the banks to disclose all the bonuses over £1 million, which was a key recommendation of the Walker review. That would have been easy to implement, given that it was part of Labour’s own legislation. The provision is on the statute book, ready to be triggered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

Indeed. That is precisely why the bonus payroll levy arrangements that we advocated excluded bonuses of up to £25,000 going to those working on the front line in the banks. We thought that those working at that level should not be affected by that particular payroll tax. What we are talking about now are senior executives. Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of HSBC, gained a £5.2 million bonus while Eric Daniels, the former chief executive of Lloyds, secured £1.45 million.

[Mr Robinson]

Does it occur to my hon. Friend, as it does to me from time to time, to ask what sort of activity these bankers engage in that can generate such enormous profits? Anybody who has worked in any competitive commercial sector in the UK, let alone the manufacturing sector, operating in the international economy, knows that those sorts of margins and returns cannot be generated in the real world. Are we heading back to the same sort of distortions that led to the previous crash?

[Chris Leslie]

There are serious issues about the balance of power between management and ownership. Many shareholders are also very exercised about excessive remuneration, compensation pay or call it what we will, and I believe that the balance of power needs addressing in the longer term. It is interesting to note how banks have tried to shift their remuneration approaches according to the political and tax arrangements of the day. While the Minister will no doubt tell us that bonus payouts for the City in 2010-11 were predicted to come down by 8% in comparison with 2009-10, what he will not tell us is that that apparent fall in bonuses was largely offset by a 7% increase in salaries for senior banking executives. The roundabout continues, but some people never lose out when it comes to this particular game.

Analysis of official earning figures by pay research specialists Income Data Services showed that large payouts in the financial sector during February and March this year helped to maintain payments during the 2011 bonus season at a similarly high level to that recorded in 2010. Not enough has changed; Ministers are not exercised or angry enough about this particular scandal, and action is necessary.

The fact is that banks are now more likely to pay discretionary bonuses, which would be captured by our proposed bonus tax, instead of paying the guaranteed bonuses that they used to get away with—the multi-year contractual bonuses that looked to the rest of us like salaries but that they called bonuses, which would not be caught. If the guaranteed bonuses become the exception and not the rule, as the Chancellor says, it might provide us with an opportunity to capture more of the discretionary bonuses through our bank bonus tax. As I said, we estimate the yield to be £2 billion.

We have to resolve the sense of anger felt by UK taxpayers towards the banking institutions that they had to bail out. The public are still rightly angry about the greed and irresponsibility of some of the senior executives at our largest banks and about the size of the bonuses. There is simmering anger out there still about the bonuses that continue to be paid when austerity is biting very hard for many of our constituents. Real and visible action is needed on bonuses, not secret voluntary arrangements behind closed doors between the big banks—as with Project Merlin, which the Chancellor pursued before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) described it, it was little more than a damp squib.

The banks provide an important utility in our society. They are a key part of our economy, and a strong banking sector is in all our interests. However, by talking tough and acting weak the Government are fuelling public anger while doing little to address the issues. They should stop treating people like fools, and do far more to ensure that the banks and senor banking executives are paying back their fair share—a fair share that could generate money to repair some of the damage to jobs and the economy, and help tens of thousands of young people to secure a decent start in employment.

We are not asking very much. We just want a review of whether the bank levy could be augmented with a repeat of the bonus tax. We want the taxpayer to be given a fair deal in return for rescuing the banks, and we want the Government to take seriously the threat of a lost generation of young people struggling to find work. A fair tax on banker bonuses to help people off the dole and into work is the best way to get the deficit down and stop Britain’s talent going to waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I have not said, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think, that I do not support what he is trying to achieve. We will have to hear from the Minister what work the Treasury is doing, or may have already done, to produce the facts and figures that we all want.

My final point on the amount that a Robin Hood tax could raise is about what it should be spent on. I have heard about a range of problems at home and abroad that could be solved by such a tax, but I entirely agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has refined those objectives down to dealing with poverty at home and abroad. I think we can agree at least on that.

[Mr Robinson]

It is interesting—if not more than that—to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who calls himself a free-trade liberal, or words to that effect. He is a “good doer”, in other words, and he means that he is in favour of every good sentiment expressed in this House but believes that neither he nor any Government can do anything at all about this issue, other than consult the shareholders. If the shareholders—the electorate—were consulted at the moment, his party might not be as pleased with the idea as it seems to be.

Nothing can be done, it is said, and the hon. Gentleman, while agreeing with every sentiment, will not even vote for amendment 31, spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who I think is going to press it to a vote if he can catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. It calls for exactly what the hon. Member for Bristol West wants, and he would not have to listen to his new masters in the Treasury, because we would be able to have an independent inquiry.

I had the luck to study with Tobin at Yale university when he first advanced these ideas, and they generated a lot more attention and interest in those days, but if the hon. Gentleman is serious about his wishes, and about the good will that he bears towards every serious intent to put things right, including bankers’ bonuses—which we are discussing in relation to amendment 13, of which I am speaking in support—he should vote with us, and also for amendment 31, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.

The strange thing about this debate is that before the election, and even during it, the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the current Chancellor spoke with great vehemence and passion about how offensive the whole banking culture was and how, once they were in office, they were going to get tough with the bankers.

As in other matters, however, the Chancellor talks a good talk but does not walk a good walk: one puff of wind from the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor gives in on regulation. One meeting with the bankers and he says, “Okay, we’ll do Merlin, but meanwhile we’ll agree with you on the level of bonuses: I won’t tax your bonuses; we’ll go for a corporate bonus tax instead.”

Of course, we wholly endorse the effect of that tax and fully support the bank levy, but it has an impact on banks’ balance sheets, because as we are asking them to build themselves up, we are taxing them, quite rightly. We can achieve both, however, given the unusual and inexplicable profitability in the banking sector. The joy of what we would do, through amendment 13, is that we would tax the bankers—and so we should—but not impact on the business per se.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who introduced amendment 13, said that under this Government about £40 million had been paid in net remuneration—or it may be even gross, I am not sure—to the top five employees of Barclays bank. Some £40 million has been paid in bonuses alone. If anything is offensive, that is, and yet the Government refuse to do anything about it. What they should do is staring them in the face. We are not, in the amendment, asking them to agree with every single purpose to which we would dedicate the use of the funds. They may disagree with us on regional development or on the growth fund for new jobs; they can disagree on any number of items. However, surely no one in this House who is serious about tackling the bonus culture that has become so poisonous in the banking industry, and is spreading increasingly to the rest of the commercial and private sector, can disagree with the need to tackle those bonuses.

We heard the hon. Member for Bristol West speak for the Liberals, but it is interesting to note that there is not another Government Back Bencher anywhere in the House. When my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East spoke to the amendment, not a single Government Member, Liberal or Conservative, rose to oppose it. Not only have the Chancellor and his Financial Secretary caved in to the banks, but the whole coalition has fled the Chamber in fear and trembling of saying something that will offend the bankers. There is not one Member there—where have they all gone? What has happened? Are they, like the Chancellor and his Financial Secretary, afraid of offending the banks? I do not know; all I can see is that the serried ranks have fled and the Financial Secretary is left on his own to defend the indefensible—of which he is no doubt perfectly capable.

[Frank Dobson]

They’re collecting their bonuses.

[Mr Robinson]

They are hoping to collect them, I imagine, when they lose the next election.

What I do not understand about this whole debate is how the banks can make so much money. The retail sector is usually profitable. It is like a utility: there is a regular amount of income, those involved have a fairly nice oligopoly between them, and it works quite well. I do not think anybody is complaining about that, apart from the fact that every time the investment sector does badly, the poor retail customer gets it in the neck—the small companies and others—when the banks immediately try to recoup their losses by increasing fees and charges. While all is going well, we have one rule for the investment banks and one rule for the rest of the world. The investment banks continue to coin it in and take every penny they can in bonuses, and the rest are left with the remaining share of profitability, which is diminished by the excess amounts that the investment side is taking.

The first thing that I would recommend the Government to do is look at the spread of profitability throughout the economy. If we are serious about rebalancing the economy, the first thing that has to be rebalanced is the power differential between the banking sector and manufacturing—and, equally, the share of profitability as between the banking sector and the rest of the economy. It cannot be possible for those in the banking sector—RBS, Barclays and others—to go from a position of massive losses one year to huge profits on their investment trade in the next. In six months RBS made £5 billion profit. We are pleased to receive our share of that, but how can it be making such disproportionate profits compared with the rest of the economy? That does not quite stand up. Either they are real profits, in which case there is clearly a dysfunction in the economy as regards competitiveness that needs to be investigated and addressed, or the bank is creating fictitious profits, taking the bonuses while it can, and leaving the taxpayer to bail it out later. I do not know the answer to that question, but I put it to the Financial Secretary that it needs to be looked into. The profits are unreasonably high. He should forget about whether they are offensive or poisonous and address this as a purely economic phenomenon. How can the banking sector make those profits without sucking profitability out of the rest of the economy, particularly the manufacturing sector?

That brings me to the Government’s policy on rebalancing the economy. We all agree with that, but why do they not address the problem by taxing bonuses through the levy—and, for that matter, through the bonus tax that we propose? Unless we do something about that, the banking sector’s preponderance in being the master and not the servant of industry will continue, and for as long as it does, any talk about rebalancing the economy and the rebirth of manufacturing is make-believe. Nowhere can we see that better than in Derby, with yet another death of one of the few remaining conventional manufacturing industries in the UK. We are all in favour of advanced manufacturing and high-tech industries, but the German success has been based on superb engineering in the traditional conventional industries, which we—particularly those on the Treasury Bench, under both the Conservative and Labour parties—have tended to look down on.

If the Government are serious about rebalancing the economy in favour of manufacturing—we must all be serious about that—they will have to do better than saying that the market and the banks are the master. I am pleased that the Transport Secretary announced an investigation this morning—on the “Today” programme, as usual. The next instalment of the growth plan must consider how the Government can use their purchasing power to the benefit of this country, as is done superbly well in Germany and France.

