Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss improvements on the A34. We are making an enormous number of improvements to the UK road system and spending more on transport and road improvement than the previous Government. We are also investing in science, and I remember making a useful visit with my hon. Friend to her constituency to see the results of the money that we have contributed to Begbroke science park. I will certainly have a meeting with her about the A34.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T6. We know from survey evidence that more than half of the licensees who are tied to large pub companies earn less than £10,000 a year. Does the Chancellor support the save the pub group’s call for a market rent-only option to ensure that tied licensees can earn a fair living and play their part in contributing to the local and national economy?

[Mr Osborne]

I am perfectly willing to consider representations, but the Government have set out legislation to deliver a fairer deal for pub tenants—something for which Members have been calling for many, many years. I hope that it commands his support.

The Economy and Living Standards

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I will speak very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker.

For ordinary people in Easington, east Durham and the north-east of England, things are getting harder, not easier, under this Government. Hard-working people are on average £1,600 a year worse off. Families are paying £300 more on their energy bills. At a time when people are working longer and harder for less, raising a family in Easington, as elsewhere in the country, has become more difficult as child care costs have risen by almost a third.

My good friend and near neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) raised a very interesting point at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. He asked the Prime Minister about the number of children who were living in poverty in households where someone was working. The figure was one in three. Indeed, two thirds of young people in poverty live in a working household. The Prime Minister did not address that question.

Members on the Government Benches tell us that employment is the route out of poverty, but for many parents hard work is not even enough to provide an acceptable standard of living for their children. In the north-east, full-time workers are now £36 a week less well-off than they were a year ago. The link between economic growth and living standards has been broken. The assumption that as the economy grows wages would grow too no longer holds water under the policies being pursued by this Government. I am very pleased the Labour party has pledged to raise the value of the minimum wage over the next Parliament and to move towards a living wage for businesses that can afford to pay it, and to introduce a lower 10p starting rate of tax. We can only have a successful economic recovery if it is felt throughout society, and the problem with the Government Front Bench—including, with all due respect, the Chancellor—is that the economy is only working for small clusters of privilege. It is not working for the vast majority of people, certainly not in my constituency.

I wanted to raise some issues in relation to the young unemployed and those who are not in employment or training, but I am afraid there is not time. What the public require is an economy that works for them, not just the few, and a Government prepared to deal with the real issues affecting their lives.

Amendment of the Law

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Yes. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, and I was going to dwell on it more later. It is a considerable achievement of this coalition that we have delivered, and indeed over-delivered, on the commitments I and my colleagues made before the previous general election. That helps people who are relatively low paid by lifting them out of tax, not just because they pay less tax but because it reduces the tax rate at the margin and provides a significant incentive to work.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State address the issue of youth unemployment? In my constituency, 825 under-24s are out of work and almost 200 of them have been out of work for almost a year.

[Vince Cable]

Yes, I will address the issue of youth unemployment and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. This is an issue that has, of course, been with us for many years, including under the previous Government when economic conditions were much more benign. Youth unemployment is currently at about 20%, but of course that includes many full-time students. The key trend is that youth unemployment is now declining rapidly. It is certainly less now than the level we inherited, and we have a whole set of policies designed to deal with it in a systematic way.

The shadow Chancellor put forward the idea of a youth guarantee. The problem that that presents is this: how can a job be guaranteed other than through the public sector? Of course guaranteeing a public sector job takes people off the dole, but it also creates a permanent need for subsidy and support. What we have done is create a route that allows people who are not going into full-time higher education to develop the preconditions for proper apprenticeships through traineeships, basic academic requirements and work experience, and then find their way into true apprenticeship training, which has been an enormous success: it has doubled since we came to office. The measures announced in the Budget statement yesterday will enable a further 100,000 people under 24 to be given apprenticeship training, and the quality improvements that we have made are driving up demand and supply at the same time. This is a much better way of dealing with young people who are out of work than creating artificial jobs.

HMRC Inquiry Centre Closures

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on securing this debate and putting across his points with characteristic clarity and force. Although I can understand his and other Members’ concerns about the new HMRC service, particularly the plans to close its network of inquiry centres, I hope to provide reassurance that the changes will in fact provide better support to customers who require extra help to get their taxes and payments right. I want to focus on three areas: the impact on HMRC staff, whether there will be continued provision of face-to-face service and what the changes will really mean for those who currently use the inquiry centres.

First, let me begin, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck did, with the impact of the proposals on existing HMRC staff. Members will be aware that HMRC has recently written to all MPs about the introduction of the new service. That letter includes confirmation, which I would like to stress again today, that the plans are no reflection on the dedication and commitment of the 1,300 staff working in the inquiry centres. It is simply the case that HMRC can better support customers if it uses its money and staff in other ways.

