Autumn Statement

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my constituency is affected by that road link, I very much welcome it, although I stress that the decision was not taken by me for that reason. He will know, and local people will remember, that that road scheme was cancelled in the first week of the Labour Government in 1997, and I am glad that we have now been able to take steps to help south Manchester and north Cheshire grow.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor has already announced 500,000 job cuts in the public sector alongside pay freezes, both of which have deflated demand, reduced growth and helped to increase the deficit by £158 billion. He is now imposing a 3% income tax on all public servants dressed up as a pension contribution for a lower pension after working longer. Will he accept that that will mean a 3% reduction in the spending power of all public servants, which will be deflationary and which, as well as being unfair, unwise and discriminatory, will provoke an unnecessary strike tomorrow?

[Mr Osborne]

We are basing our pension reforms on the report from Lord Hutton. He particularly focused on the benefit, but he said that there was a case for the increase in contributions. He also said recently that it was frankly difficult to imagine a better deal. That was the former Labour Pensions Secretary. What I do not understand is what exactly the Labour party’s policy is on this. It is absolutely silent. Are you in favour of increased contributions? [Interruption.] If you are not in favour of the increased contributions, where in your so-called five-point plan are you spending the money to stop those contribution increases? It is completely economically illiterate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) talks about negotiations. Why do he and his party not condemn the strike, urge the unions to sit round the table and negotiate with us to get a deal, especially as the former Labour Pensions Secretary, John Hutton—a man I know the hon. Gentleman really admires—says that it would be difficult to get a better deal?

European Budgets 2014 to 2020

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 12478/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, 12474/11, 12480/11, 12483/11, 12475/11 and Addenda 1 to 3, and 12484/11, relating to the Commission’s proposal on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), 2014-20; agrees with the Government, that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for very substantial spending increases compared with current spend is unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control and stimulate economic growth, that the next MFF must see significant improvements in the financial management of EU resources by the Commission and by Member States and in the value for money of spend and that the proposed changes to the UK abatement and new taxes to fund the EU budget are completely unacceptable and an unwelcome distraction from the pressing issues that the EU needs to address; and supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce the Commission’s proposed budget.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister made a statement to the House following the G20 meeting in Cannes regarding the ongoing crisis in the euro area. As his statement made clear, it is vital that the euro area sticks to the deal agreed to two weeks ago by the European Heads of Government to resolve the ongoing crisis. A resolution to that crisis is vital to UK, European and global economic interests. It is equally important that, over the longer term, the euro area and the wider EU take the necessary steps to tackle the deficits that are the root cause of the crisis.

The ongoing instability in the euro area vindicates this Government’s decision to get ahead of the curve, cut our deficit and impose strict fiscal discipline on our budget. It is vital that EU member states demonstrate the same resolve, and we welcome commitments by Italy and Spain, among others, to do so. However, the European Commission must also lead from the front in a drive to impose financial discipline across the EU institutions. That is why it is unacceptable for the Commission to propose a 4.9% increase in the annual budget for 2012. The UK and the European Council have agreed that we could not approve such an increase at a time when member states are facing tough decisions to impose fiscal discipline and consolidation. We will be taking a firm stand on the 2012 budget when we meet in the budget ECOFIN later this month.

Let me turn now to the principal subject of today’s debate: the multi-annual financial framework that sets out how much the Commission wants to spend in 2014 to 2020 and how it will fund it. The Commission’s proposals seek to increase both its revenue and its spending. It wants new taxes to expand the Brussels coffers, and proposes inflation-busting spending increases. That is simply not acceptable. The answer is not to raise more and spend more; it is to control spending. The best way to restrain EU annual budgets is to set—

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of clarification, the Minister mentioned inflation-busting increases, but am I right in thinking that what is being proposed is a 5% cash increase in the ceiling over the seven-year period? If so, that would be less than the rate of inflation in real terms, and therefore not an inflation-busting increase.

[Mr Hoban]

The most recent rate of inflation in the EU was about 2%, so clearly a 5% increase would be in excess of the rate of inflation, and therefore an inflation-busting—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

No, let me continue.