We should look back. I have not made a study in advance of this speech and it would take us too long to go through everything. The death of the telecoms industry was down to a Government purchasing decision that ditched GPT. Ericsson came in with a great fanfare, then closed the whole of its works in Coventry and pulled its horns back to Sweden. We also pulled our support from the motor car industry. Years ago, people thought it was great because we would move into high-tech manufacturing. What happened? One industry after another closed in the wake of the car industry, including the machine tools industry and the capital goods industry in general. Throughout the history of post-war British manufacturing there has been a progressive loss of self-confidence and self-belief in British manufacturing throughout the country. That has to be addressed, and I put it to the Financial Secretary that it needs to be done now.

[Alison McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one moment in history when the British Government did not act in that way, which I raise because it was important to my constituents, was when the Labour Government stood behind General Motors at Ellesmere Port to maintain that industry in my area at a time of deep economic troubles in this country?

[Mr Robinson]

That is right, and I supported that entirely. I support any large manufacturing company with a base in the UK that we are seeking not to protect, but to develop and expand. I have stressed the progressive loss of self-confidence in British manufacturing across the nation. That example involves a large American company. Although it had got into a much worse mess than the old British motor industry ever got into, because it was American it had a naive faith that it would be able to pull itself, and us, out of that situation.

There has been a loss of confidence in our industries. I will not delay the House by giving example after example, but the view of the Treasury, the old Board of Trade and the old Department for Industry—unbelievably misnamed—has always prevailed: that the Government can do nothing, and market forces must prevail. That is despite the fact that every country that was a real competitor of ours took exactly the opposite view, and ensured that their industries thrived and prospered. They were not protected, but they were supported. We have so many latent advantages that we simply ignored, to the advantage of others and to our own continuing and cumulative disadvantage. That is the point that I am trying to make.

This is by no means a digression from the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is why the tax on the banks should be increased. The banking sector’s preponderance in the economy has to be reduced if we are to survive as a manufacturing and balanced economy in the future. In one way or another, that has to be done. What we have seen from the Government is a pathetic capitulation to the banks. It was difficult enough for us when we were trying to save the banking industry in the crisis, when it was in a bad state. When the banking industry is clearly on the way to recovery, there is absolutely no reason not to proceed with the bonus tax.

The only reason—with which I disagree—is that if we dare tax the banks, they will go abroad because they are being taxed too highly in the UK. This is another area where I would like a study to be done. To what extent is that really a risk? If it were a risk that major bankers would leave the UK in droves and we would have a denuded financial sector over night, it would have some benefits and a lot of disadvantages, but to what extent is it a risk? That could be studied. There are some hard-headed people in the Treasury who would certainly not agree with the banking point of view.

What is so special about the bankers that they can generate these huge profits and bonuses? I do not think that anybody knows. Anybody who thinks about it objectively thinks, “How can that be done?” The manufacturing industries in Germany and France, such as the telecoms sector and the car and lorry manufacturers, are sweating it out in their export markets. They are rebuilding the east of Germany and eastern Europe, and are now helping to industrialise China with massive exports of huge engineering resources. How can it be that they struggle to make 10% on turnover, but bankers can come in and generate huge profits—unrelated, as far as one can see, to any meaningful or socially useful activity, as Lord Turner said in another place?

Finance Bill

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

At the beginning of my speech, I said that we had a deficit reduction plan at the last election. When I was a Minister at the Home Office in the previous Government, we forwarded plans for £1.5 billion-worth of expenditure cuts. The Conservative-led Government are cutting £2.5 billion in that Department, which is why we are losing police officers and police community support officers, and why I fear that crime will go up. There was a plan. There were certainly issues that we had to tackle, and we will tackle them. The way in which the Government propose to tackle the deficit goes too far, too fast and too deep. It is being done in an unfair way that hits the poorest people hardest, and it will damage the long-term business interests of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that the coalition Government’s policies will deflate the economy, but that they are missing their own deficit reduction targets? They are so far from meeting them that they will have to borrow £46 billion more than it forecast, although they have not yet corrected the figure.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Conservative-Liberal Government are missing their borrowing targets and will have to increase borrowing by £46 billion because unemployment will rise over the next year and because we have lower growth. There is lower growth, in part, because of a lack of confidence, which has happened, in part, because of the rise in value added tax. It is an unfair tax that hits the poorest people hardest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the gist of what she is a saying in a general and good contribution is that the Government have managed to combine a deflationary economic policy with inflation at double the rate they forecast? Such a policy does not stand up. Is not the core of this their overall deflationary policy, of which an increase in VAT was the central part?

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. That is now having a devastating impact on the economy, on businesses and on individual families. In our new clause, we are asking for a proper impact assessment of the effect of the VAT rate on growth in the UK. Let us see whether the Government can come up with something more constructive and find a way to drive the economy forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He describes very well the downward spiral that businesses can get into unless there is a clear strategy in place to counter the deflationary measures in the economy, and we are simply not seeing that from the Government parties.

[Mr Robinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree, having listened to the minor carps of Liberal Members, that the essential difference between our policy and theirs seems to be on the issue of aggregate demand in the economy? All that the Government have done is reduce it by cancelling overnight Building Schools for the Future. That has halved the demand for construction in my constituency, and denied two crucial schools new buildings that they desperately need.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and reduced demand, not just from sectors but from individuals, appears to be very damaging for communities such as mine.

I want to talk about tourism in my constituency. Tourism was mentioned earlier; we know that VAT rises have really had an impact on the tourism industry, and cities such as mine are suffering because of that. People do not have as much disposable income as they did, so they are not spending as much on leisure, and that has an impact on tourism.

--- Later in debate ---

I can be clear about our position. I know that hon. Members have heard this before, but I will say it again. This Government inherited an exceptional fiscal challenge—the largest deficit in post-war history, and the state borrowing £1 in every £4 that it spent. We have undertaken a programme of fiscal consolidation, and the VAT increase is a necessary part of that plan. Current economic conditions and events in Europe reinforce the view that fiscal consolidation is the right course of action for the UK, and the evidence shows that the plan is working. The economy is growing and will grow further. We have the advantage of interest rates on a par with Germany’s, even though we are borrowing more than Greece and Portugal.

[Mr Robinson]

How can the Exchequer Secretary say that the economy is working and growing? It flatlined for six months, and according to his own Office for Budget Responsibility, the prognosis is that we will borrow £46 billion more over the period of the deficit reduction plan, and that unemployment will rise by 200,000 over the same period. How can he pretend that the plan is working?

The Economy

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

This is a timely economic debate, and I am pleased that the Opposition have tabled this motion for a whole-day debate at this crucial time. We are one year in, and we can now begin to form a view of whether the Government’s policies are working. It is always difficult for the Opposition, particularly on issues such as employment and the impact of economic policies on the well-being of our country and our constituents, when they have to come out and be negative about what is being achieved. Inevitably, and much to the resentment of Opposition Members, that leads to a chorus of unjustified remarks from across the Chamber that we want to talk the economy down or that we do not want good news. In the name of our constituents, we are desperate for good news. We want good news on employment, for example.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman said that his constituents were desperate for good news. May I refer him to the very useful economic indicators update provided by the Library? It shows that consumer confidence rose by 10% in May, that manufacturers’ output expectations have risen by 13%, and that the EU economic sentiment indicators for Britain are up by 2.6 points. Does he not agree that those are all positive indicators? I would welcome him sharing them with his constituents and all his colleagues on the Opposition Benches.

[Mr Robinson]

All we know at the moment is what has happened and many forward-looking forecasts are no better than those of the OBR, which was set up by the Government to provide a so-called independent forecast. Let us be clear that we welcomed and accepted that. All we can look at is what has been achieved; we will come on to the forecasts in a few moments. If we show a moment’s hesitation or doubt about them, I hope that Government Members will understand why. I followed the first 10 years of the Labour Government very closely, and I do not think that we ever had to revise any forecast three times in a matter of six months. If we do not listen to the forecasts and do not treat them as if they had already been achieved, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why.

There are some things we can welcome. We can welcome the good effort in job creation in the private sector. According to the Chancellor this afternoon, that means 520,000 jobs, so let us welcome that. The trouble is, however, that the OBR says—this is the bible we have to go by—that before the end of this Parliament, 200,000 more people are going to be unemployed than it originally thought. We have 520,000 on the one hand and 200,000 more on the other. There is always a negative balancing out the positive in all these areas. If we take inflation, for example, it has gone through the roof at 4.5%. Manufacturing output has been a good effort up until the last quarter, but it is now down again. It is not surprising that an intake of jobs in the private manufacturing sector has supported that output, built on the back of the previous Government’s policies. [Interruption.] No, they do not like to hear it, but it is a fact. Why did more than two thirds of the private sector increase in employment take place before the spending round announcement? It happened on the back of the reflationary policies of the previous Labour Government.

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

[Mr Robinson]

I will give way in a few moments.

Those are the facts and that is the situation. If we look at the balance sheet of the Government’s economic policy in its first year, we see that even in the two areas where the Government had until recently done relatively well, the signs are now bad, so I find it hard to believe that there are any factual or objective grounds for thinking that they have done well overall or that their policies are going to work. The Chancellor continues to say that the plan is working, but all he is really saying is that he is retaining the support of those he set out to gain support from in the first place by adopting an essentially old-fashioned, deflationary bankers’ policy of cutting demand in the economy. That is what he set out to do and that is what he is doing. The prospects of it succeeding are poor.

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

[Mr Robinson]

I will take the intervention later, if I may.

We are now at the stage where we have to make up our minds whether the Government’s economic policies are going to work or not. In a very good article published in today’s edition of The Guardian, Robert Skidelsky argues that the choice between the two economic policies has to be made by anyone wanting to make a serious stand on these issues. He says that the theories or sets of policies have been set out by all the famous, much-lauded figures in the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and all the rest of them. If we are dealing with what economists think—it is not the only thing that matters—we should also mention people like Stiglitz and Krugman who say that the policy is wrong.

If we look at the history, we find that it tends to be the people who are not part of the conventional wisdom or not part of the establishment, so to speak, who get it right and that the establishment nearly always gets it wrong. There is no attempt to get out of the box into which the Government have so constrained their policies—they like it and feel it is their comfort zone. I am talking about bankers and international organisations that are intent on deflation, which they are inflicting in the present crucifixion of the Greek economy—where they effectively continue to throw good money into failed policies.