Since the original consultation on the proposed new service began last year, HMRC has been discussing the impact of the changes with staff in inquiry centres and trade unions. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck pointed out, I met PCS representatives this morning to discuss the changes. Staff have been advised of the options and support available to them, dependent on their personal circumstances. The options include opportunities to apply for one of 450 roles in the new service.

A voluntary exit scheme has been opened for inquiry centre staff who wish to leave the Department on favourable terms, and HMRC has good reason to expect that a significant number will take the option to leave and pursue their futures elsewhere. HMRC will also, of course, do everything possible to redeploy as many staff as possible within HMRC or to help them to find other roles within the civil service. For those who go into the redeployment pool, the offer of a one-to-one meeting is still in place—it has certainly not been withdrawn.

It is worth bearing in mind HMRC’s history as an employer. It has reduced in size significantly over the past nine years, but there have been only 35 compulsory redundancies. Although I cannot provide any guarantees that there will be no such redundancies, HMRC’s record in avoiding such eventualities is strong.

Secondly, I would like to address the concerns of those who have suggested that the closure of the inquiry centres marks the end of HMRC’s dedicated face-to-face advisory service. Let me reassure them that that is definitely not the case. A face-to-face service is about people; it is not about bricks and mortar. What is important is that HMRC provides an accessible and flexible face-to-face service that meets the needs of customers. Such a service is at the heart of the new system, which will provide face-to-face meetings where that is most convenient to customers. Today’s customers increasingly want to access services online, by phone and face to face when they need them. That is what the new service will focus on providing.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just arrived.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I apologise for being late; I have been tied up in a Committee. The Minister mentions the responsibility to maintain customer services. Does he feel that it is sufficient merely to put posters in the windows of the offices that have closed? Is that sufficient notice to give the public, particularly when the feedback from the pilots was that that was not an effective method of communicating with the public?

[Mr Gauke]

It is important that HMRC communicates the closure of inquiry centres. It has written to all Members of Parliament on the matter and will take other steps to ensure that our constituents are aware of the changes.

Inquiry centres are not universally distributed across the country, and large parts of the UK are not even served by them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is no longer in his place, raised the position of rural areas. Rural areas do not tend to be well served by inquiry centres at present. There has been a sharp decline in the use of inquiry centres. Visitor numbers have halved from more than 5 million in 2005-06 to just over 2 million in 2012-13, and the number of face-to-face appointments also dropped by four fifths to 140,000 last year.

National Minimum Wage

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which reminds me of a story that my predecessor as MP for Leeds West told me. He saw a job advert in our constituency for a security guard back in the mid-1990s that said, “Pay, 90p an hour. Uniform provided. Bring your own dog.” Those were the sort of jobs that existed back then, but members of this Government opposed the national minimum wage legislation. I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has to say later, but people will be entitled to ask him where he was when we abolished the scandal of jobs paying less than £1 an hour and when British workers won the right to be paid a decent minimum wage.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s reservations about the minimum wage, what does my hon. Friend think about the reservations of ordinary working people about the Government’s plan to give 100% bonuses to bankers at the Royal Bank of Scotland? Will that be well received?

[Rachel Reeves]

Many people earning £6.31 an hour will be shocked and outraged to find out that bankers this year will get bonuses worth more than they earn, but they will be even more shocked to find out that they are the ones who are paying for those bonuses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

It did fall slightly last year—just slightly. However, the minimum wage is now significantly above that level.

That is a major issue for young workers and for apprenticeships. For young workers, particularly those aged 16 and 17, the so-called bite is close to 80%, which means that any significant increase in the minimum wage would have the unfortunate effect of displacing most of them from the labour force. That is a factor that has weighed very heavily with the Low Pay Commission when it has made its recommendations.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Secretary of State give way? I will be very brief.

[Vince Cable]

I will be indulgent.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He is being very generous, and I appreciate the way in which he has engaged with interventions. May I just put one thought in his mind? A number of very profitable companies are offering their workers—many of them young workers—zero-hours or four-hours contracts, which have a terrible effect on a person’s ability not just to live but to exist.

[Vince Cable]

I have already said in the House on several occasions that the Government are now engaged in a public conversation about how we deal with zero-hours contract abuses. I think the hon. Gentleman has to be careful as the research that has been carried out suggests that very large numbers of people on zero-hours contracts like that model, but we must deal with the abuses, of course.

Scotch Whisky Excise Duty

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Donohoe]

I will take interventions towards the end of my speech, if I may. I will give everybody who has made a representation to me an opportunity to speak. I also have an eye for the chair of the all-party group on Scotch whisky and spirits.

As I said, this is the year of separation, so it is important to have this debate as we move towards the Budget on 19 March. I fully support the “UK okay” campaign. One of the areas of vulnerability is the current disproportionate tax on Scottish whisky compared with English beer or cider. Whisky is taxed at 48% more than the same amount of alcohol served as beer. That is the difference in terms of the taxation on whisky and spirits. The beer duty escalator was abolished last year, but the spirits escalator continues at 2% above inflation. That should be addressed and I will come to the reasons why.

