Beer Duty Escalator

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I do not think it does either of our reputations any good to declare to the House that he once bought me a pint at Huddersfield railway station—and very good company and a very good pint it was too.

This is an important issue, and I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for arranging the debate. I want to focus on the impact in my constituency. The pub and brewery industry is of both historical and current importance to Hartlepool. It is said—I do not know about the accuracy of this, but it is a good statistic regardless—that in the early part of the 20th century, Hartlepool had the highest ratio of pubs to streets in the entire country. Sadly that is no longer the case, and we have seen a steady stream of pub closures. The hon. Member for Leeds North West quite rightly talked about the planning system. Only in the last month one of the pubs in Hartlepool—the Pink Domino—has been earmarked for demolition. There is a planning application going through at the moment for a supermarket to be built in its place, with a loss to the community.

However, I am not just looking backwards. The pub and brewery trade is still hugely important to my town, both socially and economically. We have first-class pubs, such as the Causeway, the Fisherman’s Arms, the Pothouse and the Jackson’s Arms. Hartlepool has an economy that employs about 34,000 people. Of those, some 1,000 are employed in the pub trade, so it is not an insignificant part of the town’s economy. Indeed, that figure does not take into account those employed in working men’s clubs or, like my mother, behind the bar in venues such as the town hall or the borough hall on the Headland. The pub trade therefore has a major impact on the town’s economy and employment, particularly for younger people and those in part-time flexible working.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I have had the pleasure of visiting his constituency and having a drink of beer in Hartlepool at the time of his election. My community in Salford and Eccles is similar to the community in Hartlepool. We have a great brewery, Joseph Holt, which just this year has been forced to get rid of 11 pubs, with the loss of 94 jobs, at the same time as seeing massive increases in duty. Does my hon. Friend agree that the escalator is punishing communities in poorer areas such as ours, where people’s wages have not kept pace with duty increases?

[Mr Wright]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. She mentions the importance of the pub trade in the local economy—the economies of Salford and Hartlepool are very similar—but she also talks about breweries, which brings me to my next point.

We have a major brewery in my constituency: Camerons brewery—I am pleased to confirm to the House that it has nothing to do with the Prime Minister, thank goodness. Camerons brewery has been on the same site for more than 140 years, using the unique Hartlepool water from its own well to make the beer. It now employs 100 people and is involved in large-scale ale and lager production. Not only does Camerons produce quality ales of its own—I would recommend to hon. Members Camerons Strongarm and 6th Sense, which are particularly good pints—but its modern manufacturing facility and investment in plant means that the brewery is now capable of producing 1.3 million hectolitres per annum, with the potential to increase that, given certainty in the brewery trade, to 2 million hectolitres. Camerons has been well positioned to win orders for beer and ale production from global brands such as Carlsberg. The brewery continues to be—and has been for the best part of 150 years—an important part of the town’s manufacturing base.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

I give way for the second and last time.

[Andrew Bingham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just the big breweries that are affected, but small microbreweries, of which there are many in rural constituencies, where pubs are extremely important socially, such as Howard Town brewery and Buxton brewery in my constituency of High Peak?

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If manufacturing is to be an important part of this country’s economic base, with small and medium-sized enterprises forming a key part of that, the food and drink sector—of which microbreweries have to be an essential and growing component—will be vital to that.

I have listened closely to other hon. Members’ contributions to this debate, which has been fair and balanced. It is unreasonable to suggest that beer duty is the sole reason that the pub and beer trade is facing difficulties. There are long-term social and economic forces at work. Over the past 30 years, people have switched away from beer to wine in their alcohol consumption. That is true not just in Britain, but throughout western Europe and the United States. Significantly—this point has been touched on many times in the debate, but it is worth repeating—people are now consuming alcohol in their homes rather than in pubs. In fact, some 70% of the alcohol purchased in the UK is bought for consumption at home. Traditionally, 30 or 40 years ago, people probably bought alcohol only in a pub; now, it is far more likely that beer will be bought in a supermarket.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

Just because I went through the Education Bill Committee with the hon. Gentleman—we had nightmares together—I will give way.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about wine drinking in the home. Does he agree that, because wine has a much higher alcohol content and because people are often drinking not in pub measures but in much larger glasses at home, the health issues are a result more of wine and spirits than of beer, which has a much lower alcohol content?