The best way to restrain EU annual budgets is to set tough multi-annual framework ceilings. That is why, at the European Council in October 2010, member states agreed that the

“forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework must reflect consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path”.

Rather than following that path, however, the Commission has meekly bowed to pressure from the European Parliament to increase the budget, thereby returning to the extravagance and irresponsible spending that sowed the seeds of the current global economic crisis. Just as we cannot accept the Commission’s 2012 budget, we also cannot accept the Commission’s proposal, as set out on 29 June, to increase the multi-annual framework budget for 2014 to 2020 by 11%. Such an increase is incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the United Kingdom and in countries across Europe to cut spending.

Instead of consolidation, the Commission proposes expansion. It has ignored the calls made in December last year by the UK, France and Germany for a real-terms freeze in spending. The Commission claims to have done as we have asked, but let me make it absolutely clear to the House that it has not. On average, the spend in each year of the next framework would be about €14 billion higher than it is today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will keep my comments brief. I believe we all agree that we do not want to see an increase in the European budget. We all understand that a €1 trillion fund is being established to bail out the euro currency, and if push comes to shove we all understand that we are being asked for more money for the International Monetary Fund. We all understand that we in Britain are facing massive constraints on public spending. However, we should get our facts clear.

As I said in my intervention, I understand that what is being proposed is that the 2013 budget will be higher, and will become the fixed 5% cash increase ceiling between 2014 and 2020. However, it is said the total amount of the budget as a share of EU gross income will fall from 1.12% to 1.05%. I support what the Government are saying, but let us be fair about what is happening. There will be a cash increase ceiling, and the budget will fall in real terms as a share of overall EU income.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that one reason for that fall as a proportion of total European income is that some elements that are currently within the budget are being taken out of it and accounted for in a different way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I do not accept that, but I do accept that there need to be structural changes in the budget, such as a reduction in common agricultural policy funding and more focus on growth, investment and tooling up Europe to compete with emerging markets. All those factors are important. Government Members who think this is all a complete waste of money and that we would be better off spending it at home on chip shops miss the point of having a commonality in research and innovation, and of making Europe more successful for the future. The Government seem to be completely ignorant of any strategic undertakings or documentation that come out of Europe on how to push smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. That is missing from the Government’s armoury—they focus always on cuts and never on growth, and they are missing the wood for the trees.

On the Tobin tax, I clearly do not support a tax when 80% of it would fall on Britain and when it would undermine Europe’s competitiveness. I share the view of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), that we should look for an international basis for such a measure. That said, we need to understand that an international Tobin tax would fall primarily on the US and the UK.

My understanding is that the rebate has been frozen at £3.2 billion a year for the next seven years, but we need to realise that if the gross contribution is increasing, our rebate is going down proportionately. The Prime Minister should argue harder for the rebate to increase at least at the same rate as the increase in our gross contribution. Without further ado, I shall come to a conclusion, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

Public Service Pensions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. It is precisely the sort of subject on which there should be a cross-party consensus. I think a consensus could be formed around the proposals we have made today. The shadow Chief Secretary says that she wishes to study our proposals. That is fair enough, but I hope that she will see on reflection that the proposals we are putting forward are the right way to go forward on public service pensions both for public sector workers, who are fully entitled to a proper and decent pension, and for the taxpayer as a whole.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that the statement consisted of sacrificing long-term pension rights to pay for a short-term failure to stimulate economic growth? What we are seeing, after 13 years of industrial peace, is the return of mass strike action due to Tory economic failure and a threatening, macho approach to negotiation. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would be more seemly if the hon. Gentleman were not standing with his hand in his pocket, but I must say to the Education Secretary that he really should not keep on expostulating noisily from a sedentary position. If he were to do that in one of the nation’s classrooms, he would be in detention by now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister has said enough, and he has said it about another party’s policy. We need to move on.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is it not accepted now by the international community that the announcement by the Chancellor a year ago that he would cut half a million public sector jobs led directly to a reduction in consumer demand, and that it has reduced private sector investment and growth and led to an increase in deficit predictions?