Let me briefly read from the article:

“The Keynesians…among whom I number myself”—

and I am happy to be there, too—

“will have to eat their words if growth picks up and unemployment falls in the next 12 months”.

That is to say, if the Government’s policy comes right, the debt falls and deficit crisis is met, we could then celebrate the success of the policy. On the other hand, it might not work—and it is time for Members to decide where they stand on this. I happen to believe that there is no evidence to suppose that it will, much as I would like it to work: it will not work; it never has worked in history. It is not working in Greece or in Ireland. Greece has had two further doses of deflation and two goes at decreasing VAT, and it is still not working. It is getting worse, because they are not dealing with the root of the problem, as the shadow Chancellor made clear in his speech.

What could be done? Given that the Government will not want to change their policy, they have only one way out: another heavy incidence of quantitative easing. This time, the Government will have to stand up to the Bank of England for once in their life, and say, “We want this money to be put to productive ends.” We create the money, but nobody knows where it goes, except to make bankers’ profits in overseas investment markets. The Government should say, “We want the money to be made available through a bank”—such as the green investment bank, which could be much expanded—“to the British economy for, above all, investment in small and medium-sized enterprises.” The argument from the Governor of the Bank of England will be, “We can’t distort capital markets, you know. This is interfering in the market.” Of course it is; it is an attempt to avert the wastefulness that we have seen from so many of the policies so far.

Where should that money be channelled? In a very good contribution earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said that the housing market is dead on its feet at the moment. The new housing market is, I think, at an all-time low. The money, therefore, should go into housing, and into transport, which is desperate not for HS2 but for sensible things such as the four-tracking of the line between Coventry and Birmingham, about which I know something, and at other points such as in Wales. The other good thing would be that the railway policy could be executed much more quickly and fully.

Will the Government change course? No. Will their policy work? No. Are there alternatives? Yes. I understand why they do not want to touch VAT, but they could at least get the Governor of the Bank of England to do quantitative easing of a large scale, £200 billion, and ensure that, instead of being dissipated into overseas markets, a good part of that money is used for the productive sectors of the British economy. That would make a big difference and be a start to the change of policy that we need from the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The simple reason is that we have a credible deficit reduction plan. Even though we inherited a deficit higher than Portugal’s, our interest rates are closer to those of Germany. Indeed, the spread over Bunds—the difference between German and UK interest rates—has come down substantially over the last year, even though that gap has gone up in France, Spain and other European countries. The real monetary stimulus being provided to the economy by those low interest rates is anchored in the credible deficit reduction plan.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

May I take up the point made by the Chancellor about the outstanding speech made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor? Why does the Chancellor have this touching, childlike faith in the views of the IMF when it got things dead wrong on the exchange rate mechanism, which it unfortunately imposed on this country the previous time it had the misfortune to have a Tory Government?

[Mr Osborne]

It is normal for Finance Ministers to pay some attention to what the IMF says, but there we go. The last time we had a Labour Government, we had to turn to the IMF for help; I am trying to avoid that.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

The measures in clause 35 will not assist the progress that the previous Labour Government made in providing a lift out of child poverty for the poorest families in society. At a stroke, unless the Minister contradicts me, by not using the expenditure as originally planned by the previous Government, he will be removing the ability to invest in the child care places that were planned for the poorest members of our society.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend touches on the great steps made under the previous Government to alleviate child poverty. Was he by any chance present during Prime Minister’s Question Time today, when the Prime Minister made it clear that we had reached the end of the road in terms of taxation measures to achieve that? In particular, he said that he was absolutely against further redistributive measures. The proposals, which are separate from straightforward taxation measures, will take further steps to aggravate, not alleviate, child poverty.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has an opportunity to clarify the Government’s approach to the provision of child care. That is clearly linked to clause 35, because the Labour Government’s original proposals were designed to meet the objectives that my hon. Friend has indicated. That point is made, and I want the Minister to clarify his approach to child poverty and how the Government propose to fund child care places for two-year-olds.

Agencies and organisations outside the House have made a range of comments on clause 35. It is worth giving the Minister an opportunity to respond to them, and I hope that he will offer some reassurance. Some of the comments also relate to the accompanying schedule. I appreciate that the Committee is not considering that now, but it is very much linked to the clause.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which, as the Minister will know, is an initiative of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, has raised with me some real concerns about clause 35 and schedule 8. It is concerned about the complex interactions of tax-free vouchers with tax credits and child care cost support, the dynamics of which it believes changed again after 6 April 2011. It is important that the Minister responds to its concern about the poor channels of advice for employees and employers about the implementation of the scheme proposed under clause 35.

The group believes that there may have been errors—under the previous Government, I admit—in HMRC’s online calculator, and it is concerned about how the implementation of these measures will be taken forward. It is particularly concerned that although the system is designed for fairness, the results that it produces may not be fair. I shall give some examples, if I may, of its concerns about clause 35.

The group is particularly concerned that the clause will remain reliant on interpretation according to guidance published in draft on HMRC’s website, which it believes is inconsistent with the clause. I am not making any assessment of the group’s judgment call on that matter, I am simply placing it on the table because this Committee debate gives the Exchequer Secretary the opportunity to examine whether that concern is justified. He may be able to provide some comfort by giving his interpretation.

The group has raised the concern that under schedule 8 —the schedule will be discussed in the Public Bill Committee, but it is worth mentioning now—the changes will apply only to those whose employer estimates them to be higher rate or additional rate taxpayers at a particular point in time, rather than to those who are actually found to be so by a final assessment. It is important that either now or when we discuss schedule 8 in the Public Bill Committee, the Exchequer Secretary reflects upon that concern and provides some clarity about when the assessment will be made on whether individuals are higher rate or additional rate taxpayers. We need to know at what stage in the financial year that assessment will be made, who will make it, how much of a burden it will be on employers and employees and whether the figures and facts that HMRC will use in the calculation are sound and to his satisfaction. They must be seen to be just and fair.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has expressed concern that the change may have equality impacts, for example on employees who become long-term sick or disabled, on women or on those who switch to part-time work in the course of the year. It suggests that there should be some flexibility in the interpretation of clause 35 and schedule 8.

The Library has calculated that overall, families will be some £1,700 a year worse off due to the Government’s tax and benefit changes, of which clause 35 is one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, the Prime Minister promised to lead the most family-friendly Government ever, and I should like to hear from the Exchequer Secretary where the proposal, when linked to the proposals on child benefit and the working tax credit and the others that we know about, fits into the Government’s overall strategy for child care.

We accept that there will have to be difficult and challenging decisions, and I reconfirm that the previous Labour Government wished the targeting now set out in clause 35 to progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

Rather than a redirection of money, is this not simply camouflage for a straightforward cut? It is a breach in the universality principle that strikes at the very foundations that hold the nation together.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: there is a fundamental point of principle here. I suspect that there is much more in the clause than is apparent that breaks this principle of universality. The debate on clause 35 concerns not only the immediate measure of removing child care tax relief from higher earners, but the course that the Chancellor is charting against families and the welfare state. On child care tax relief, it is worth remembering that it was John Major, when he was Chancellor in 1990, who first introduced relief for employer-supported child care, and as has been pointed out, that was extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he was Chancellor. It is right that Labour considered changes to this relief in order to better focus Government support on child care.

The last Labour Government considered tax rate reliefs of this kind. Hon. Members have referred to expert bodies. However, the tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants argued that it would

“be burdensome, disproportionate and open to manipulation and abuse”,

so it ruled out this tactic of preventing benefit from being paid to higher earners or excluding them from the system. As I mentioned earlier, the real danger of the Chancellor and coalition Government’s tax and benefit policies is that they could push middle Britain out of the welfare state. It is a squeeze on middle England. Taken with the decision to end child tax credits and child benefit for families with a single high-band earner from 2013, it seems to me and Opposition colleagues to be a concerted attack on the fabric of the universality of the welfare state.

In the light of the rhetoric that surrounded the measure, and given that it appeared that the Government were intent on making immediate cuts, it came as a surprise to me and other Opposition Members that when it was announced, it was delayed until as late as 2013. That was a surprise because it seemed to be an attack on a core vote area of the Conservative party—perhaps it is no longer such a core vote area. It was a further surprise that a party that in opposition had consistently called for tax cuts for married couples seemed in government to want to attack them as soon as they had children. At the time—I believe it remains the case today—there was considerable concern that this policy was ill-thought-out, and that it was a party political stunt from a Conservative party and a coalition Government still finding their feet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. All that we are trying to do is give the Government a chance to reflect on a bad decision that has been made in haste, and to look at the impact that these measures will have on families. That is not a revolutionary approach. It seems quite reasonable to me. The Government will have ample opportunity to reflect on these matters, because the provisions will not be implemented until 2013. Were they to do so, I hope that that would provide the impetus for a wide-ranging debate on whether the coalition will push ahead with its policy on child benefit and child tax credits, and on what the implications of that will be for families, for the broader economy and for society.

[Mr Robinson]

I am conscious of your strictures, Mr Evans, and I am in no way challenging the Chair, but I understand the difficulty that my hon. Friend is having in considering clause 35 on its own. It can be considered only in the wider context of the other measures that together amount to an attack on families by a Government who said that they were going to be the most green-friendly Government ever—never mind the most friendly Government ever. It is the cumulative effect of all those measures that makes those claims so vainglorious and empty. That illustrates the difficulty that my hon. Friend is having, and that I would have if I were to contribute to the debate, although I would try to be a little stricter if I could. We cannot isolate the clause from the whole package of proposals that will compound the effect of this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will do so, Mr Evans, and I take your point precisely.

[Mr Robinson]

We are not opposing the 11 words per se. [Interruption.] We are not going to vote on them, to my knowledge. The point is that the expansion of child care for two-year-olds is not funded, and that is what the whole of our modification to the existing legislation was intended to do. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the problem with this legislation?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. The funding of these measures needs to fit within the wider context, as set out perfectly eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). He was given a certain degree of leeway by the Chairman to put all this in the context of the wider changes that this Government have introduced on family policy.