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Among even the strongest beers and ales, Cameron’s 6th Sense, which I mentioned earlier, is only 6%, but some of the bottles of wine that are being consumed in one go at home can be 13% or 14%. That has health implications, as does the departure from responsible and supervised drinking in pubs.

The switch from on-trade to off-trade purchase and consumption via the supermarkets has had major effects on the pub industry. The Treasury’s own analysis of alcohol consumption in the UK, which was published in December 2010, showed enormous price elasticity for off-trade beer. That illustrates the enormous competition between supermarkets, the price wars that are going on and the cutting of margins on beer by supermarkets, all to the detriment of the pub trade.

Pubs have an enormous disadvantage, in that they tend not to have the buying power, or the ability to achieve economies of scale, of the major supermarkets, and the nature of their business model means that they have to pass on increases in prices—whether in the form of additional duty, increased VAT or rises in the cost of raw materials—directly to the consumer. Supermarkets are, by and large, able to cross-subsidise, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pointed out, and they often have the ability to absorb any price rises. Beers can even be used as loss leaders to encourage shoppers, a practice that the pubs cannot afford to compete with.

These problems arise not just from the beer duty escalator but from rises in raw material prices, and there must be concern that beer prices will rise still further because of the recent wet summer, which has had an impact on barley crops, and the increase in VAT last year by the Government. The rise in VAT must have put an extra 5p or 6p on the price of a pint, which in turn will put additional pressure on the viability of pubs. Has the Minister looked at the impact on pubs of that VAT rise, of the rises in barley prices and of the beer duty escalator?

On the point about raising revenue, it was estimated when the beer duty escalator was introduced in 2008 that it would generate between £500 million and £600 million for the Exchequer. Given the difficulties since then, and the squeeze on household incomes, has it actually generated that much revenue? What cost-benefit analysis has the Treasury put in place to determine whether the escalator is raising revenue for the Exchequer to the detriment of local economies and local pubs?

I appreciate that the duty is, and should be, a source of revenue for the Exchequer—about 2% of all Government receipts. I appreciate that beer has generated revenue for the Treasury for centuries, to the dismay of beer drinkers everywhere, and that it will continue to do so. I also appreciate that, in a free country, the manner in which people wish to consume a legal product is up to them and not up to the Government. If somebody wants to drink beer bought from the supermarket in their front room while watching the football or a film and having a takeaway, without causing any hassle or intimidation to anybody else, that is entirely up to them. However—this is my key point—if we as a country value the social and economic importance of the pub as a focal point for the community and a means of encouraging responsible and supervised drinking, what steps can the Government take to nudge consumers towards drinking beer in pubs?

In responding, will the Minister set out how he proposes to tackle the growing gulf in prices between pints in pubs and beer in supermarkets? I am not suggesting that he attempts to turn back the tide of social trends over the past 30 years, but I hope he will tell us how the Government value the pub as one of the great British institutions and how he will work with his colleagues, using the tax system, beer duty and any other means at his disposal, to ensure that the pubs and brewing industries of Britain have a brighter and longer-term future as part of a revitalised manufacturing base. I think we would all drink to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I first congratulate the Members who secured this important Backbench Business debate. We have heard a number of thoughtful, well-informed and impassioned contributions from hon. Members of all parties. I am sure that the various groups in the beer and pub industry that have provided briefings, met with hon. Members and given them information ahead of the debate will be pleased that their comments and concerns have been not only taken on board by Members from all parties, but reflected during the course of the debate. By my reckoning, there have been 20 speeches plus numerous interventions, and I think that that demonstrates the level of concern and the interest in this issue. The question now is whether the Government will not only take those concerns on board, but take some action in response to them. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

As we have heard, Backbench Business debates are important because they give everyone the opportunity—perhaps in a less partisan way—to explore issues and to come together and agree on certain things that need to be done. We may have differences of opinion from time to time, but none the less we are able to give advice and guidance on how we would like the Government to take things forward.

As we have heard, the beer and pub industry is a vital part of the economy, both nationally and locally. Many hon. Members have mentioned how local establishments in their areas contribute to the community. I will say more about that shortly.