Excise duty on Scottish whisky is now 44% higher than in 2008. The escalator in 2014 will mean an increase in duty of 4.8%, or, in terms that I understand, 38p per bottle. That is what the escalator will bring. As I said, taxation as it stands now is more than £10 a bottle. Scotch whisky exports are growing, but the home market remains important, and the UK is the third largest market for Scotch whisky by volume.

However, volumes in the UK have declined by some 12% in the UK since the escalator was introduced—as a result of it, I would argue, and I am sure some of my colleagues would, too. The UK tax on spirits, which of course includes Scotch whisky, is the fourth highest in Europe. When we compare that with Sweden, Finland and Ireland, which have particular reasons for having high taxation, we can see the unfairness of the tax for the spirits industry.

The Scotch Whisky Association, which helped the all-party group, has called on the Chancellor to freeze duty on Scotch whisky in the 2014 Budget and to scrap the escalator. It should be scrapped because UK consumption has declined since it was introduced, and we want to see the UK market expand. Ernst and Young research shows that scrapping the escalator in 2014 would boost the drinks industry contribution to public finance by some £230 million in 2014 alone.

Consumers should be treated fairly across the range of alcohol products, but Scotch whisky drinkers are being heavily penalised. The sales of Scotch whisky form a significant part of the pub trade. Scrapping the escalator would boost UK sales, and therefore UK jobs in the industry. The industry is good not only for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom, because it accounts for more than 25% of all UK food exports. That is a significant figure that should not and must not be lost on the Treasury. It is good to see the Minister in her position this afternoon.

In 2012, the industry generated £4.27 billion for the UK balance of trade and 35,000 jobs. I can see there are Members present from the remote areas of Scotland; the industry has been the main employer in many small towns and villages in their constituencies. It has always been a major contributor to the support of the infrastructure within such communities, and I do not think that that has been taken into account by the Government.

Some 10,000 of those jobs are directly within the industry. Most of them, if not all of them, are in areas of most need, and they have supported the towns and communities for many years. The jobs are in rural and urban areas, and the industry is the sole employer in some of the smaller areas in Scotland.

The Scotch Whisky Association has called on the Chancellor to freeze duty on Scotch whisky in 2014—I am sure the Minister has seen that request—and also to scrap the escalator. The Chancellor took the decision last year on the basis that he would cancel the escalator for beer and cider, but not for spirits. I think that that is unfair and it does not really stack up when one considers that the reasoning was to safeguard the jobs in the pub industry. In fact, 40% of the pub industry is down to the sale of spirits, so the matter of unfairness between the pint and the wee dram needs to be looked at.

Taking action on Scotch whisky would show that the Government support that major industry both at home and abroad—that they support the jobs it creates and do not disproportionately penalise Scotland’s national drink.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the benefits of the Scotch whisky industry to the Treasury and to Scotland in terms of jobs. Does he recognise the broader benefits that accrue from jobs in transportation and shipping? South of the border, in my region in the north-east, jobs are derived from transporting Scotch whisky to Teesport and there are jobs in shipping as the product is exported all over the world.

Beer Duty Escalator

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I wish to place on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for securing this debate, and I congratulate them on doing so. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important and timely debate to take place. I realise that the Minister is relatively new to his position, but he should know that these arguments were made when clause 186 of the Finance Bill was debated. Similar arguments were pursued by my good self and by my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I ask the Minister to have a look at those arguments and to review the decision, as that would be extremely helpful.

I was rather alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Leeds North West suggest on a point of order earlier that the Government were not giving serious consideration to issues chosen for debate by the Backbench Business Committee. I hope that is not the case, because there is a powerful case for the Minister to consider the House’s decision on this motion.

I must declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party save the pub group. I am also a member of the Working Men’s Club and Institute Union, and as such I am very concerned about the impact of the beer duty escalator on working men’s clubs—this was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton). Nobody in this House can be in any doubt about the impact of the current economic climate and, in particular, the beer duty escalator on the pub trade—the Minister certainly cannot, unless, like the Olympic flame, he does not go out. [Laughter.]

It is apparent that since the beer duty escalator was introduced in 2008 a range of new and demanding costs have been applied across the industry. Like many hon. Members, I have received briefings from the British Beer and Pub Association and, through the all-party save the pub group, I have had discussions with stakeholders. It has been pointed out to me on numerous occasions that inflation has risen, VAT has increased and brewing costs have risen, whereas incomes have fallen right across the sector. The fuel duty increases have also had an adverse impact on delivery costs.

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend is clearly well versed and an expert on these issues. As well as the economic costs, there are clearly important social costs to our pubs closing. A constituency such as mine has only a handful of remaining public houses, many of them intimidating places where the general public do not want to go. Will he therefore support communities that want to take over those pubs and bring them back to life, as we are trying to do with the Woolpack pub in Salford?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My right hon. Friend makes a really good point, and I hope the Minister is taking note.