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the action that this Government have taken has earned the endorsement of the IMF and the OECD. That is why we have the low interest rates the economy needs. The Opposition talk about a plan B, but that would actually increase the budget deficit and the interest rates that this country would have to pay.

Jobs and Growth

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

At last, a perceptive intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. I will come to that very issue later in my speech after making a few more points. I will deal with ensuring that getting demand moving is done in a safe, sustainable and careful way.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no surprise that, if the Chancellor announces half a million job cuts in the public sector, those people will save rather than spend and that the people in the private sector, who normally sell things to them, contract and stop taking people on? It is no surprise that that very announcement underpins the lack of growth in our economy and puts the guilt on the Government side of the Chamber.

[Ed Balls]

I think that the Chancellor will regret talking down the British economy a year ago, because the rise in private sector jobs has been swamped by public sector job cuts. That is why employment is falling. That is why the private sector is not investing. That is why his corporation tax cut has had no impact on private sector investment. Will he repeat his claim made in January 2009 that

“quantitative easing is the last resort of desperate governments when all their other policies have failed”?

Those are prescient words, because we know the truth, and so do his increasingly desperate-looking supporters on the Government Benches.

Let me say what the Chancellor cannot admit: the private sector-led recovery he promised has proved to be a fantasy, as we predicted. In the past year, the growth that he predicted has failed to materialise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

No, the hon. Gentleman should say sorry, and of course we are supporting Airbus, in his part of the country, as part of our strategy for creating jobs.

We have only to look across the eurozone to see the costs of political indecision and the price that comes from consolidating at the behest of the market rather than taking charge of one’s own destiny, as the Government have. We have seen the problems in the eurozone and are working to help, but we already have flexibility in our own plan. By taking the tough decisions that we have on fiscal policy, we have provided the space in which the Bank of England can act. In the Governor’s own words,

“monetary policy is the right way to take the strain of changes in the world economy.”

As we have already said, we are considering credit easing options as a way to inject money directly into the business sector. We will provide further details in the autumn statement, and I am grateful for the welcome given to that policy on both sides of the House.

Of course, today’s unemployment figures are a reminder of the difficult task that we face. Unemployment is not merely a statistic; it is a high cost for the individuals and families concerned. It is not a price worth paying, and that is why we will be relentless in our pursuit of growth.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Chief Secretary give way?

[Matthew Hancock]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Independent Banking Commission Report

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman is right. The proof of all the arrangements that we are putting in place, and the international arrangements, will be in the pudding—although it is not really the kind of pudding that we want, because it is a banking crisis.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

A golden egg pudding?

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, perhaps there are too many kitchen metaphors. The point I was making is that we are trying to clean up the mess.

We should not just assume that banking crashes happen every 70 or 100 years. We must hope that they will never happen at all, but we need to put in place the regulatory arrangements, capital requirements and structural changes that will ensure that the person who is in the hot seat the next time it happens, and has to do the job that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) had to do, will have more tools available to him than the right hon. Gentleman had as Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

The proposals will help because they will mean that these universal banks will have retail banking arms, in a ring fence, that are very focused on getting lending going to the economy outside the centre of London. We may think of it like this: the boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland a couple of years ago would have had someone running NatWest—running a ring-fenced subsidiary—who would have been totally focused on trying to get NatWest lending as a successful retail bank, rather than worrying about whether they could take over a Dutch investment bank. The ring fence will mean that parts of a universal bank will be extremely focused on getting support to businesses, in the black country and elsewhere.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Eight years is a long time, given that we are facing a sovereign debt crisis across Europe and, possibly, the end of the euro in that time frame. Does the Chancellor accept that the taxpayer will continue to foot the bill in the event of an investment bank, such as Lehman’s, collapsing? Does he accept that we will remain in a situation where bankers can take irresponsible risks and receive massive bonuses if they come up trumps, and where the taxpayer will continue to have to pay out if they go down?