In 2009, the industry paid more than £6 billion in tax, and the average pub will employ—we have heard this figure repeatedly today—about 10 people, many of whom will be young people who are trying to find their way into the job market or who are having difficulties in finding work at present. We have also heard that, according to the Beer and Pub Association, nearly £21 billion a year is contributed to the UK economy by the production and sale of beer. Worryingly, CAMRA’s latest figures—it released them only today—show that 18 pubs close every week across the UK. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) referred to that in his opening speech and the point was repeated and reinforced by a number of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who gave an interesting history lesson on the number of pubs that used to be in his constituency. I am sorry that I have not yet had the opportunity to sample any of them; perhaps he will invite me.

[Mr Iain Wright]

indicated assent.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I think that I have just been invited. In order to take my duties as a shadow Minister seriously, I have now identified a whole list of areas throughout the UK where I have not yet had the chance to sample the local hostelries. It would be remiss of me if I did not plan a tour at some point over the coming months.

To return to the important points, I have also heard from my local publicans and CAMRA members. Some of them spoke to me about the beer escalator in particular at the recent Ayrshire real ale festival, which was held in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) at which I had the very difficult Friday afternoon task of judging one of the beer contests. I am sworn to secrecy as to which beer won the Scottish heat. All will be revealed in due course. CAMRA members and, indeed, many other people who had travelled to the beer festival took the opportunity to make their case to me.

We have heard about the e-petition, which now has more than 104,000 signatures. I am sure that all Members appreciate the work of both the British Beer and Pub Association and CAMRA in providing information by constituency, and I believe that important information from Oxford Economics has been circulated to all of us, showing how the beer and pub industry affects our own areas.

In my constituency, which is next door to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and not dissimilar from it, there are about 88 pubs. As she said, they provide an average of £80,000 a year to the local economy, and they support about 894 full and part-time jobs. I am aware that that is not as many as in the Economic Secretary’s own constituency, where I understand there are slightly fewer pubs but also a brewery. I am sure he is well aware of the importance of jobs in the industry to his local area, as I am in my area.

I want to put the Opposition’s position on record. I do not want to introduce a discordant note, because everyone has spoken in favour of the motion so far. I hope that the Economic Secretary will take that on board. However, it is incumbent on me to explain why we will support the motion. [Interruption.] I hear somebody say from a sedentary position that it is because we are in opposition, but I have some important points to make that are pertinent to the debate.

A number of Members have referred to the impact of VAT, and we believe that the Government made a mistake in increasing it back in January 2011. That hit families hard, costing a couple with children the equivalent of £450 a year. It also hit confidence, cost jobs and undermined the economic recovery.

The extension to the beer duty escalator was introduced when VAT was 17.5%. The rise in VAT was equivalent to a 12% increase in duty, and in 2011, the coalition Government’s first full year, there was the biggest ever pence per pint annual increase in the beer tax. A couple of hon. Members have mentioned that the VAT rise increased the price of a pint in a pub by some 5p but the price of a can of beer in a supermarket by less than 2p. It has hit pubs harder than supermarkets, and it risks hitting the pub trade harder than the duty increases have.

As hon. Members will know—we have said it in a number of previous debates—as part of the five-point plan for growth and jobs that we set out back in 2011, we called for a temporary VAT cut back to 17.5% until the economy was growing strongly again. We wanted to ease the squeeze on families and ensure that the economy was moving. That would have had an effect on the price of beer in pubs, and I hope that the Government will take account of VAT when considering whether to support the motion.

We will not oppose the motion, because we believe that there should be a review of the beer duty escalator and its impact on the economy and jobs in the pub trade. It would clearly need to include an examination of the impact of VAT as part of the wider debate and discussion. As a number of Members have said, VAT amounts to half the total tax paid on beer in pubs. A review would also provide an opportunity to consider other issues that have been raised today, including barley prices.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), have made the point that pubs are at the centre of our local communities. He had been doing some research—desk research only, obviously—by comparing prices in local establishments and supermarkets. I note that Dalkeith miners club is a responsible establishment that is well worth visiting.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned their concerns about the traditional community-based pub disappearing, not only in the rural areas to which many Members have referred but in urban ones, where the issues are slightly different. In rural areas, many pubs are closing because they find it difficult to sustain custom for a range of reasons. In urban areas, as we have heard from a number of Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), supermarkets, off-sales and other forms of licensed trade are appearing instead of the traditional pub. As Members have said, that changes the culture and our approach to alcohol and can bring different problems to local communities. Those points have been made powerfully during the debate.