As we all know from our constituencies, pubs are a vital part of our social life and a social hub. No matter what sort of area we represent, be it Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or nationalist, be it in the north or the south, be it countryside or urban and be it wealthy or poor, public houses are the hubs of our communities. Just as important is the fact that pubs and brewing are vital to the UK economy. Other hon. Members have mentioned the figures, so I will not repeat them, but the sector makes a huge contribution—I believe it is in excess of £20 billion. I believe that the Minister acknowledges that the proposals in the beer duty escalator would be revenue-neutral—they would not generate any additional revenue for the Treasury—so what can be the justification for continuing with it? The only answer I can come up with is that this is part of another public policy agenda—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. Might it be an issue of public health? Perhaps the Government think it desirable to force up the price of alcohol to dissuade people from consumption. We have heard from various hon. Members that the consequence has actually been the reverse, so perhaps this is a perverse application of policy, resulting in the public buying beer, wine and spirits from the supermarkets in cut-price deals, and consuming them at home. There is a strong case for reviewing the escalator.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue affects not only pubs, but working men’s clubs up and down the country? We are in danger of destroying our cultural heritage, whereby the family could go out on a Sunday and have an entertaining afternoon in the pub as a family unit. That whole thing is being destroyed, as we have lost a large number of working men’s clubs in Coventry, as well as pubs.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and a similar point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. I am a strong supporter of working men’s clubs and the whole ethos of inclusivity, so I completely agree with that point.

In the limited time available to me, I want to mention something that has been alluded to by one of my colleagues: it is time for the Government to be much more proactive, not only to help the pubs struggling now, but to boost growth in the pub and brewing industry, as it could be a vital engine of economic growth. If that is the strategy, we have an opportunity to pick up the baton and run with it. The previous Government went so far as to appoint a Minister with special responsibility for pubs, as has been mentioned. That was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who came up with some excellent ideas in a 12-point plan, which was agreed with the trade and CAMRA. I hope that the current Minister is familiar with that; it would be beneficial if he could build on it. That would create vital jobs and build on a great UK manufacturing success story.

Our British beer is famous around the world and our pub culture is envied by many countries. There is also the multiplier effect: one job in brewing supports one in agriculture, one in retail, one in the beer supply chain and 18 in pubs and clubs. We are all concerned about the wider economic implications and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the motion.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point, and we must be realistic in all areas of this discussion. Longevity creates a pressure on the scheme, as well as providing greater life opportunities for people who have retired. It is, in part, a result of greater fitness and better health among the population, which can—among other things—enable people to work for longer. That applies in pretty much every other kind of activity, and we cannot regard any scheme as exempt. I accept, however, that there are particular pressures on firefighters, although I suggest to the House that the Government’s proposals recognise that and provide a sensible and evidence-based mechanism for dealing with it.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the informed contribution from a former Minister. Does he acknowledge that, besides the pressures of longevity, there are risks in increasing contributions for employees? For the firefighters fund, 7% is the magic figure in terms of opt-out. I understand that a poll by YouGov, commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union, indicates that a larger number—12% —of people are very likely to opt out, and that 25% are likely to opt out when the new contributions come into effect.

[Robert Neill]

When I was a Minister, it was precisely for that reason that I included in the agreement a provision for a review of opt-outs in the firefighters scheme before decisions were taken on increases in years 2 and 3. That was in accordance with the proposals set out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We have built in a mechanism to review that risk, but I hope we will find that it does not materialise. I come back to my point that we must probably move away from our slightly entrenched positions on this issue, and be prepared to look sensibly at how to strike an appropriate balance based on the evidence.

We all want the strongest possible pension schemes for those in our public services. I have referred to the two sectors with which I have been most closely associated, and to which I feel the strongest personal commitment, but one could say similar things about many other sectors. If there is a Division tonight, I would not support the Bill without hesitation if I did not believe that we had put in place a framework that will enable us to deliver on our obligations. There are technical matters to address, but I am confident that we will be able to do so as the legislation proceeds. The Bill deals with an important and necessary reform, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In the limited time available, I wish to highlight a particular concern. The Chief Secretary’s contribution seemed to suggest that this is a done deal, and various coalition Members suggested that this is a wonderful Bill with cross-party consensus. I agree with the grave concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), not least about the retrospective powers the Bill will give to the Secretary of State without reference to Parliament. In my view, we should have a sensible negotiation on sector-specific schemes, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

The deal has not been agreed with the firefighters. The key issue for them is normal pension age, which other hon. Members have mentioned, and the proposed increases to the employees’ pension contributions. The Government’s offer published on 24 May 2012 included a commitment to review both the normal pension age for firefighters and firefighters’ contributions. That review is ongoing, and the issue of normal pension age for firefighters is key.