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily defeatist. I do not see why we cannot construct a regime that means we do not have to bail out banks when they fail. There are a number of different parts to this: requiring banks to hold more capital, including requiring people who hold bonds in the bank, as well as shareholders, to suffer a loss should the bank fail; the role of the regulator in preventing banks from doing stupid things, such as buying a big Dutch investment bank once the credit markets had already frozen up; and the proposals on ring-fencing. We have to work to get to a system where we are not standing behind banks that are too big to fail. If that were the case, we would end up with a banking system that is just a utility, and that would change the way in which banking interacts with our economy. We want banking to be successful and to be out there lending, but we want it to be properly regulated and we want to make sure that we do not have to stand behind it.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have touched on the fact that there needs to be greater Government engagement in Europe to try to deal with the matter at a pan-European level.

I turn to the nuclear subsidy. As I have said, the carbon price support rate will hurt families and industry in the immediate future, yet it seems likely to fail to reduce carbon emissions. We have to wonder why the Government decided to implement it. The obvious explanation is that they got it wrong, again. It would not be the only tax that they have bungled in this Finance Bill. I have already mentioned the difficulties over the fuel duty stabiliser and the North sea oil tax, which was—[Interruption.] Sorry, I have been thrown off slightly by a sedentary heckle from the Economic Secretary. As I was saying, the Government introduced a last-minute supplementary charge on North sea oil in response to growing public protest about prices at the petrol pump. We have subsequently seen how ill thought out that was, and it has led to the Government having to perform U-turns at a fairly rapid pace.

One explanation of why the Government want to introduce the carbon price support rate is the money that it will raise. Is it perhaps a revenue-raising measure in disguise? The 2011 Budget report reveals that it will raise £740 million in 2013-14, more than £1 billion in 2014-15 and £1.4 billion in 2015-16. If it fails to encourage faster green investment, as some predict, the tax could go on to raise much more as the carbon price approaches £70 a tonne. In fact, the Budget report states explicitly:

“The decisions the Government is taking to strengthen the tax system—including…the introduction of the carbon price floor announced at this Budget—will also help to support the long-term sustainability of the public finances.”

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with having a unilateral carbon price in the UK is not just that it will make international investors such as Tata Steel near Swansea think of moving their investment to Europe, and therefore helping Europe rather than Britain? She may be interested to know that in Port Talbot, near Swansea, a specialist steel is being developed. When wrapped around buildings, it produces its own heat and reduces the carbon footprint. Does she agree that the Government’s measures are undermining global market-changing technology to reduce carbon footprints, as well as destroying jobs in Britain?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is an important point. Although there is concern about the carbon emissions of energy-intensive industries, in cases such as my hon. Friend has outlined they are actively working on measures to reduce carbon emissions. It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and prevent that type of green investment.

The carbon price support rate will actually provide an effective subsidy to the nuclear industry, as the Economic Secretary has confirmed in a written answer. In fact, it will benefit nuclear power twice as much as the renewables sector, with an average value of £50 million a year for nuclear between 2013 and 2030, compared with just £25 million a year for renewables.

We support building new nuclear power stations as part of the UK’s energy mix, but the problem is that the Government explicitly promised voters that they would not grant nuclear power stations a public subsidy. In fact, there is meant to be cross-party agreement that we are against nuclear subsidies. The Conservative party said in its manifesto that it intended

“clearing the way for new nuclear power stations—provided they receive no public subsidy”.

The coalition agreement stated that the Conservative party was

“committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations…provided that they receive no public subsidy.”

The Prime Minister himself said in the House in March:

“What we should not be doing is having unfair subsidies.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 950.]

Then there are Liberal Democrat Members, who were elected on a manifesto that opposed nuclear power entirely. At their party conference last year, a resolution was passed stating that

“any changes in the carbon price”

should not

“result in windfall benefits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations”.

When we delve deeper, it turns out that this is not the only nuclear subsidy by stealth that the Government are trying to sneak past the House. When I say “subsidy by stealth”, I am of course borrowing a phrase from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. Writing about the Government’s wider package of electricity market reforms, he has warned that they

“must not impose a one-size-fits-all reform on all low-carbon generation in order to avoid singling out nuclear for support.”

He said that the Government’s proposed design for feed-in tariffs

“seems to be more about concealing the fact that it is providing financial support for nuclear power than it is about coming up with the best approach.”