I realise that time is short, so I will conclude. I ask the Minister to give thought to all the points that have been made today, and specifically to ensure that he links up with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the wider economy of the pub trade and the brewing industry is seen as an important issue for BIS, not simply a matter for the Treasury.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Iain Wright Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She would have been better to avoid the issue of private sector pension schemes because of the enormous damage that was done by the Labour Government in those early years, in the July 1997 Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, they took £100 billion out of private sector pension funds, which at that time had an asset value of £650 billion. It was the envy of the world, and £100 billion was a very large proportion of that sum.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s acceptance of this very important Bill and the fact that the Labour Opposition will support it in the Lobby. Despite her assertion, my view is that the negotiations were handled extremely well by the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the individual Departments involved. There was engagement and a willingness to compromise, but there was also a firm approach to ensure fairness between the taxpayer and the public sector employee.

I support the Bill not just because of its importance in tackling this country’s historically high budget deficit, but because of its vital importance to ensuring that we have high-quality, well-rewarded public sector employees, in the teaching profession in particular. We need a well-rewarded profession that continues to enjoy a defined benefit pension scheme on a sustainable basis when such schemes are increasingly rare in other sectors of the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) said, even without the budget deficit, these reforms are necessary to tackle increased costs and life expectancy.

The Government’s education reforms are built on trusting the teaching profession, ensuring that we have the best people coming into teaching, and raising the status of the profession. Indeed, the schools White Paper was called “The Importance of Teaching”. In the opening chapters it made the point:

“The evidence from around the world shows us that the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of a school system is the quality of its teachers. The best education systems draw their teachers from the most academically able”.

Countries around the world that have the best education systems, such as Singapore and Finland, recruit their teachers from the top third of their graduates, and South Korea recruits from the top 5%, but Singapore and South Korea pay their teachers more than any other country in the world relative to average earnings in their own country. Finland pays its teachers at about the OECD average.

In its 2007 report, “How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top”, McKinsey made the important point that the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. Its 2010 report, “Closing the talent gap: attracting and retaining top third graduates to a career in teaching”, looked at precisely how Singapore, Finland and South Korea manage to recruit graduates from the top third. It concluded that the key to recruiting the best graduates is attractive starting salaries and attractive top salaries.

A report that examined the US education system concluded that a starting salary of $65,000 and a top salary of $150,000 were needed. In this country starting salaries outside London are about £21,600 and £27,000 in London. Top salaries for teachers are about £105,000 outside London and £112,000 in London. Although the McKinsey report was about the United States and looked at the US employment market, it is nevertheless fair to draw the conclusion that compensation packages are an important element in determining the calibre of graduates recruited into teaching, and pensions are an important part of that remuneration package. Defined benefit schemes are particularly attractive, and in my view they are an important part of that package, which is why the Bill is so important.

In his final report Lord Hutton stated:

“Given the current design of public service pension schemes, the general public cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future.”

The issue of sustainability is therefore critical. Is a scheme sustainable in terms of its costs, given increased life expectancy? As Lord Hutton pointed out,

“In 1841, someone who reached the age of 60 might expect to live a further 14 years on average, but most people did not live to this age. By the early 1970s…the life expectancy of a 60 year old had increased to about 18 years and this has now risen to around 28 years. In addition, many more people can now expect to reach 60.”

Public service pension costs have been rising significantly over recent years—by a third in the past decade to £32 billion. Expenditure on teachers’ pensions is projected to double from £5 billion in 2005-06 to almost £10 billion in 2015-16. As Hutton pointed out,

“between 1999-2000 and 2009-10 the amount of benefits paid from the five largest public service pension schemes increased by 32 per cent. This increase in costs was mainly driven by an increase in the number of pensioners, a result of the expansion of the public service workforce over the last four decades, longer life expectancy and the extension of pension rights for early leavers and women.”