Clause 9 sets a normal pension age of 60 for firefighters in the proposed pension scheme. The NPA is defined in the Bill as

“the earliest age at which the person is entitled to receive benefits under the scheme (without actuarial adjustment) after leaving the service to which the scheme relates”.

This means that, in effect, the Government propose that firefighters should continue to attend house fires, factory and office fires, car accidents, explosions, civil disturbances, terrorist incidents, floods and other emergencies until they are 60 years of age.

At present, nearly 24,000 or two thirds of firefighters in a pension scheme are members of the firefighters pension scheme—the FPS. The normal pension age for those firefighters is 55, with most able to retire in their early 50s. The Fire Brigades Union believes that the proposal is unworkable for firefighters and will destroy the firefighters pension scheme.

This issue goes to the very nature of firefighting. Firefighters perform a number of activities, individually and in teams, such as running, crawling, climbing, lifting, lowering, carrying and hammering. Common activities include ladder lifting and raising, hose running and connection to water supplies, manipulating and operating portable pumps, rescue and evacuation procedures, and wearing breathing apparatus. Worst-case scenarios involve casualty evacuations, search and rescue, operating heavy search equipment, propping and shoring up buildings—as we saw in my area recently during the floods—and carrying equipment over uneven surfaces, which we saw during the dreadful train disaster on the west coast main line.

The public rightly expect the fire service to operate in inherently dangerous situations to save life and property and to render other assistance. The firefighters pension scheme reflects the nature of the job. Firefighters’ work can be

“physically demanding and require sustained effort for long periods, often in arduous conditions”.

It is a career widely recognised as among the most extreme non-military occupations in modern life. I remind the House that currently less than 1% of our firefighters work beyond the age of 55—for good reason. The national pension age of 60 proposed in Lord Hutton’s pension report is for the Government to consider—he did not recommend it as a figure carved in stone—but no evidence was provided to justify it. The Fire Brigades Union has written to him seeking his supporting evidence for it, but as yet it has received no reply.

There are several issues relating to ongoing reports into the merits of a firefighter NPA beyond 55, but the important point, which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the former fire service Minister, referred to is that fundamentally the role of firefighters has not changed. The introduction of IT and changing working practices have fundamentally changed how Members of Parliament and other professions operate, and perhaps have made our lives easier, but that is not the case for firefighters—at least, I can find no evidence for it.

No evidence has been produced to show how firefighters can maintain their health and fitness in order to work safely until they are 60. There are recognised aged-related declines in physical potential. We all suffer from them—well, perhaps you do not, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the rest of us do—and, because firefighting is a physically challenging profession dealing with safety-critical emergencies, such concerns are a matter of life and death for firefighters and the public. Academic papers generally conclude that only elite athletes can maintain well into their 50s the levels of fitness required by the UK fire and rescue service, and the majority of fire and rescue services already have fitness policies in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the limited opportunities for redeploying firefighters no longer fit for active service. The FBU recently surveyed every fire and rescue brigade to determine what opportunities there were for redeploying firefighters deemed unfit for operational duty on health grounds. In England, fewer than 100 firefighters are in that position, but that is with an NPA of 55. Out of the 46 English fire and rescue services, only five confirmed that they currently had any redeployment opportunities, while the total number of opportunities currently available in the whole of England amounted to 16 posts—and that, remember, is with the normal pension age at 55, so we can imagine how much greater the demand would be if it was 60. I am concerned that such a scenario will end up damaging an essential public service and costing the public purse more.

I referred to studies that the FBU carried out through YouGov. I do not propose to rehearse those points. However, it also engaged the services of an expert actuary to carry out an assessment. It indicated that a considerable number of firefighters would no longer contribute to the scheme. The public will not thank the House or the Government for advocating a pension scheme based on an unworkable NPA and on sacking hard-working firefighters in the years before they can retire after a lifetime of public service.

Higher NPAs could be more expensive. During previous discussions on firefighters’ pensions, the Government Actuary’s Department confirmed that increasing the NPA from 55 to 60 would lead to more ill-health retirements. As I mentioned, the FBU, seeking to quantify that, engaged a specialist firm of actuarial consultants to assess the potential impact of a rise in ill-health retirement under the existing scheme. The evidence shows the substantial cash-flow problems that such contribution increases would create for the sustainability of the scheme. Indeed, the worst-case scenario is that the new pension scheme will prove unworkable and will crash. There is a danger of a significant number of firefighters opting out of the new pension scheme, thereby making it unsustainable for the rest. I believe the Department for Communities and Local Government estimated the savings from the new arrangements at £33 million a year. However, if more than 7% of firefighters opt out—the true figure may well be 12% or more—the likelihood is that those savings will be wiped out, with an even greater cost to the public purse.

Firefighter pensions are rightly seen as part of a social contract with firefighters—men and women who risk their own well-being throughout long careers to help others. I do not believe that the general public will support breaking this well-established covenant, and neither should the Government.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I was hoping to open with some generous comments about the contributions from Government Members, and although I have agreed with some of them, I have found others that dealt with the Opposition’s view a little unpalatable. Make no mistake: our commitment is to jobs and growth, and to a credible plan to stimulate investment in infrastructure.