Even if the Government do support public subsidy for new nuclear build, they need to explain why they want to subsidise existing nuclear stations—and, for that matter, existing renewable power stations. Calling the carbon price support rate a green tax surely implies that it is intended to provide an incentive for future green behaviour. However, the Economic Secretary said to the Public Bill Committee:

“We are clear that ensuring that a tax is structured to drive positive environmental behaviour is one thing; ensuring that that can happen on the ground, and that people can change their decisions of the future is another.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 242.]

A public subsidy for existing power stations, whether renewable or nuclear, is not behaviour-changing.

We should remind ourselves exactly where the subsidy comes from. The Economic Secretary may argue that it is not a public subsidy per se, because it does not involve taxing and spending. In fact it has a much more direct impact on every electricity bill payer, whether they are working families or manufacturing firms, and it is still a public subsidy in every sense. The hon. Member for South Suffolk says that the Government

“needs to be upfront about its financial support for nuclear energy”,

and I agree with him. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

The Government are using money taken from people and from energy-intensive industries to subsidise nuclear power stations, which they explicitly promised voters they would not do. They are also using that money to subsidise existing power stations, which makes no sense. We have tabled the amendment to give them an opportunity to explain why they have done that. If they are still sticking to their policy that there should not be a subsidy, I want to know how they will put that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I wish to speak to amendment 21, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

I, too, support the carbon price support mechanism and its objectives, but without mitigation measures its introduction will have the surely unintended consequence of seriously damaging energy-intensive industries through higher electricity prices. Cumulative electricity prices in the region of 20% will make production costs higher in the UK than in European and international competitors. Analysis shows that the profitability of UK-based energy-intensive businesses could fall by up to 150%, or disappear altogether. They are mostly international businesses, and the competition cannot believe their luck that the UK seems determined to make itself much less competitive.

[Geraint Davies]

I agree with that point. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Airbus, whose wing production is based in north Wales and which commands 55% of the total global plane market, is producing its latest generation of planes with a carbon composite that requires 30% less fuel consumption? It is therefore contributing to lower carbon footprints. By discouraging it through this ridiculous pricing technique, we are inadvertently harming the planet rather than helping it, and harming jobs as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my north-east neighbour, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), and if I may, I shall reiterate some of what he said.

I agree with both amendments, particularly amendment 12 tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. If this country was portrayed as a heat map, with particular emphasis on different components of industry, such as nuclear energy, energy-intensive industries and renewable energies, my constituency would burn the brightest. We on Teesside provide a large part of this country’s energy needs. I have a nuclear power station in my constituency, and just outside there is a gas turbine station and a combined heat and power facility. Petroplus, Europe’s biggest independent refiner and wholesaler of petroleum products, has significant oil and gas refining capabilities in my constituency.

Although we generate a lot of the country’s energy requirements, we use a lot of it too. As the hon. Member for Redcar said, we have significant energy-intensive industries—not just refining but petrochemicals, speciality and fine chemicals, plastics, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. I also have a world-class steel pipe mill in Hartlepool supplying essential components in the supply chain for the oil, gas and chemical industries, although unfortunately the pipe mill has just laid off 90 people. Some 60% of the UK petrochemical industry is based on Teesside, as well as more than one third of our country’s pharmaceutical and chemical industry. The Tees valley has the largest concentration of petrochemical industry anywhere in western Europe, and we have the largest hydrogen network on the continent.

A single venture in Teesside, GrowHow UK, which makes nitrogen fertilizer in my area, uses 1% of the UK’s entire natural gas capacity. About 40,000 people are employed directly in the process industries on Teesside, with a further 250,000 employed indirectly through the supply chain. Energy-intensive industries generate one quarter of my region’s gross domestic product, with about £10 billion of sales. As the hon. Member for Redcar said, the importance of Teesside and these industries to the national economy, let alone the regional economy, cannot be overstated.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who sits on the Front Bench, I agree with the principle of a carbon floor price. However, given the importance of energy-intensive industries to my area, I remain very concerned that the proposals in the Bill for carbon floor pricing represent a serious threat to UK competitiveness.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this carbon floor pricing will, first, run contrary to the strategy of shifting from reliance on banking to manufacturing and a broader base and, secondly, move the production of things such as steel, which is environmentally controlled and relatively clean, from Britain to somewhere such as south America, where the same amount of steel will be produced much less cleanly? The impact will be to harm the environment and the economy, which is ridiculous.