Clause 35 goes some way towards dealing with the issues raised about tackling child poverty. The clause intends to ensure that extra resource is released for early years provision, and we support that. As I said, we proposed to do that when we were in government and, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, it highlights the real progress that was made on tackling child poverty during the Labour years, as was highlighted in the OECD report. I do not know whether the clause will have any impact on the Government’s ambitions to tackle child poverty, because that remains to be seen, but some of these changes could well start to have an impact. The explanatory notes state:

“Approximately 450,000 parents currently qualify for the relief.”

I am sure that the Treasury stands by that figure, as it produced the explanatory notes. Those 450,000 people will be concerned by these changes and the Government will have to answer the question that they will be asking: what do they get out of the system? If they are to miss out on this relief as a result of the Government’s changes and the extra child care places are targeted, the Government will have to deal with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington was answering on the general principle of universality.

Having said that, it is important that this Government maintain a commitment to early years education. There is a degree of consensus across the House on the benefits of ensuring that children can start their education as young as possible, whether or not that is education through play in the context of early years provision—I think that we probably all agree on that. I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has responsibility for children, is in his place. During the last general election campaign he visited a Sure Start centre in Horton Green, in my constituency, with the Conservative candidate. He also had his photograph taken outside my house as part of that campaign, and I was pleased that the then Opposition had visited a Sure Start children’s centre in my constituency. That underlined the background motive of the clause, which is to ensure that more resource is put into the early years.

However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn made clear, people have concerns that this Government are not family-friendly, because what they are giving with one hand, they are taking with another. Many of the measures that they have introduced in this Budget, of which clause 35 is part, are deeply damaging to families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to say why clause 35 should not stand part of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, the fundamental problem with the clause, which in principle at least the outgoing Labour Government were going to promote, is that in its new guise it fails the fairness test. As we go into election season tomorrow and tomorrow night, the fairness of what the Government are doing will be foremost in our electorate’s mind.

Clause 35 deals with higher rate taxpayer relief for child care. In Hackney, I represent one of the most deprived areas of the country but I do have some higher rate taxpayers. It being Hackney, my higher rate taxpayers are people of discernment and intelligence and they are Labour-voting higher rate taxpayers, but none the less my concern overall is for the most deprived in our community.

When clause 35 is stripped of any pretence of helping low-income families with child care, it is astonishing to see that this Government should so nakedly seek to attack many of their supporters. It is unthinking, chaotic and disorganised and it is not even politically coherent. When we put it in the context, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) sought to do, of the other changes in taxes and benefits that will affect middle England—the cuts in the amount that parents can claim for child care, the freezes to child benefit, the changes to the baby element of child tax credit, the freezing of the basic 30-hour element of working tax credit, the changes to the second income threshold for the family element of child tax credits or the withdrawal rates for tax credits—we see a frontal financial assault on middle England, the very people who the Government will look to for support not just in the local elections in 24 hours’ time but as they move forward.

Why are the Government seeking to attack middle England in such a way? Is it because we have a Cabinet of millionaires? Do they not understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet, even on a relatively middling salary in a relatively middling condition of life? Is it ignorance or uncaringness about how the majority of people live? Who knows: there can be no question but that as the totality of the changes to taxes and benefits as well as the job losses in the public sector come to the attention of middle England, it will be hard for those people to understand or believe that the Government have their interests at heart.

Another significant consideration about clause 35 and the suite of changes to child care, family tax and welfare issues is the effect they will have on women. One reason why issues such as tax relief on child care and particularly child benefit remain so emotive in public discourse is that they go back to the original child benefit which some Members might remember was paid to the mother, who had her own child benefit book. For many mothers, that was the only money of their own that they had—that was certainly the case in my family. Even though those payments are now paid through the tax system and to the family as a whole, these are still emotive issues in ordinary families who remember the old child benefit system and remember that the money went to mothers. The reason why it went to mothers was that it was always understood that child benefit was an effective benefit because mothers spent it on their children.

With a Cabinet of millionaires, the Government do not understand how middle England is struggling. They do not understand how people in middle England fear for the future even if, on paper, they have good salaries and good jobs. They do not understand the emotive content of issues such as child benefit and child tax credit to ordinary women in ordinary families. Ordinary women are looking at the totality of the changes that the Government are making and asking, “Do they really understand my life? Do they really understand what it is to pay bills at the end of the month or to juggle a job and child care and to support the rest of my family?” When one looks at clause 35, presented naked, without the commitment that we had to help lower-paid families with child care, the answer seems to be that, no, they do not understand. The Cabinet of millionaires does not know what it is to be in the middle and to feel as though you are just one wage packet away from a really difficult situation.

In the past decade, middle England has been encouraged to over-leverage itself and been facilitated in doing so, and people are now trying to down-leverage by paying off more of their credit cards and trying to bring down their burden of debt. The Government may say that the £1,000 that people will lose because of changes to this tax relief is only a small amount, but for someone who is juggling their salary to pay off debt, worrying about paying their children’s tuition fees as they go through university and also worrying about how to pay for the care of elderly family members, that money will make the difference between their sums adding up or not adding up at the end of the month.

The Government’s lack of understanding of the reality of life for many ordinary British people, even those who are, on paper, so much better off today, such as some of my constituents in Hackney, shines through in the clause and in the thoughtless and heedless way in which the Government have brought the measures forward. They have not sought to balance them with measures that might help the poorest, although that might have helped middle England to understand why the changes are being made. Currently, given the way in which the measures are being introduced, all that middle England can understand is that the Government do not understand what a struggle it is for middle-income families, and even some families in which the sole wage earner is a higher rate taxpayer, to make ends meet. Of course, similar proposals were originally brought forward by Labour, but in a very different context. Clause 35 has been brought forward in the context of a series of other measures that will also have an impact.

[Mr Robinson]

Not only were the Labour proposals brought forward in a different context, but the Labour Government were going to use the money to extend child care for two-year-olds in the least well-off families. Is not that the whole point? Is it not strange that the Government, who are so concerned about cost-effectiveness and getting the most out of every penny they spend, do not realise that all the studies show that the earlier an intervention is made the more effective it is? By not doing what the Labour Government wanted to do and extending that child care to two-year-olds, they are denying themselves the very basis on which they could have realised that principle.

[Ms Abbott]

That is an important intervention. This is a Government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Had they been willing to continue both halves of our policy—taking away tax relief for higher-income taxpayers and extending child care to two-year-olds for low-income families—in the long run, they would realise a cash benefit. I know from my own constituency that the earlier we can make an impact on people, the earlier we can give families support with properly funded child care, the sooner we can save the state money on education and a range of social issues. As I said, these are people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Clause 35 is the shell of something that the outgoing Labour Government introduced, but it lacks the counterbalancing measures that we were going to introduce. It reflects a Government who do not understand that families are struggling in the current climate, and who do not understand the significance of those tax and welfare arrangements for women. They will pay a price for that lack of understanding in the local elections tomorrow, as middle England looks on the Conservative-led coalition and says, not that this is the most family-friendly Government ever but that this is the most middle-income-family-hostile Conservative-led Government ever.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in this stand part debate. I, too, want to express concerns about the proposals on child care, particularly the intention to change taxation.

It is not the change to taxation in relation to child care with which I wish to take issue but the broader context of funding and provision for child care, and the lost opportunity that the clause represents. Opposition Members accept that in straitened financial circumstances it is appropriate to look at the taxation system and tax breaks for higher earners and better-off families, and that it may be appropriate to rebalance the tax take and those tax breaks. However, we believe very strongly that there are better ways to redistribute—a word that is perhaps more popular among Opposition Members than Government Members—that money for the benefit of families and children and, in relation to clause 35, to achieve adequate child care provision.

[Mr Robinson]

Did my hon. Friend attend Prime Minister’s questions, given that she said that “redistribute” was a word heard more often among Opposition Members, and redistribution is perhaps a policy more often pursued by the Opposition? The Prime Minister ruled out redistribution almost unilaterally as a means by which we could help—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I listened to the Prime Minister at PMQs, and I did not hear him refer once to clause 35. This is rather specific. I know that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) wants to talk about the broader generalities, but that is not what clause 35 is about; otherwise the debate would be very general indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I beg your pardon. This was not intended to be a general discourse on child poverty. There was a specific reference in the OECD report to the importance of child care, and it is specifically that element of the report that I feel is relevant to the clause, but I entirely accept that we are discussing the implications particularly of the provision to remove the tax break for higher earners. My point is what do we do with that money. That must be a financial consideration too.

[Mr Robinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a big opportunity is missed to extend more widely the provision of child care for two-year-olds? That is directly relevant to clause 35. In my constituency, for example, there are two child centres that already have facilities in place for that extension, which cannot be funded because the Government have decided not to pursue the policy that we had in mind. That could have been the basis for using those facilities, which now lie idle.

[Kate Green]

Indeed, and that does not make good fiscal sense. It cannot be sensible for public money to be invested but then not exploited for the benefit of the community, those families and, indeed, the economy. In the context of this Finance Bill debate, that surely has to be at the heart of our scrutiny of its clauses.

It is also important that we understand just how much is going on to make it even more challenging for parents to afford child care, and therefore why it was all the more important to use the funding that the tax break before us is saving in order to replace some of the funding that is being lost for the provision of child care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Of course, my right hon. Friend proposed a full review of the overall impact of the Government’s provisions on child care. Naturally, a full review would be informed by the fullest possible input from experts in the field, including child care professionals and providers, families and even children and young people. I certainly am not aware of any such consultation or discussion.

It would have been very useful if the Government had carried out such a consultation, because they would have begun to understand the impact of this provision not just on individual families but on the child care market. The impact of clause 35 on the child care market is just as important an issue because of the wide social and economic consequences that it will have for the Government. I am confident that a proper consultation at this point, taking account of the economic context and the other financial measures brought forward by the Government in the emergency Budget, the spending review and this year’s Budget, would produce useful input from experts and families on the pressures and stresses that would be faced, and on the consequences they would have, not least on the propensity to take, extend or remain in paid work. I think we can all agree that paid work will be key in getting our country out of recession, and into recovery and economic growth.