As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) has already said, a number of sectors in our region could benefit considerably from investment in housing and construction. I did not quite understand the point the former Prisons Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), was making in saying that housing should not be considered as infrastructure. It is absolutely vital. As many as 25,000 new jobs in the north-east could be created through low-carbon investment and a proposal from the North East of England Process Industry Cluster. We should also consider superfast broadband, communications and transport. Although we are not a direct beneficiary of High Speed 2, there is a plan to locate the train-builder, Hitachi, within County Durham, which could generate many thousands of new jobs.

In the time available I want to talk about the important and often neglected role of regional airports as part of our regional economic infrastructure. In the north-east, that is the Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley airports, which I want to thank, along with the Airport Operators Association, for their assistance in providing information. As Members will appreciate, airport infrastructure projects are generally entirely private sector funded. More than £100 million has been invested in new facilities and infrastructure at Newcastle airport since 2000. A terminal, a runway, instrument landing systems, an air traffic control tower, a fuel farm—all have been improved or replaced during the intervening period. More than £3.2 million has been spent on the terminal in the past year. Plans further to improve the airport include additional investment in the terminal, aircraft parking stands, freight offices and access.

However, this is not simply a question, as the Minister implied, of overcoming ownership and planning constraints. Other Government policies influence the ability to take forward infrastructure projects, one of which is investment in complementary infrastructure in other modes. Here, I am thinking of the importance of improving the A1 western bypass, which is seen as an obstacle to further growth at the airport. That would be of considerable benefit in terms of gross value added and improving journey times. I hope the Bill is an indication that the coalition now recognises the importance of aviation policy to the UK economy. We need to ensure that the UK can compete in both established and emerging markets. That requires investment in airport infrastructure, and not only to enhance connectivity right across the country; the UK needs vibrant, point-to-point airports and sufficient world-class hub capacity.

I do not propose to get involved in an argument about whether the right thing to do is to expand Heathrow; but it is absolutely clear that that is a decision for Government to make. It is up to the Government to decide where hub capacity, if it is to be increased, should be. As with all infrastructure improvements, there is a long lead-in time and people need certainty in order to invest in new facilities. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) suggested that an alternative would be to expand Birmingham airport, but I do not necessarily agree that that would be the best decision. However, the Government should consider the matter, as our regional airports are suffering as a result of this uncertainty.

These airports have considerable potential as engines of sustainable economic growth. As I mentioned, Newcastle airport supports 7,800 jobs, with more than 3,000 of those on site. The benefits go not only to Newcastle, but to the whole north-east region. The benefits to the regional economy are put at some £646 million. The airport contributes £57 million gross value added for tourism, it handles 4.7 million passengers a year and generates £48.8 million a year in air passenger duty from passengers flying from Newcastle. Aviation is a huge benefit to the UK economy, contributing about £50 billion, of which the Chancellor takes about £8 billion, as I understand it.

I wish to remind the Minister that the recent global crisis and the associated recession has caused the biggest fall in activity at UK airports since the 1950s. In the north-east region, the number of passengers at Newcastle airport has reduced from 5.5 million in 2007 to 4.7 million in 2012. Even more dramatically, the number for Durham Tees Valley airport has decreased from 1 million in 2005 to 200,000 in 2012.

As this is a Treasury Bill, it is reasonable to ask the Minister about the role of the Chancellor and the Treasury in the context of our regional airport infrastructure. Is this another case of perpetuating a north-south divide? I understand that passenger numbers at Heathrow, and indeed for much of the south-east, have recovered to their levels before the financial crisis. To use a northern expression, this seems to be a no-brainer. Why do the Government not see investment in airport infrastructure as a key driver of growth and jobs?

There have been notable critics of the approach being taken, and not necessarily from the Labour party. Mr Olivios Janovec, director general of the pan-European airport operators association, says that the UK has the worst aviation and aviation tax policies in Europe. Perhaps that is because of a lack of continuity; we seem to have had more Transport Secretaries and aviation Ministers than Chris Hoy has had gold medals, and I do not think that that has helped.

The Government are not doing enough to make regional airports flourish. There is considerable potential, and a major boost could be provided to jobs and growth in the north-east. That is important because the number of unemployed claimants in Easington in August 2012 was 3,307, or 9.9% of the economically active population. The number of claimants was up by 441 compared with the figure for the previous year and it was 14 higher than the figure for July 2012.

It is important that the Government examine what is happening on air passenger duty, as this country has the highest rates in Europe and possibly the world. It is a regressive tax that takes no account of people’s ability to pay. I also urge the Government to move ahead and recognise the important role of Government in stimulating demand.