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on both points. We are exporting not just jobs but carbon emissions to elsewhere in the world where there might not be the same high level of regulation on carbon emissions.

The point that I want to emphasise as much as possible is that my area is doing exactly what the Government want it to do—we are rebalancing the economy and have an emphasis on manufacturing and, in particular, export-based industries that can provide wealth and job creation. It seems that we are doing everything right according to the Government, but we are being penalised and not provided with a level playing field.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and the hon. Member for Redcar quoted the managing director and chief executive officer of Tata Steel’s European operations. I want to be as balanced as I can. He praised the Government’s enterprise zones and stated:

“It is good news that the Tees Valley is to be among the first of the government’s newly created Enterprise Zones, as Tata Steel will remain a major employer in that region”.

To expand on the quotes already given, however, I should add that he went on to state:

“The extension of the Climate Change Agreements and the return of the discount on the Climate Change Levy to 80% will come as modest but welcome relief to Britain’s hard-pressed energy-intensive industries. However, these benefits are likely to be dwarfed by the introduction of the Carbon Floor Price (CFP), which represents a potentially severe blow to the sustainability of UK steelmaking. European steelmakers already face the prospect of deteriorating international competitiveness because of the proposed unilateral imposition by the European Commission of very significantly higher emission costs under Phase 3 of the EU Emissions Trading System. The CFP proposal will impose additional unilateral emission costs specifically on the UK steel industry by seeking to artificially ensure that these costs cannot fall below government-set targets which no other European country will enforce. This is an exceptionally unhelpful and potentially damaging measure.”

The Economy

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one reason for the remarkable fact that the world economy is growing steadily while Britain is flatlining, is the report from UK Trade & Investment that says that although UK inward investors are coming forward to build factories and growth in Britain, they are not being drawn down as the RDAs have been abolished? The Government are destroying the engines of growth.

[Ed Balls]

I am sure that was one of the proposals in the so-called strategy in the Chancellor’s Budget.

As I have said, there is growing concern in the business community. There is even concern in the Conservative fraternity. As my friends on The Daily Telegraph said in a recent editorial:

“These figures should be giving George Osborne some sleepless nights.”

They should indeed be giving the Chancellor sleepless nights at No. 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

Indeed. The share of manufacturing as a proportion of our economy halved as well. That is how unbalanced the British economy became. Financial services boomed—we all know that; manufacturing halved as a share of our economy. One of the things that we are seeking to do is rebalance our economy.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Osborne]

Let me make a little progress and then take some more interventions.

We are all being asked to vote tonight on the proposition put forward by the shadow Chancellor. We are all being asked to support his motion calling for a big unfunded tax cut. This is what the Financial Times commented when it heard about that. It said that the shadow Chancellor’s argument “increasingly sounds irrelevant”

and that it is

“favoured by those who are unwilling to face up to the true problems facing Britain’s economy today.”

The Economist said that the shadow Chancellor’s speech was

“steeped in cynical electoral politics, thinly disguised as an economics lecture.”

Well, there is always The Guardian, isn’t there? Not on this occasion. The Guardian said that the shadow Chancellor’s economic policy was the “wrong prescription”

and went on to say:

“The big job for Labour . . . is not to dream up a couple of policies but to work out a cogent position on the deficit”

and that there is

“No sign of that yet.”

No sign of a cogent position on the deficit—that was not a comment from the Government, the right-wing press or the IMF, but from The Guardian. That shows just how alone the shadow Chancellor is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that the parliamentary soul from Dover hoped that the Back-Bench speeches would end at half past six, and I am sorry to disappoint him. It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in such an important debate, which draws a line under the time when the Conservatives were playing their cracked record which consisted of two false messages: that the deficit had been caused by Labour, and that the only way to sort it out was to clear it all in four years and in one way, by destroying jobs and services and punishing the benefits that go to the weakest in society.