[Mr Robinson]

Listening to my hon. Friend, it is clear that she has an in-depth knowledge of this sector and of how child care can most effectively and cost-effectively be used. Reflecting on her experience, does she see any economic rationale or moral principle underlying the idea inherent in clause 35 that if only one parent is working and is in the higher rate tax bracket, they are not eligible for child care, but if two parents are working, they are? That seems to be a perverse incentive. All it will do—this is why some Labour Members had reservations about our Government’s policy, which led to clause 35 —is to put higher rate taxpayers in the same position with child care as they choose to be with comprehensive schools, whereby they do not bring their middle-class, extreme commitment to them. We will force them out of the national provision of child care and create social division as opposed to greater social cohesion.

[Kate Green]

I am confused by the Government’s direction of travel, specifically on the clause and on its interaction with their other choices about financially supporting parents to make or not to make decisions about child care, such as whether both parents in a couple go to work or whether one parent stays at home to care for the children—the Government’s preferred model that we seem to see in the development of universal credit and the different treatment of lone parents and parents in couple households, as well as in the differential support that the Government want to provide for child care that is targeted at the most vulnerable people. We might say that clause 35 is part of that package.

The Government have welcomed the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who suggested that bringing all children within the ambit of Sure Start, for example, is good for communities, families and children, so I am also confused about the philosophical direction of travel that the Government are taking in relation to child care. Indeed, I am forced to conclude that there is no philosophical direction of travel. There is entirely opportunistic fiscal decision making—grab a bit of money here, take a bit of money there, forget those families over there—that might save the Government some money in the short term, but it will be absolutely disastrous in the long term for our economic future and for children’s outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

That is right. There is plenty of evidence that parents, especially women, will always make financial sacrifices for their children’s well-being. We should be concerned by the fact that families will have to stagger under considerable financial pressure for the best of reasons—to keep their children in good-quality child care places. They know that that will help their children’s well-being, because they will be happy and enjoy their child care setting and the friendships and relationships that they make there. Let us not underestimate the importance of social interaction in child development, and good-quality child care can offer that.

Parents will do everything they possibly can in the interests of their child’s well-being and happiness. They will do everything to hold on to a good-quality child care place, even if they find themselves under financial pressure, possibly for a prolonged period. That has a knock-on effect elsewhere in the family budget, which might lead to the problems of debt, financial difficulty and stress that my hon. Friends have mentioned.

Financial stress among parents tends to feed back into children’s well-being, and children become aware of it in the household. They are aware of tensions and anxieties in their parents’ attitudes and behaviour. We have to understand how central good-quality, sustainable and stable child care is to children’s much wider well-being. That is why it is of concern that funding for that child care provision is being eaten away at by the provisions of clause 35.

There are opportunities to compensate for what is happening within the market. I particularly highlight the need to ensure that we maintain a supply of well-qualified child care workers, because pressures elsewhere in the public finances may mean that we see fewer good-quality child care workers coming through from training. Indeed, the loss of education maintenance allowance may have an impact on that. There are real concerns among parents about the nibbling away at the different pillars of the child care market.

When we ask parents what they worry about in balancing the family budget, they repeatedly highlight the high cost of good-quality child care. They do not want to buy poor-quality child care if it is at all possible to avoid it, because they are mindful of the value of getting their child into a high-quality, professionally run child care setting with excellent developmental and social activity, which the children can enjoy and in which they can flourish. Parents know that quality costs, and they do not want to compromise or cut corners when it comes to their children’s well-being, so they want to spend all they can on quality care.

[Mr Robinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the encouraging things that took place under the previous Government was that the quality aspect of Sure Start and child care provision was emphasised right from the beginning? Expansion was not allowed to go unchecked—it could only follow the existence of quality. That high quality has, on the whole, been maintained, but of course it is now under threat from the cuts.

[Kate Green]

We are worried about whether the quality of child care will be maintained as less funding becomes available in the child care market. Achieving quality is partly about ensuring that children from mixed backgrounds—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Because of the crisis in the public finances that we inherited, we have taken a range of measures to provide credibility and to get our deficit down. That is what the country needs, and I am sorry that the Labour party is not willing or able to engage sensibly in that debate.

Employer-supported child care allows participating employers to offer their employees support with their child care costs. The latest HMRC modelling suggests that about 450,000 parents are members of ESC schemes, and that about 40% of them are higher or additional rate taxpayers. This support is offered through tax relief and the associated national insurance contributions disregard, with employers able to offer their employees up to £55 per week, free of income tax and NICs. Most employers offer this support through child care vouchers delivered either by salary sacrifice or flexible remuneration arrangements. Such arrangements can also benefit employers, because they, too, make NIC savings. At present, basic rate taxpayers can receive up to £900 of support a year through ESC, whereas higher rate taxpayers can receive up to £1,200 of support a year.

[Mr Robinson]

What is the economic rationale or moral principle underlying the distinction the Government are still making, I think, between families with a single higher rate taxpayer and families in which the mother and father are both higher rate taxpayers? It does not seem to make any sense, moral or economic.

[Mr Gauke]

In part, the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into the debate on child benefit, but I have no intention of straying off the subject, Dr McCrea. I am sure that you would not want me to. I should also point out that the previous Government’s original proposal was to abolish employer-supported child care altogether. I would be interested to know what the moral principles were at that point.

The clause introduces schedule 8, which makes changes to ensure that from April this year, all recipients of employer-supported child care will receive the same amount of income tax relief as basic rate taxpayers. Although we are very much in favour of employers helping their employees share the cost of child care, it is neither progressive nor well targeted for wealthier households to derive more benefit than those on lower incomes, and I am rather surprised that Opposition Members should advocate that. All parents who join ESC schemes on or after 6 April 2011 will now receive the same amount of income tax relief as basic rate taxpayers. That is achieved by limiting the amount that higher rate taxpayers and additional rate taxpayers can receive each week to £28 and £22 respectively, so that all parents receive the same amount of income tax relief support each week—about £11. To avoid the measure having a retroactive effect, all existing members who joined a scheme before April 2011 will be able to retain their current rates of tax relief. I assure the Committee that the change will not affect the tax and NICs relief available for workplace nurseries.

We understand how valuable the support is to working parents. However, it is simply not fair that wealthier parents should be able to receive up to £300 more support for their child care costs than basic rate taxpayers. The changes that we are making to employer-supported child care are needed to make the benefit fairer, better targeted and more progressive, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Budget (Coventry)

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

We are very grateful to you, Ms Dorries, for your chairmanship of this important debate on the present economic situation in Coventry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate and I thank Mr Speaker for granting it.

I should like to develop a few of the points made by my hon. Friend. I want to draw the Government’s attention to them as they contribute to the highly unsatisfactory situation regarding jobs and the prospects for jobs in Coventry at the moment.

My first point relates to the review of the schools building programme. The situation in Coventry is particularly bad. All building was stopped and none was allowed to go forward. Even two schemes in my own constituency—Woodlands school and President Kennedy school—that were on the point of signature were refused. The Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) is aware that at present the main building of Woodlands school is propped up by scaffolding, and has been for the past two years. What family is likely to want their child to go to a school that is propped up by scaffolding and might collapse at any minute? That scheme should have been given the go-ahead because the school is not fit for present-day purposes. I know that such buildings are the subject of the current capital review that is going on. We are approaching the end of the first year of this coalition Government and the situation is no longer satisfactory.

Similarly, development at the President Kennedy school, which was on the brink of getting the go-ahead, was suddenly stopped. Again, it is a totally unsatisfactory situation. There are a number of other such schools. My hon. Friend mentioned others in his own constituency and in Coventry North East. The matter must be brought to head in the near future.

My hon. Friend mentioned the regional fund, which has been slashed by 70% in Coventry. Such a cut will have a major impact on the level of activity and on the number of schemes that can be carried out with Government support. Many projects could go ahead if we had quicker and easier funding for them.

Let me draw the Minister’s attention to transport. Not so long ago, we had a debate in this Chamber with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) in which we tried to thrash out alternatives to the massive High Speed 2 programme. Some £18 billion would need to be spent on the London to Birmingham route. What needs to be done urgently and would hugely contribute to employment activity in the Birmingham and Coventry area is simple four-tracking, which has to be done on the London to Birmingham route. Such a scheme is supported by Centro and local experts who say that it could make a huge contribution not just to employment but to the development of the region by bringing in activity and easing transport between Coventry and Birmingham, which is a very congested area of the west midlands. That scheme is not going ahead now because it has been earmarked to be done in five years’ time—if we are lucky—as part of an £18 billion build. It could be done under a rail package 2 proposal, which has been put up by the same consultants who are doing the HS2 work for the Government, at a fraction of the cost. With many areas under blight, many Conservative MPs in the south-east share our view that we should invest in the areas through which the rail already travels.

Similarly, there is the issue of the Knuckle project, which is the rail link between Coventry and the Ricoh stadium. It goes further north to Nuneaton and further south from Coventry. Again, it is local and regional and could get the go-ahead. We know that it has not been killed by the present Government; it is still there and is still a possibility. The project is estimated at about £18 million, which is chickenfeed compared with the scale of the investments that we are considering in other areas.

The schools schemes and the rail programme could be given the go-ahead and they would make a tremendous difference to the blight that we otherwise face in Coventry.

The last time we went through a similarly bad period was in the early 1980s. The car industry and the machine tool industry collapsed. Virtually all the mechanical engineering sectors that were located in Coventry collapsed. There was nothing much left at the end of that period and we still have not recovered. Although investment and development continued to take place in the country, much of it bypassed Coventry. We face the same problem again and it will affect those sectors that came in to replace manufacturing, notably the public sector. Becta and the QCDA have been closed. The council is announcing huge cuts. The whole public sector that came in to replace manufacturing—not much else came in apart from transport and delivery—is now facing the same sort of cuts at a time of severe recession and once again, Coventry will be pushed down.