Hutton also said that it was important to look at the pension position as a whole, comparing the situation in the public and private sectors. One of the over-arching principles was to achieve fairness between taxpayers and public sector employees. The divergence, he said, between the public and private sectors is of concern. That does not mean, as the hon. Member for Leeds West asserted, that public service pensions should follow the trend in the private sector. Hutton said:

“This downward drift in pension provision in the private sector does not however provide sufficient support or justification in my view for the argument that pensions in the public sector must therefore automatically follow the same course. I regard this as a counsel of despair. In making clear I believe there is a case for further reform I have therefore rejected a race to the bottom as the only answer, and hope that reformed public service pensions can be seen as once again providing a benchmark for the private sector to aim towards.”

It is worth pausing a moment to look at how extensive this downward drift in private sector pension provision was, and its causes. According to the 2010 occupational pension scheme survey by the Office for National Statistics, the peak provision of occupational pensions was in the mid-1960s, when there more than 12 million active members, of whom 8 million were in the private sector and 4 million were in the state sector. By the mid-1990s active membership had fallen to about 11 million, but 90% of that 11 million continued to have defined benefit schemes. This means that more than 5.5 million private sector employees of that time were in some form of final salary or defined benefit scheme. By 2010 membership had fallen to 2.1 million and, as Hutton points out, only about 1 million of those members were in schemes that were still open to new members and an increasing number of schemes were closing to new accruals for existing members.

The fall in membership was due in part to the private sector making a realistic assessment of the costs of increased life expectancy. There had been a modest trend away from defined benefit schemes and towards defined contribution schemes in recent years, but that accelerated after 1997, in my view because of the decision taken by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in his first Budget to end the repayment of dividend tax credits to pension funds and other tax-free funds, which took about £3.5 billion a year from pension funds. At the time, Britain’s private sector pensions were the envy of the world, with assets of more than £650 billion.

Many people, including in the pensions industry, said that that policy would have a very damaging effect on pension provision. Treasury civil servants shared those misgivings. In 2007 the Treasury was forced to release a number of internal papers from 1997 assessing the likely impact of the policy to end the repayment of dividend tax credits. A Treasury paper, dated 15 May 1997 and headed “Paper Four: Pension Schemes and Insurers”, pointed out that 90% of employees in occupational pension schemes had defined benefits but warned:

“In recent years we have seen a small but steady shift towards defined contribution schemes.”

The Treasury paper alerted Ministers to the risks arising from ending the repayment of dividend tax credits, stating:

“The present shift towards defined contribution schemes might accelerate…One of the claimed merits of defined contributions schemes is that they give employers more control over costs since the investment risk is transferred away from employers and onto employees. This factor would become ever more relevant with the proposed tax credit change.”

Despite that clear warning, the right hon. Gentleman pressed ahead with the policy, and the predictions made by his civil servants have come to fruition. That is why we have the problems we face today and why we are debating the Bill.

[Mr Iain Wright]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1997 Budget. First, what does he think was the impact of the then Chancellor’s decision to cut corporation tax by 2p in the pound with the aim of encouraging more long-term investment in pension funds? Secondly, what impact does he think the long payment holidays for employers have had on defined contribution and defined benefit schemes?

[Mr Gibb]

The whole basis of the decision was the argument that the stock market was rising and so the tax cut would lead to more profits, more dividends and further rises in the stock market. Unfortunately, after 2000 the stock market started to fall and the whole basis of the argument fell apart, and therein lies the problem. Those pension holidays were temporary because of the over-exuberant stock market. Indeed, the Treasury papers from 1997, released under duress in 2007, made the point to Ministers that there was a danger that the stock market was overvalued.

As a consequence, the public sector faced a situation in which the private sector was moving away wholesale from final salary and defined benefit schemes while it was increasingly becoming the exclusive preserve of such schemes. The issue of fairness thus became paramount, particularly as the cost of those schemes was rising so quickly. Although Hutton rejected the notion that public sector pensions were gold-plated, he did conclude that longer-term structural reform was needed because

“current schemes had proved unable to respond flexibly to changes in working lives and longevity.”