Both those messages are false. The reality is that the last Labour Government were very successful economically. We created 2 million more jobs, and the tax from those jobs has funded much bigger health and education services and more opportunity throughout Britain. The deficit was the price paid to avoid a depression sparked by the bankers. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly show that two thirds of the deficit was the banking crisis, while the remaining third, yes, was excess investment over income, which was investment in the future. A fiscal stimulus, generated by the previous Prime Minister and supported by Obama and the world community, was required to keep the banks going and to keep growth moving. In the latter months of the previous Administration we saw growth rising, but now we have seen it stagnating.

The choice now is whether to halve the deficit in four years, as Labour intended—the European Community agreed with that, and, as we heard, the Chancellor signed up to it, although he was embarrassed when that was pointed out earlier in the debate—or whether to go at it and get rid of it all in just four years, even though it is three times the level it was planned to be. Is that sensible for growth? No. The second choice is how we do it. Should we focus solely on cuts in benefits, jobs and services, or should we adopt a balanced approach that focuses primarily on economic growth but also ensures that the bankers pay their fair share and involves savings, yes, but shallower savings over time. For example, the 8% difference between 20% and 12% represents the difference between getting rid of front-line police and not getting rid of them.

Those are the choices that face us. What does the evidence show? It shows that a year ago the deficit was £21 billion less than had been forecast in the pre-Budget report. Why? Because economic growth was faster. Now it is £6 billion higher than forecast. Why? Because the growth is lower than forecast.

[Claire Perry]

The facts also show that interest rates, and particularly the spread over German interest rates—the risk in the British economy—has dropped by 80% since the election, and that the pound has risen by 9%. There is lots of confidence in the British economy that the hon. Gentleman is not referencing.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Lady will know that long-term interest rates hit an all-time low shortly after we made the Bank of England independent. We experienced the biggest period of ongoing growth ever seen under the Labour Government, despite a number of crises in the world economy. Now the world economy is growing healthily, but in Britain we are stagnating. We have seen no net growth for the last six months. The evidence shows that there was growth and deficit reduction under Labour, and that we are now at a standstill.

[Ben Gummer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I will not.

In March, the forecasts for growth over the next five years were increased by £46 billion, nearly £1,000 per person, which is a complete disaster. Obviously Government Members have commented on the IMF, saying “The IMF really loves us,” but they should put themselves in the position of the IMF. While it is concerned about a prolonged period of growth stagnation and is suggesting that there may be a case for temporary tax cuts such as in VAT, its focus is naturally on ensuring that Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain implement structural changes to keep them on track. They are in danger of kicking the euro out of bed, so the last thing the IMF is going to do is get involved in a debate about the rate of change, in terms of deficit reduction, and the balance between cuts and growth, which we are here to determine. That is the debate we are having today.

Finally, let me say one thing about the future economic strategy being considered by the Tories—whether to allow private sector entrepreneurs into public sector service delivery. On that, I would say that the reason why the Germans are so successful is that the focus of their entrepreneurial activity is on export-driven growth. If we suck all our small business capability into delivering cheaper and worse public services, we will be poorer for it.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about Germany and the involvement of the private sector. How can he reconcile that with the fact that the private sector plays a larger part in the German health system than does the public sector?

[Geraint Davies]

The situation there is that the Germans are very focused on ensuring that their economy is focused on the growth of the developing economies of China and India. Obviously, there is a difference in the complexion of the German health service. The real focus is on generating export-driven growth, and that is what has happened.

[Matthew Hancock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I will not.

Let me give an example. Every business in Germany is tied into a chamber of commerce, and every chamber of commerce is required to provide tailor-made apprenticeships and training to focus on industrial growth. We do not have that. There is a lot to learn, and we should go out and learn it. We should focus on growth and stop making these ridiculous cuts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and he makes an important point. This country was running a structural deficit from 2002 onwards, so his analysis is exactly right. However, that was not the only problem with the previous Government’s policy, of course; another was their abject failure to regulate the banks and deal with the financial system. That is a further major cause of the problems we face.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Chief Secretary accept that his and his Government’s macho approach of massive cuts and confronting the unions is reducing consumer confidence, which in turn is reducing investment, and that that is hindering growth and has led to the March deficit forecast being increased by £46 billion, which is almost £1,000 per person in Britain?