I realise that time is limited and I will not go on any more. I have listed a number of specific projects that could be undertaken in the context of what the Government have available now for regional development. I urge the Minister, who has no direct responsibility for any of the projects, to push her colleagues who are responsible at least to consider them.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

In a moment, but I need to make some progress.

I understand that there is a difference between short-term and long-term liabilities. However, what will be the impact on businesses in the real economy if short-term liabilities are less attractive to major banks? For example, if a small firm has a bank deposit of over £100,000—to protect its cash flow or whatever—that happens to be above the level of the deposit guarantee scheme, what is to stop the banks raising their bank charges on SME deposit accounts to try to divest themselves of such short-term liabilities? That is an important point, because there will be consequences from the design of the bank levy. I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee why short-term liabilities and long-term liabilities have been divided in that way.

Can the Minister explain the position on the reported legal challenge under European Union law, which I understand many in the banking community are watching carefully? The Hungarian Government have introduced a levy on their energy and telecoms sectors. I understand that a case has been taken—or is due to be taken—to the European Court to claim that a levy on a specific sector of the economy is somehow unfair or not possible. To what extent is the Minister confident that the case will not have a bearing on the implementation of a banking levy here in the UK?

I would also be grateful if the Minister could answer the question about complexity and opacity in the bank levy accounting systems. As I understand it, overseas banks can sometimes not use IFRS—international financial reporting standards. If those banks do not use them, they will need to re-compute their chargeable equity and liabilities with reference to the UK’s GAAP—generally accepted accounting principles—or IFRS, in other words, by preparing a notional consolidation under those systems, including for branches. Is that anticipated to create a problem? What do the Government foresee as a solution to that level? Obviously we have banks that cross jurisdictions and use a series of different accounting platforms, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify some of the comments that have been made about that.

However, it is the Government’s general approach to banks and banking taxation that concerns many hon. Members—a general approach that, as we know, is quite woeful. Hon. Members have already raised their concerns about some of the bonuses that we have seen and the breathtaking behaviour that the banks have engaged in, even though they were the root cause of the credit crunch.

That makes the Government’s tax giveaway to the banks even more staggering. The post-Budget reaction last June, when the bank levy was announced, was indeed positive from the bankers themselves. They enjoyed the Government’s decisions on the bank levy. One commentator said:

“We’d expect most domestically-orientated banks…to be better off after four years than they were pre-Budget”,

and a City insider said that

“some banks will have a feeling of glee at the way this has worked out”.

Clearly, we need to advocate a bank bonus tax to raise £3.5 billion, as it did before. That deserves to be repeated this year. Even if it were to raise just £2 billion, that would make a massive difference to our society and our economy. For example, we have calculated that such an amount could be used to establish a youth jobs fund—using a similar model to the future jobs fund, which this Government have abolished—creating 90,000 new youth jobs at a time when youth unemployment is close to 1 million, with one in five young people on the dole.

That money could also help to construct 25,000 new homes for low-cost home ownership and affordable social renting. That would create tens of thousands of jobs in the construction industry and new apprenticeships alongside them. The money could also provide £200 million of funding for the regional growth fund, the Government’s rather lamentable replacement for the regional development agency funding. That could help to provide for regional projects and promote growth. The Government’s changes represent a two-thirds cut on the previous funding, and the first wave of £450 million in grants was several times oversubscribed with bids. We therefore need to revisit the regional growth fund, and a repeat of the bank bonus tax could support that.

The bonuses being paid are still vast; they remain at eye-watering levels. Despite the smoke and mirrors of Project Merlin, in which Ministers broke their promises to take action despite the warm words in the coalition agreement, the bonuses remain high. Let us just remind ourselves of what the coalition agreement promised. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said:

“We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.”

That is on page 9 of the agreement, right up front among the promises that the coalition made.

The Government could not even bring themselves to promote the basic transparency that we expect when it comes to bonuses and remuneration. The most that they could extract voluntarily from the banks in Project Merlin was an agreement to report anonymously on the total remuneration of the five highest paid senior executives of the bank, excluding board members. That is a weak and shameful compromise. The Government are not even forcing the banks to disclose all bonuses above £1 million, even though Labour’s legislation allows them to do so. That provision is already on the statute book.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend return briefly to the alternative uses to which that £2 billion could be put—the very low figure that the re-imposition of our levy would yield? As a result of the abolition of the Advantage West Midlands regional development agency, the funding for the west midlands has been cut by nearly 70%, and the outlook for my constituents in Coventry is very poor indeed. The additional funds could be used for investment in the proposed NUCKLE—the Nuneaton, Coventry, Kenilworth, and Leamington—railway line, and a host of other important development projects that have been put on hold or simply thrown out as a result of that 70% cut. In the west midlands, and in Coventry in particular, unemployment levels are rising disproportionately compared with the rest of the country, and the level of output is dropping disproportionately in a key area that is vital to the eventual resurgence of manufacturing that we want to see. That money could be put to great use in the regional development fund.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As I have said before, this shows the failure of the Government to understand the paradox of austerity. When they take away some of that vital investment that would support jobs and growth, they are fuelling unemployment and raising welfare bills, which will cost the country more in the long run. That is why we are seeing borrowing levels rising rather than falling, and why, in the last six months of the economic experience in this country, we have seen economic growth flatlining. The House of Commons Library tells me that that will cost the Exchequer an extra £6 billion that will need to be added to borrowing. So this is the fallacy that the Government pursue—that simply cutting all elements of public investment is the way out of the deficit. They just do not understand how the economy works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I am always very happy to see ownership extended in ways that include that type of mutual, although the history of the mutual banking movement in the past 20 years provides no evidence that such banks were particularly good at reading the cycle or dealing with the capital problems—indeed, many of those institutions went to the markets and decided to exploit market opportunities because they had a capital problem that they thought they could solve by that route. It may be that we could go back to more traditional mutually owned banks with much more constrained balance sheets and activities, and that might be part of getting back to a more healthy banking sector. That is something that the market should decide.

I am firmly of the view that we need more competition and choice in the marketplace. One of the big errors was allowing banks that were too big. As a competition hawk, I was publicly very strongly against the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds; it was a great tragedy for Lloyds and for the country that that merger went through. We should have dealt with HBOS in other ways, which would have been less expensive. I was also a critic of the Royal Bank of Scotland takeover of ABN AMRO. Although the competition issues that raised were not as clear as the competition issues raised in the case of the Lloyds takeover of HBOS, I would have liked to have seen a tougher line taken. I hope that this period of change and reflection on banking, including how we tax it, can lead to a much more competitive structure. One of the ways of doing that would be to sell off some of the assets currently owned through Lloyds and through RBS in ways that created more banking challenge in the market.

[Mr Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that we get the maximum return possible when we bring the banks back into the market, and the whole House would agree with that. He referred to the need not to reduce by too much our prospects for doing that by reducing through an excessive tax charge the multiple applied to earnings in realising the sale value, but his point about therefore moderating any tax that might be imposed is specious and certainly does not allow him to invest the seriousness that he wants, given that the multiple used is nearly always a profit-before-tax multiple—certainly, it will always be adjusted for that if exceptional items are involved. For that reason, some people, with whom I would not agree, even opt for an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation—EBITDA—calculation for these purposes. The fact is that the quality of the earnings is more important here than any considerations about tax levels at any one point in time.

[Mr Redwood]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. It is true that in the venture capital world EBITDA multiples are more common, although people would not give the same value or the same multiple to a highly taxed business as they would to a more lowly taxed business; but in the open share market in the major stock exchanges, it is more normal to look at price earnings multiples based on earnings net of taxation. There is no doubt that if more tax is taken out of a business, it is less valuable to its private owners—of course that must be true. The private owners are trying to buy a stream of profit or revenue and if some of that is taken in tax, the business will be less valuable.

I had just moved on to my final point, which is about the impact everything we are discussing has on economic recovery. I urge the Minister to bear in mind that the kind of tax proposed, if carried too far, can be damaging. It impedes banks making the sorts of loan and building up the sort of asset base that we want them to at a time of recovery. In addition, any given jurisdiction going too far could become a trigger for the bank’s moving some or more of its activities offshore or changing its arrangements in a way that it thinks would allow it to get around some or all of the tax impost. I would prefer that this tax had not been invented—there are better ways of taxing banks—but if we are to have such a tax, let us ensure that we have thought about two very important consequences of setting it too high: it might damage our own share values and it might damage lending for the recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

This is becoming a bit like bashing Bambi to death. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Gentleman is either being very obtuse or something else that I will not say. We are talking about £3.5 billion for each year, which would add up to more than what is being proposed. We are talking about four times £3.5 billion.

[Mr Robinson]

Which is £14 billion.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, £14 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That is right. My hon. Friend might have examples from his constituency—I certainly did—of the RDA underwriting small business loans for small companies when the banks, particularly Barclays and others, suddenly withdrew the finance. One company came to me that wanted a £1 million overdraft for six months to get some investment and the RDA helpfully underwrote that to allow the investment to go forward and create in the region of 25 new jobs. That is the important point about the relationship between the banking system and the regions.

[Mr Robinson]

Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, I would hate for the Government not to realise the impact that their refusal to have this levy or even a review of it is having not only in the north-east and the north but in the west midlands—the area from where the Government are apparently looking for the big revival in the private sector and manufacturing to come. Advantage West Midlands, the RDA, has had its funds cut by no less than 70% and schemes that were going to have the go-ahead, triggered either by a guarantee or seedcorn funding, will simply be stopped. The resurgence in manufacturing and of the economy as a whole will certainly not come from the west midlands, where the level of activity is below the national average and where the level of unemployment is above it.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That small seedcorn funding made all the difference for small companies as they established themselves and grew. The problem we have in the north-east—I am not sure whether things are the same in my hon. Friend’s region—is the lack of confidence in the regional economy for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. The uncertainty about what will happen in the next few months as the public sector job cuts work their way through the economy means that there is no appetite to invest in small businesses. A few weeks ago, I was talking to someone from a small building company who relied for part of his turnover on school building contracts with the local council, which had suddenly been stopped, so the money is not available and people will have to be laid off. We have not yet seen the effects of such decisions.