Therefore, the only way to ensure that teachers and other public sector employees continued to enjoy high-quality defined benefit pensions was to engage in structural reform.

The final arrangements represent a very good deal. They now link the normal pension age to the state pension age in order to deal with longevity issues. No one within 10 years of retirement age will be affected by the changes and there is a tapering arrangement for those within 13 years of retirement. Although final salary schemes will be replaced by career average schemes from April 2015, all the accrued rights to that date will be maintained and the final salary will be the final salary on retirement, not the final salary in April 2015, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary confirmed again today. Career average is still a defined benefit scheme, and it is fairer. Its generosity, of course, depends on the actual accrual rate. Currently the teachers’ pension final salary accrual rate is one 60th, and that will become more generous under the new scheme, with an accrual rate of one 57th. The salary that determines the career average will be indexed by CPI plus 1.6%, as far as teachers are concerned, although that varies in the different schemes.

These arrangements have been accepted by the Association of School and College Leaders, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers union and the National Association of Head Teachers, which have said that they are planning no further action over pension reform. These arrangements, and the Bill that will implement them, will ensure that public sector employees, including teachers, can continue to benefit from a defined benefit pension scheme that is sustainable in the long term and that will be supported by the public. That, along with other education reforms, will help to ensure the teachers are well rewarded and that we will have a teaching profession that continues to see its status rise and, with it, standards in our state schools. I fully support the Bill and, if there is a Division tonight, look forward to voting for its Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I do not agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) about the Bill, or with some of the details of her speech, but I am sure that every Member of the House will agree with her warm remarks about the late right hon. Member for Croydon North, Malcolm Wicks. I knew Malcolm as a fellow London politician for many years. Indeed, I knew his late father, who was a former chairman of the Greater London council. I think that everyone would agree that it is a tragedy that Malcolm is not here, because his expertise in this field was recognised throughout the Chamber.

During my time in government I had a measure of responsibility for two of the schemes under discussion, namely the local government scheme and the firefighters scheme. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) in his analysis of the Bill, the overall pressures that need to be redressed and the need for reform of public sector pensions. I wholly endorse his analysis of how the negotiations—to which he, I and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury were, in varying measure, party—proceeded. There was greater realism and sophistication to be found in my dealings and negotiations with various public sector unions than in the analysis provided by Members on the Opposition Front Bench. That is a sad commentary.

I want to deal initially with the local government scheme. It has been observed, rightly, that this is the most significant of all the schemes in financial terms. It is hugely important and involves 81 funds. It is the biggest pension fund in the United Kingdom and the fourth largest in the world. We are talking about £145 billion in investments and assets, so getting the local government scheme right is critical for its members, many of whom I have worked with for years, going back to the day on which I was first elected as a councillor at the age of 21, about which all I can say is that I was keen.

[Mr Iain Wright]

In 1862?

[Robert Neill]

Yes, it was shortly after the Municipal Reform Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unemployment (North-east)

Iain Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and I hope that your foot is feeling a lot better. May I also take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to secure this debate? I have been trying to secure a debate on unemployment in the north-east for some time, because it is the most important and pressing social, political and economic issue facing my constituency and the wider region. I would therefore be grateful, Mrs Brooke, if you passed on my sincere thanks to Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Whip, who will be responding to the debate. I do not doubt the integrity and commitment of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) in any way, shape or form, but it is deeply contemptuous to the people of the north-east for the Department for Work and Pensions not to have deigned to provide a Minister to respond to my concerns and those of my hon. Friends.

The Whip may expect me to unleash a torrent of negativity and pessimism about the situation—notwithstanding what I have just said—and to come with a begging bowl, asking for help and handouts on behalf of a declining and failed region. That is far from the case, because the north-east is far from being a failed region. It is true that we have struggled to adapt to the changing economic and industrial fortunes of the past 30 years or so, particularly in finding a new economic role following the closure of many heavy industries. I have to say that that task was not helped by the Administrations of the 1980s. Indeed, it was made much worse by the decisions they made and the priorities they set.