Finance Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will raise a much more relevant matter in his intervention.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s patience and tolerance in the face of such provocation. Does she agree that part of the problem that we are trying to address through new clause 13 is the culture of excessive bonuses? Opposition Members recognise that that is part of the problem and we are trying to address it with the bank bonus tax.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend. I have not made much progress yet, but the point that I was trying to make is that a whole series of actions by the banks have let ordinary people and businesses down. It is time that the banks played their part in putting some of that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem with the banking crisis is the excessive bonus culture? Perhaps shareholders and Governments should have dealt with that, but we will discuss that on Thursday. Is this proposal not an attempt to address that issue and to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders, who have done so well over the past 10 years with their huge bonus payments, make a contribution now that times are tough?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but there are two problems with his argument. First, the tax would fall not on the greedy employees and bankers whom he wants to whip, but on the bank. Secondly, during his Government’s period of office—he will correct me if I am wrong—Fred Goodwin received some £15 million in bonuses, which he paid tax on at the old tax rate. The hon. Gentleman is therefore seeking to close the door after the horse has bolted.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous and accommodating, as always. Does he know what the bonus figure has been for Bob Diamond over the past two years, while the hon. Gentleman’s Government have been in office?

[Charlie Elphicke]

For me, the issue is the size of the bonuses not in the private banks, but in the taxpayer-owned banks. That is the real concern that we ought to be focusing on. That is why the Government’s bank levy is the right way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman is simply suggesting that we give with one hand and take away with the other. He might think that he can throw lots of money at dealing with the problem of youth unemployment, but he would meanwhile be constraining businesses in getting the capital that they need to create new jobs and maintain their existing jobs. That is the central flaw in the Opposition’s argument. They want to take more money out of the banking system when capital and lending are already constrained.

The issue that we need to deal with is bonuses. The Government have taken action on bonuses in the taxpayer-owned banks. They have said that there will be no cash bonuses of more than £2,000 at the taxpayer-owned banks. It is right to have longer-term share incentivisation schemes, which align people’s interests with the success of the banks over the longer term.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting argument. Does he agree that bonuses have been too high not just in the state-owned banks but in the privately owned banks, and that shareholders should do their duty and exercise some control over bonus pots? Bonuses have been paid in banks, such as Barclays, where performance has clearly not justified them.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Shareholders have been exercising control. Under this Government we have seen the shareholder spring and real action by institutional investors to restrain pay in the boardroom, which grew so much under the previous Government. Under the current Government, there has been action to ensure that shareholders have far greater power over remuneration reports and can push down the excessive rewards that have been given for not enough success.

It is right that an honest day’s work means an honest day’s pay and really good work deserves really good pay, but it is fundamentally wrong to say that the Government have not taken action. They have encouraged shareholders to do their bit as business owners to ensure that we do not have the excessive pay of yesteryear. A responsible Opposition would say, “We congratulate the Government on ensuring that excessive pay is stopped, and we take responsibility for the fact that when we were in government, we allowed a something-for-nothing culture in which everyone knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.” We need an understanding of the value of things once again. The Government have got it right by saying that there will not be excessive bonuses in the taxpayer-owned banks. Although the Project Merlin agreement was not perfect, it was a move in the right direction, as is the permanent bank levy that the Government have introduced, which raises £2.5 billion a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I believe that the OBR’s figure was for gross receipts, which were not £3.5 billion but £3.45 billion. We need to examine the net yield raised, which was £2.3 billion. That is a lower figure than the £2.5 billion raised under the current Government’s system. I appreciate that the difference between net and gross can be confusing, because not all of us are accountants—I certainly am not. Nevertheless, more cash is coming through the door under the current Government’s arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman’s argument misses a central point, which is that the Opposition want their bank bonus levy to be an additional impost on the banks. My concern is that that would pull more capital out of the banking system. Right now, we need to lend to business and kick-start the economy.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman says that accountants know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, but how does he weigh the cost to the banks against the cost to this lost generation—the 100,000 people in Dover, Easington and the constituencies we represent—consigned to a life on the dole?

[Charlie Elphicke]

If we get lending going again, the economy growing again and decent private sector jobs creating more wealth as a nation, we will do better over the longer term. Having short-term measures to create jobs out of thin air—the 100,000 jobs that the Opposition talk about, for example, which would broadly be public sector-type and make-work-type jobs—is not the way to create a sustainable economy. We need to expand the private sector, expand business and expand jobs, so that they are sustainable over the longer term, not just for a year or two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Grahame M. Morris.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you for the differentiation, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be in such august company as that of my hon. and good Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice)—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen are trying to confuse me, because now they are sitting next to each other—but only one has the Floor.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Livingston, and indeed the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who served on the Public Bill Committee. He is not in his place at the moment, but I found his contribution interesting, as always.

I support new clause 13, tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, which would introduce a bankers bonus tax to fund a job guarantee for every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months. History will judge this Budget as chaotic. It has been a Budget of U-turns—on pasties, on caravans, on skips and on charities. It should be remembered as a Budget for “millionaires row”—admittedly, that is a little sparse at the moment—but I hope it will not be remembered as the Budget that let the greedy bankers off the hook. Tonight, I want to put on the record the impact on the north-east.