If we add to that the fact that banks are not lending and are going to carry on in their own way, those involved with small businesses end up wondering why decent hard-working people like them who, in many cases, have built up businesses over many years are suddenly through no fault of their own having either to lay people off or to fold the businesses completely. These are family businesses which have been going for many years, and people see individuals getting bonuses that involve amounts of money of which they can only dream and which are equivalent to the turnover for their companies over two or three years, never mind one year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree. I spoke in the last Budget debate about the effects of the public expenditure cuts on the north-east and our dependence on public sector jobs is very similar to, if not as high as, Northern Ireland’s. This is another example of the nonsense that is being put about that suggests that if those jobs and that money are taken out of the economy we can somehow replace them overnight with private sector jobs. Those jobs are not just there; they are linked directly to public expenditure. If we also have a situation in which banks are not lending and companies are fearful of borrowing because they fear what the economy will bring in future, one can understand how we can get into a downward spiral. As I have said before, I fear that we could have a recovery that bobs along the bottom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has described. We could end up with a two-speed Britain with a boom in the south-east economy—possibly again drunk on the excesses of the financial markets—while regions in the north-east, Northern Ireland and elsewhere struggle and do not get a look in when it comes to the growth that is expected on the back of the huge numbers of jobs that the Government say will be created.

The bank levy is a missed opportunity and I do not think the amendment is at all radical. It is quite modest to ask for a review of the situation; the Government will have to review the levy sooner or later anyway. Political expediency will lead them to do so when it starts to dawn on people that, despite the rhetoric of the election, the Government are not being tough on bankers at all but are letting them off—and many people will ask why. I believe that in the past five years, since the Prime Minister became its leader, the Conservative party has accepted about 50% of its donations from the financial sector; that prompts questions about why it is not taking a tougher and more robust stance against the financial sector.

Let me conclude with a few questions that I think the Minister needs to answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East raised the issue of the tax-free allowance of £20 billion. The explanatory notes on clause 72 and schedule 19 state:

“Paragraph 6 sets out the steps to be followed in order to ascertain the amount of the bank levy. The steps show how the allowance of £20 billion is to be applied and how the bank levy charge is calculated for long and short chargeable periods. Part 6 of the Schedule provides details of how to identify the entity responsible for payment of the bank levy.”

I have asked why the figure is £20 billion and not £5 billion, £10 billion or £50 billion? [Interruption.] Hon. Members say “Higher!” but we have not heard any explanation why £20 billion was the figure arrived at. If we are not only to maximise the amount of money we get from the banking levy but be able to justify to our constituents how fair the measures are, we must be able to explain how that figure was arrived at.

[Mr Robinson]

Does my hon. Friend know why the Government set £2.5 billion as the absolute limit for the amount they wanted to raise from banks and made everything fit with that? Does it not all come down to the fact that the Government have struck an awful deal with the banks? They have limited so much and got Merlin in return—and perhaps some other things to which my hon. Friend has referred but which I shall not go into now. They have tied themselves in knots, complications and contortions to deliver this deal and the banks have simply walked away from Merlin saying, “Thank you, very much.” Is not that the problem?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a clear point. I do not know which wag in the Treasury came up with the nickname Merlin for this project. Having dealt with the Treasury and Treasury Ministers I have never thought of them as having a sense of humour, but whoever came up with that name clearly had one. Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no explanation for the figure of £20 billion other than the yield that it is intended to produce. The Minister needs to provide the evidential basis for the £2.6 billion yield. If we levy, for example, £2.7 billion, £2.8 billion or £2.93 billion, at what point do the Barclays bankers pack their bags and move to Zurich? Would the entire system of bankers' bonuses fall apart if the figure were more than £2.6 billion?

I have raised the issue already, and I accept that international finance is a global business and can move, but in terms of bonuses, bankers are clearly not bothered about the £2.6 billion figure. May we see the evidential basis on which the figure was arrived at? What would be the effect if it were a little higher or lower than £2.6 billion? It is important that we know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend that youth unemployment is the single biggest threat on the unemployment front at the moment, at 20% and rising. Was not the cancellation of the future jobs fund a short-sighted, perverse reaction by the Government that could well result in a repeat of what happened in the 1980s—a whole generation being lost to the working population because of the rise in youth unemployment?

[Mr Love]

Yes, the future jobs fund was the very vehicle to provide a job, training or relevant work experience so that our kids did not have to sit on the sidelines without a future, getting demoralised and not being in a position to take up the job opportunities that will be available when the economy turns round. It is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to address that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

The fact that I am moving the amendment makes fairly clear what I think and what I am trying to do. What I am saying to the Government—[Interruption.] I accept that the Government have introduced a Budget that has made these changes. What I am trying to do is to get Ministers to understand that the industry is complex and that Government decisions might lead it to a review of investment, which could lose production, jobs and export opportunities. It is possible to retrieve the situation, however, if we have an active process of negotiation. Previous Governments have made the same mistake and realised the need to engage with the industry.

[Mr Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the lack of consultation and involvement with the industry in this heavy change, which has been introduced on the hoof. The Economic Secretary, who is replying to the debate, having worked for three years as a senior executive in Centrica—a firm the right hon. Gentleman cited as having lost confidence—should have known better and realised the importance of consulting the industry beforehand.

[Malcolm Bruce]

At this stage, I am not here to attribute responsibility for the decision. My concern is—[Interruption.] With great respect, Members should acknowledge that, speaking as someone who represents a major North sea oil and gas constituency, I know my own industry and my own constituency. I also know the need for the Government to engage with the industry and I hope to persuade them that they can retrieve the situation to a degree by so doing.

Let me refer to a table that will appear in the UK Oil and Gas publication tomorrow. It shows something of which Labour Members should be fully aware—the correlation with the past. Interestingly enough, in 2009, North sea oil prices peaked at $145, yet within 12 months they were down to $35. At that peak level of production, investment had fallen £3 billion a year as a direct result of negative tax changes in 2006. The time lag, Ministers should be aware, is two to three years, after which investment falls away; it is then several years beyond that when we see job losses, lost investment and lost opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

I think, hope and believe that Ministers do understand it. That is one reason why I believe that if they do engage constructively with the industry we will get some progress and reforms that will enable the confidence to be restored and investment to be brought back.

Amendment 15 acknowledges the fact that the gas price is well below the oil price and the Government’s own trigger price of $75; $55 to $60 seems to be the average sort of price. The industry should not be facing the charge at all. There are also a lot of fields that have associated gas—in some cases quite significant amounts—so this amendment simply suggests that that should be taken into account. One way to do that would be to tax the gas produced and the oil produced separately, and another would be to aggregate the two and take the average price; either way would be fairer. As has been said, Centrica is indicating that the UK does not look like a good prospect for it; the company is clear that it wants to diversify its investments elsewhere in the world, and that would be to our detriment.

[Mr Robinson]

A series of reasoned and reasonable amendments stand in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Does he realise that the impression that would be left were he bought off tonight by some sweet sounding but meaningless words from this Tory-led coalition is that the Liberal party has a lot of responsibility but, sadly, absolutely no influence in the decisions being taken?

[Malcolm Bruce]

Time will tell—that is all I can say to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and I together probably represent more oil and gas jobs than any other Member, except perhaps for the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). It is important to point out that our areas account for only about a quarter of the oil jobs in the UK, as many of the jobs are in London, the north-east and elsewhere—

[Malcolm Bruce]

Indeed, some are even in Stornoway. It is important that this is seen to be a national industry.

I have debated oil and gas in this House for 28 years. I have seen every Government make the same mistake and I am disappointed that the present Government have done so, but I have also seen every Government engage and reach an understanding because they have learnt the complexities of the industry. All I am asking is that this Government engage in the same constructive way and that we reach a position where we get the balance right. The amendments seek at least to provide a framework for the sort of conversations that should take place between the Government and the industry.

[Mr Robinson]

I do not wish to delay the House, but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman: when did the Labour Government of 1997-98, in which I had some responsibility for sounding out and consulting the industry, make any mistake such as has been made by this Government? We simply did not do so. We talked to the industry; I met John Browne and he explained the situation. Although we were prepared to do so, we did not even get into any formal consultation because he convinced us in the initial soundings that it would be the wrong move to make.

[Malcolm Bruce]

The evidence suggests that sudden step changes to taxes have been made by successive Governments and they have had the same effect: a drop in investment. [Interruption.] No, it has happened under Labour too—the party was in power for 13 years. The figures produced by Oil & Gas UK show that the last time this happened, capital investment dropped by £3 billion per annum over the subsequent three years, and that is a huge sum. Although negotiating field by field is a long drawn out and time-consuming process, too complicated for some investors, who will go elsewhere, that is preferable to simply standing one’s ground and waiting for the worst to happen.

I hope that the Government will acknowledge that some projects are bound to be delayed or cancelled because the rates of return after the tax changes make them simply unviable. If the companies can negotiate to demonstrate to the Government the level at which such projects would become viable, which requires both parties to show their hands, capital allowances or other mechanisms could be brought into play in ways that would benefit both the Government, because the investment, jobs and spin-off could be secured, and the companies, because they would be able to develop viable projects, which of course will subsequently pay taxes to the Government.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. As he will know, we are currently consulting and engaging with the industry on precisely that question of the trigger price.

I am sure Members in all parts of the House agree that on the road to sustainable growth, access to finance is also a critical issue. For that reason, clause 42 increases the relief available for the enterprise investment scheme to 30%, encouraging further investment in small and growing businesses; clause 9 doubles the lifetime limit on entrepreneurs’ relief from £5 million to £10 million; and clause 43 raises the rate of research and development tax credits for small and medium-sized enterprises to 200%. As we announced in the Budget, from next year it will rise again to 225%, providing real support for small firms investing in research and development.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are the driving force behind the recovery. They employ 60% of Britain’s work force, and contribute to about 50% of all output. Their success will help to define the future of our economy. The last Government planned to increase the small profits rate of corporation tax, but we have chosen to do the opposite. Clause 6 will reduce the rate paid by small businesses to just 20%. The Budget also revealed that we would continue to provide business rate relief for small firms for another year, which will support growing businesses up and down the country.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Many firms will, of course, be grateful for the reduction in corporation tax, but will not the slashing of investment allowances go a long way towards offsetting any benefit that might have been gained by small companies in particular? According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the real beneficiaries of both measures will be the less capital-intensive service sector,

“historically typified by the financial sector”,

rather than the small companies that export and depend on investment which the Chief Secretary is seeking to help.