However, the north-east, the region that was the centrepiece of the workshop of the world in the 19th century, has the capacity, capability and ambition to become one of the major contributors to a modern global economy, and we have the work force to match. If the Government are serious—I hope that they are—about rebalancing the economy in terms of sectors and geography to make us less reliant on a few sectors and on London and the south-east, they have to see the north-east as a growth area and make us a priority.

There are sectors that have the scope to take advantage of Britain’s current competitive advantage and lead the world in the next few years—advanced manufacturing, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, automotives, higher education, renewables and the low-carbon economy, energy and tech companies. If we also think about the firms in the supply chain that will assist those industries, particularly such vital industries as the steel industry and the construction industry, the north-east must have a key role to play.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My constituency enjoys some of the best industrial riverside frontage in the country. It was once home to a thriving shipbuilding industry, and then North sea-related activity. There is now the potential for real jobs and growth in the green industries, building monopiles and other components for wind farms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to clarify their position on support for wind farms, and encourage developers of wind farms to buy their gear in the north-east, rather than from somewhere in Europe?

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just further up the coast in Hartlepool, we have a thriving renewable energy industry with great firms, such as JDR Cable Systems and Heerema Hartlepool, which can supply a lot of offshore wind turbine components. However, investors are crying out for certainty from the Government. They need policy certainty to allow them to invest for the long term. The Government are failing spectacularly on that.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Wright]

I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend, because I know he has a particular interest in renewable energy in his constituency.

[Mr Campbell]

Of course, we have Narec. One of the things that disappointed me was that companies coming to the north-east to look at the Tyne and the port of Blyth—I am sure Hartlepool and the Tees, too—have moved up to Scotland because they were getting more encouragement, more money and more funding. That is no good to us, because we need them to come to the north-east. That policy needs to change.

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I mentioned the fantastic facilities and the great companies we have in my constituency. Gamesa, a Spanish wind farm manufacturer, was hoping to relocate to the UK. It looked at Hartlepool, but chose to go to a Scottish port precisely for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend. We need to come to terms with that and ensure that we have a Government who are fighting our corner in the north-east. I am not convinced that we have that at the moment. We do not even have a Minister to respond to the debate. That is deeply worrying and shows contempt for the people of the north-east.

Despite the huge potential in my constituency and the wider north-east, the unemployment situation is bleak. I know that in his response, the Whip will cling to the argument, like a dying man to a life raft, that today’s statistics show that employment in the north-east has increased by 3,000 on the previous quarter, and that unemployment in my constituency is down by 15, month-on-month. That is welcome news, but I would never say, as the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change did on a recent visit to Newcastle, that the unemployment rate was not as bad as it could be, or as it seemed. Again, that is deeply insulting to everyone in the north-east who has lost a job and is desperately looking for work. It shows a Government who are grossly out of touch with what the people of the north-east want and need.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that that is in stark contrast to 2009 and 2010, when, because of the economic stimulus introduced by the Labour Government following the economic crash, employment in the region actually rose by 24,000 in one year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Some of the measures the previous Labour Government put in place, against the most severe global financial crisis the world has seen for at least a century, did to some extent mitigate the savage effects of unemployment.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue of such great importance to the north-east, even if it is of less importance to the Government. Newcastle has seen its unemployment rate go up by approximately 20% in the past year. In addition, its national unemployment ranking has gone up by 30 places. A year ago, it had the 76th highest unemployment rate in the country; now it has the 47th highest. Does that not suggest that the Government’s measures are feeble and are leaving the north-east and Newcastle behind?

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will go on to mention some job losses that her constituency is facing. The region still, and by a considerable margin, has the highest unemployment rate in the country at 11.3%. The figures published today show that unemployment has increased by 8,000 in the past quarter, to 145,000 in the north-east. The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance has increased by 900 on the previous month. In Hartlepool, the number of people unemployed stands at 4,612, a rate of 11.6% and the 30th highest of all the UK constituencies. That jobless figure of 4,612 is more than 10% higher—503 higher—than it was a year ago.