[Danny Alexander]

No, I do not. The decisions we have taken on reducing the enormous budget deficit we inherited from Labour were absolutely necessary to restore confidence in this country’s ability to pay its way in the world, and that is helping to deliver the low interest rates that are delivering a significant benefit to our economy. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, too.

Amendment of the Law

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

Of course I welcome that. One of the big barriers to entry and to more effective competition for the large companies in Britain is the weight of regulation, which hits anyone who tries to start up a new business. I have done it in the past and I know what it feels like. One has to raise a lot more extra money because for six months to a year one is just trying to comply in many areas before one can trade. Yes, of course we want sensible regulation. We do not believe in an unregulated world. We believe in the law of contract. We believe that people should have a duty of care towards their staff and their customers, but if there are too many and too detailed competing types of prescriptive regulation, it puts people off and they say, “It’s too expensive. I can’t be bothered.”

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

But does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the issue for small business today is not so much regulation as liquidity and lending to SMEs by the banks? A constituent of mine, Alun Richards, is on hunger strike. He had a business with net assets and a limited amount of debt, and Lloyds bank came along and withdrew the debt. Now he is going bankrupt because he has no working capital. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is disgraceful, particularly from a bank that is owned by the taxpayer? Poor old Alun Richards wants to run his business, not to be undermined by the banks. What are the Government doing about that?

[Mr Redwood]

Of course I agree that if there is a solvent and enterprising business and it is not getting proper banking facilities, that is very bad indeed. It is particularly bad if it is a state-owned or state-influenced bank that is responsible.

My final points are about banking, as time presses and many others want to speak. Of equal importance to the weighty matters covered by the Chancellor today will be the Vickers report and the Government’s response to it. I believe that we will have interim conclusions from Sir John Vickers on 11 April. We are not going to have fast, sustained, above-average growth in this country unless we sort out the banks a little more than we have done so far. All colleagues in the House are united in having individual cases where they feel a company could have been saved or could have grown more rapidly if only there had been more sympathetic or understanding bank managers and facilities. There is a problem with British banking serving the SME sector town by town, county by county. There is a lot of talent in the banks, concentrated at the national level and in the big national accounts. Many hon. Members like to knock those people, but they made an important contribution to the growth rate under the previous Government and to our economy.

[Mr Redwood]

I certainly hope that when we see the Vickers report and have a proper debate on it we will be able to find sensible ways of promoting much more competition in the domestic banking market. We need more competition on the high street for individuals and families and more competition in town centres for SMEs, which in previous generations probably had better and more direct relationships with local bank managers, who had a bit more authority to grant loans and make money available on judgment than is currently the case through the box-ticking, centralised computer systems.

[Geraint Davies]

In that case, and given the last intervention, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the Budget should have introduced tax relief or tax credits for individuals wanting to invest in SMEs, because venture capitalists want too high a return and the banks are failing the small business sector? We want an inclusive economy. Surely there should have been some support for SMEs so that we could all invest in small businesses more effectively.

[Mr Redwood]

That is exactly what the Budget contained. I think there was a revamped and revised enterprise investment scheme and an improvement in the capital gains treatment for successful entrepreneurs. It is always nice for new people setting up small businesses to be able to dream, and why should those of them who are successful not keep the proceeds if they have created jobs and done so much?

The outcome of the Budget will depend on two important considerations: whether we can put enough measures in place along the lines that the Chancellor has laid out for promoting growth; and whether there is a happy and sensible resolution to the banking problems as they affect SMEs and the wider public in Britain. There has been much discussion of the big banks, the investment banks and all those sorts of issues, but we now need to laser in on how the banks serve local communities and the SME sector. We need a more pro-competitive answer. I have some thoughts on how we could do that, but will not detain the House with them because today is not the day for that. However, without such measures the Budget will find it difficult to deliver the very large figures for increased revenue on which the whole plan rests.