[Danny Alexander]

I believe that the reduction in corporation tax will benefit businesses in all sectors. As for the question of capital allowances, the changes in relation to short-life assets have been welcomed throughout the business community, and particularly by the Engineering Employers Federation.

In 2007 the last Government reduced the writing down allowances from 25% to 20%, and we are reducing them from 20% to 18%. That is a balanced move which will ensure that firms in all sectors, including manufacturing, benefit from the new corporation tax environment that we are introducing.

Amendment of the Law

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman last opened a financial newspaper. If he had done so recently, he would know that all the countries on the periphery of Europe that have been hit by the rising cost of capital are in very acute financial crisis, which we have avoided. We have German interest rates, and at the same time we are carrying a deficit on the scale of the most debt-ridden economies such as Ireland and Portugal.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

One thing the Opposition can claim is that there was stability in the bond market, which we have been able to continue this year in order to borrow at reasonable rates. As the Business Secretary knows, directly and indirectly, although we have long-term rates in the bond markets, the main problem is that if small companies can borrow at all—very few of the small and medium sector singled out by the Chancellor and the Government as the key area of expansion are able to do so—it is only at exorbitant rates. What are the Government going to do about it?

[Vince Cable]

In the earlier part of his comments, the hon. Gentleman was right to acknowledge how important interest rates are. He is also right to say that because of the badly damaged banking system, small companies have an extreme problem with lending. That is why the Chancellor and I have been dealing with the banks to try to get them to reach an agreement, which they now have, to extend considerably the amount of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. That was one of the earliest decisions we had to make—to focus on access to capital.

While we are dealing with the issue of what has to be cut, I would like to ask the Opposition what they would do. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) wants us to run a bigger deficit. What would the Opposition cut? It is a question I often pose to my opposite numbers in the BIS team. They had planned a 25% cut in departmental spending, which is what I am doing. We are cutting a lot of things—very painfully—so I ask the Opposition what they would do, but we have not yet had a single suggestion about what they would do instead.

Government Members often raise that sort of question, but it is becoming obvious that the natives opposite are also getting restless. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)recently said that the Labour party needs to be

“explicit about cuts… The public expects us to at least give a broad direction—but I think they are worried that we haven’t been as clear as we ought to be”.

Another senior Labour Member of Parliament—who, perhaps wisely, remained anonymous—told the Financial Times:

“It can’t be that hard for us to say what we would cut, or at least give a few examples, for goodness’ sake.”

[Interruption.] Beneath the shouting, those are the questions that Labour Members are asking themselves, and they are absolutely right to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to follow the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, but, unfortunately, by the end of his speech he still had not told us a single practical thing from the strategy for encouraging growth. Despite all the pages in “The Plan for Growth”, the Office for Budget Responsibility stated yesterday that it found nothing that it could measure as contributing to an improvement in the UK’s growth prospects. He goes on about low interest rates, but I wonder whether he has tried to borrow, or knows of any small company that has had to borrow, in the current difficult market and has been able to do so at the low or zero interest rates to which he referred. That is absolute nonsense. It is divorced from the real world and he knows it.

The Business Secretary knows that when we were both in different places in the Chamber he used to say that we had either to establish a national bank or its equivalent or to make the banks lend. He has come up with no solution to the problem and the fact remains that the single biggest inhibitor to growth in the vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises still remains, and that is their inability to access credit. How can they grow in a difficult situation when markets are flat without access to credit? That is the question he has not answered and until he has answered it, he has no credibility as a Business Secretary. We need definite plans for doing that at some stage.

[Rory Stewart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I shall in a moment.

It is no good the Business Secretary asking us for our plans. He now has responsibility, he chose to take it and he chose, also, to go into this coalition, having been convinced by a concerted effort by the Governor of the Bank of England and others that the Liberal Democrats were wrong before the election—that within one week of the election campaign, everything had been turned on its head and we faced an imminent crisis, the outcome of which was that we would face interest rate rises and an inability to borrow nationally, along the lines of the situation faced by Greece and Portugal. He knows that he did not even meet the Governor for a working over, because his leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, had already been worked over. Nobody else on the Government side needed to be worked over—the Governor had worked them over before and during the election campaign. The implicit deal was, “Go along with this huge deflationary package, and I will keep monetary policy so loose that you don’t need to worry—you’ll still get growth.” I believe that that is the sort of Faustian deal to which the Business Secretary referred in his reply to the Budget debate last year.

What have we seen since? Interest rates are still low and policy has been loose. No doubt it might even continue to be loose for a period of time, but I am sure that interest rates will go up in the near future. Irrespective of that, there is still no credit for the SMEs from which, as Sir Richard Lambert pointed out, the vast majority of jobs must come if the commercial and business sector—the private sector—is to recover. However, there is still no prospect of their being able to borrow. Why does the Business Secretary say, therefore, that there is no alternative because the OECD says so? The OECD is as wrong as everyone else. We heard last night from Robert Chote that all those forecasts are a “load of rubbish”. One cannot always be right about such things; nobody ever is. One might ask what the point of them is. Certainly, to invoke the OECD, which can be as wrong as anyone else, and say, “It says that we have to go on with this strategy, so therefore we will,” in the face of all the mounting evidence that the strategy is not working is perverse and not worthy of the intellectual distinction that the Business Secretary is capable of bringing to these problems.

The only thing that could be said in favour of the Government’s policies is that they have not had enough time yet—not quite a year—to have worked, but it is obvious that they are not working.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I shall in a moment, but the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is first.

The figures for every crucial forecast area of activity are pointing in the wrong direction. Unemployment is up, growth is down, inflation is up, bizarrely, and Government borrowing is up—the very thing they are meant to be getting down—as measured against the OBR forecasts. Those are the only measures we can use to judge whether their policies are working. We can look at the past and it is clear that they are not, but to see whether they are working, we have to look at the forecasts. The Government’s whole policy is predicated on such forecasts, but look at the figures now—down, down, down! Every single indicator is going the wrong way, but they still say that we have to press on with their programme—plan A or whatever it is. I think I heard the Business Secretary say, in response to an intervention from an Opposition Member, that some flexibility is built into the Government’s plan A. I do not know whether he will elaborate on that or whether I misheard—we will see in tomorrow’s Hansard whether I did. I did not raise the issue at the time because I was not sure whether I had heard right—I could not believe it. If there is some flexibility, the sooner it is acknowledged, built in and practised the better.

[Rory Stewart]

Clearly, it is very difficult to get banks lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and to balance the need for that against the problems caused by credit in the first place. What solutions does the hon. Gentleman propose?

[Mr Robinson]

I do think it is pathetic when the only answer that the Government, who are charged with handling the nation’s affairs, can come up with is, “What are the Opposition going to do?” If the Government want to vacate those Benches, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor is not slow in coming forward and would be over there on the Government Front Bench faster than anyone. We have instead a Business Secretary who preached about these matters very eloquently when he was in opposition and said that he would be practical, but he has done nothing.

What do we have now that the current Government are in office? We have inflation going up to 4.4% or perhaps even 5% and the deficit reduction that was to come from growth being hindered because growth and the forecasts are all down. Each forecast, whether for borrowing, inflation, unemployment or growth, is heading in the wrong direction. Those are the facts. All indicators, whether for last year, this year, next year or even the year after that, are headed in the wrong direction. Perhaps the Government should fix the electoral cycle to have 10-year terms and then some latter-day outcome might eventually catch up with what they forecast at the beginning. It should be clear to anyone looking objectively at the evidence that the Government’s plan is not working, that it needs to be changed and that there are alternatives that could be pursued.

If we are talking about getting growth in the economy—the right sort of growth—I agree entirely that we need business employment and development in the private sector. Let us consider HS2—the stupid vanity project that I am sure the Business Secretary would have opposed when in opposition. It is being proceeded with despite the eventual cost of some £32 billion. I cannot believe that the Treasury is going along with it, but I am told that the Chancellor is, bizarrely, in favour of it. Why do we not switch from that to the simple plan that was set out in Atkins’ alternatives—I think it was alternative 2 —for an investment that could be proceeded with immediately, that would give us what is most needed right away and that would help Coventry: four-tracking the line between Coventry and Birmingham? That could have been given the go ahead this year, had effect next year and made a direct contribution.

Why cannot we get the schools programme back on track? Make it quicker, make it simpler—we would accept all the criticisms if that would make it easier for the Business Secretary to go ahead with it. In Coventry, we have not had a single school built—not one! One school in my constituency has been propped up by scaffolding for the past three years. I was on the shadow Chancellor’s back all the time about that when he was the Education Secretary, asking, “Why can’t we get it done quicker? Why can’t we do it?” I was told that procedures had to be gone through and all the rest of it. The Government should speed it up and get on with it, but they should not cut it and stop those projects as they are doing at the moment. I still believe that they should go ahead with some of the other important projects that we could do, particularly in transport, and that they should go ahead with building projects.

To take the example of building projects and the construction industry, I read a couple of days ago in the Financial Times that orders in the industry over the past six months are down 50% on the previous six months. Much of that would be good, constructive infrastructure investment of the kind we are want to see, creating employment and skills and making a real contribution to long-term growth in the private sector, and yet we have cut it by 50% in six months. That cannot make sense, and in the meantime unemployment, borrowing and inflation are going up—all the wrong indicators.

In my remaining minute I will focus on Coventry. I heard today that we have lost another 400 jobs in an insurance company there. Since the Government came in, around 2,500 jobs have gone in Coventry. If the Business Secretary is open to meeting companies inwardly investing in this country, which he says he is, will he come to Coventry to see the investment problems we have? We have nothing to take back to those people who have lost their jobs. I say to him that he should have the confidence and courage of his convictions and stand up to the Treasury and his so-called coalition partners, because things are going to get worse, and he faces returning here with his whimpering excuses to his own increasing embarrassment.