The north-east requires an alternative vision for economic confidence, growth and jobs. The proposals in new clause 13 of a guaranteed paid job for people who have been out of work for 12 months, as suggested by the Institute of Public Policy Research North, would boost the process of regeneration that is so badly needed in my region. According to economists at IPPR North, coalition spending cuts have worsened the impact on our region’s economy and added to unemployment—especially youth unemployment—in the north-east. Well over 32,000 public sector jobs have been cut. I remind the House that unemployment in my region stands at 11.3%; 145,000 people are out of work. The private sector-led recovery that was promised has clearly not materialised in my region, at least, and a recent report from Northern TUC shows declining employment in the private sector.

In the Public Bill Committee, I gave some examples of the private sector haemorrhaging jobs in my constituency, and I do not propose to repeat that tonight. The problem we face—the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, raised this point—is that money is being sucked out of the region through public spending cuts, benefit cuts and the slashing of regeneration and infrastructure projects, worsening the economic problems. The Government, through their policies, are squeezing out demand from the regional and national economies. That is counter-productive, as it pushes up both the benefits bill and Government borrowing.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor pretend that there is no alternative, but the Opposition recognise that politics is about priorities and making choices. Sadly, the Chancellor has chosen to give a £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires, while more and more people in my area are losing their jobs and young people in particular have little prospect of finding paid employment. He has also chosen to keep VAT, a deeply regressive tax that hurts the poor, at 20%.

IPPR North has said that business confidence is failing. The lack of confidence among employers has created a hire freeze across the north that looks likely to get worse. The unwillingness of employers to take on permanent staff only increases economic insecurity for ordinary households. Where vacancies do exist, they are often for low paid and insecure work. Given that more than 1 million young people are out of work, we need real action from the Government to stop the next generation from wasting away on unemployment benefits. That is where the real jobs guarantee comes in. We need to offer a jobs guarantee, especially to young people, to stimulate the economy and offer personal hope to each individual.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

General Government expenditure accounts for 50% of the economy, our debts are at record levels and we have the highest deficits. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the answer to debt, deficit and the Government’s massive share of the economy is for the Government to do more or to do less?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention if he had sat through the whole debate, because those points have been raised. It behoves the Government to do more, not less; we have to learn from the lessons of history. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 13.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I want to say a few words in support of a bank bonus tax. I emphasise that I am supporting that not to bash the bankers, but to end the unacceptable face of banking in the form of an excessive bonus culture that is still far too widespread.

As I said earlier, the vast majority of people who work in financial services certainly do not get vast bonuses; many thousands of people in my constituency work hard behind bank counters or in bank offices serving customers, and they are often on modest incomes. Many have paid with changes in working conditions, while others have paid with their jobs, when redundancies flowed from the financial crisis caused by the irresponsibility of senior executives. We are not targeting those people; we want to do something about the small minority who are still getting excessive rewards.

A study published at the end of June showed that average pay for chief executives at 15 leading banks in the US and Europe increased by 12% over the last financial year. That may be less than the 36% increase in the previous year, but whatever the increase—it is about 50% when we add both increases—it is wildly out of line with falls in profits and share prices that have frequently characterised the sector. That is not performance-related pay in any sense that most people would understand and it is certainly not a performance that would justify what is effectively a further tax cut on top of a tax cut for the highest paid.

A tax targeted on bank bonuses is necessary because the existing attempts to curb the bonus culture have so obviously failed. That is the key point. The issue is not about saying that people should not be very well paid at the top of banks and financial institutions, but we want to get away from a position in which sums wildly in excess of anything that could be said to be deserved are paid as a matter of course. None of the steps taken so far has changed that culture, even in an era of financial crisis among the banks and beyond.

The second reason why we want a bank bonus tax is that it would raise money for some valuable purposes. The issue of jobs for young people affects all our constituencies. My constituency normally comes in the middle range of unemployment across the UK, and we have seen a substantial increase in youth unemployment. I certainly want that issue to be tackled in my constituency.

We are also saying that the bank bonus tax would be used to provide affordable housing. That, of course, would bring two benefits. First, it would bring more housing into the sector. Constituencies such as mine have to some extent, although on a lesser scale, experienced the same phenomenon as happened in London, where high rates of pay in certain sectors such as financial services have pushed up house prices and made it harder for people on lower incomes to get affordable housing, so this proposal would be important for those people as well. Of course, building affordable housing and new homes also gives a boost to the economy through providing new jobs in the construction sector and helps people who have been out of work because of the collapse of that sector in many parts of the country.

Our proposal of a bank bonus tax would not only tackle the excessive bonus culture but provide jobs for our young people and affordable homes, giving a boost to the construction sector. I therefore hope that the House will support it.