Today’s statistics also show that the number of people who are economically active in the north-east has gone down, from 75.4% to 75.2%, as has the proportion of the adult population in employment, from 66.6% to 66.5%, whereas the national rate for England is 70.8%. On unemployment and economic prospects, the gap between the north-east and the rest of the country is getting wider and should be a huge cause of concern for the Government. From their actions—or rather, the lack of them—and from the priorities we have seen today in their not sending a Minister, I do not get the sense that that is the case at all.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he share my concern about the rising level of female worklessness in the north-east? Many women have been forced out of work because of Government cuts and cuts to tax credits. My concern is that the evidence shows that stronger economic growth is associated with higher levels of female employment—growth that we desperately need in the north-east and in the wider economy.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has been a strong champion in this regard, both in this House and beforehand, standing up to make sure that women have the rights they require to fulfil a vital economic role. In our region we certainly need female, and part-time, workers.

I want to mention the loss of jobs in recent months. Between June 2010 and December 2011, the latest period for which figures are available, the north-east lost 7,000 manufacturing jobs and 84,000 construction jobs. According to statistics obtained by the TUC, in the north-east nine jobseekers are chasing each job vacancy. In contrast, in Oxfordshire there are just 1.8 jobseekers for every vacancy. It is therefore more than five times more difficult to find work in my constituency than in Oxfordshire. It is not that the people do not want to find employment or are workshy. There are no jobs to fill.

I could mention statistics until I am blue—or red—in the face. Many people will gain some comfort from statistics, large numbers or percentages. However, behind every statistic lies a human story of a person who is made redundant and is worried about how they will pay the bills and put food on the table, or of someone rejected after making their umpteenth job application and fast losing hope and sense of self-worth, or of a parent worried about how their son or daughter will get a job or career without any experience.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has made some telling points. Is it not important to stress that unemployment, especially among young people, is not an easy option? The unemployment benefit for people under 24—their dole—amounts to £8 a day. Without parental support or friends, they have to feed and clothe themselves and pay their utilities from that sum. It is not an easy option.

My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the serious issues in south Tyneside. In Jarrow, an extra 200 young people went on to the dole last year. With 15 people chasing every job, there is little or no prospect of their getting one.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend is right. I will come to the terrible issue of youth unemployment in a moment. Let me just mention further unwanted, gloomy news on the jobs front in recent months.

The closure of the Rio Tinto Alcan plant, with the loss of 515 jobs directly and the threat to 3,000 jobs in the supply chain, is a major blow to the economy of south-east Northumberland. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) is in attendance and I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) today, who wanted to attend, but is hoping to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in the debate on Remploy.

The closure of the BAe factory on Scotswood road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) brings to an end a century of remarkable industrial innovation on the banks of the Tyne. The factory was started by that astonishing, underrated Victorian entrepreneur, William Armstrong. However, far from looking to the past, the closure undermines the vital links between British military capability and manufacturing and industrial capacity.

The growth in long-term unemployment and youth unemployment is of particular concern. I have mentioned that to hon. Friends. The north-east has far too often been permanently scarred by people being on the dole for many months and years, or by young people leaving school or college unable to find work. That was so in the 1980s, when the closure of the steelworks, shipyards and coal mines left an unwanted and enduring legacy of poor health, lower life expectancy, poverty and family breakdown, making it more difficult for the economy to bounce back into prosperity once the recovery starts.

The longer a person is out of work, the easier it is for them to lose skills and experience, and the more difficult it is to get back into work. That is especially true when more and more people have more recently lost their jobs, and therefore have more recent experience in the job market.

In Hartlepool, the number of people who have been claiming JSA for more than 12 months has risen in the past year by more than 245%. One in four young men under the age of 24 are out of work in Hartlepool. Such figures are not sustainable economically, socially or ethically. I fear that we are repeating the policies and mistakes of the 1980s and that there will, once again, be a lost generation of young people unable to fulfil their massive potential, believing that the only way they can get a proper career is by leaving the north-east altogether.

We have had good news. Only this week a new retailer announced the creation of 150 jobs in Hartlepool, but overall the job situation is gloomy and set to get worse. The Centre for Economics and Business Research forecasts that unemployment in the north-east will rise to 12% this year and to 13% by 2016, largely as a result of further and deeper public sector redundancies.

Government policy is making the unemployment situation in the north-east much worse. The Government’s insistence that public sector redundancies are necessary and that private sector employment will somehow bloom in the face of these cuts is naive and economically ignorant at best, or is cynically and deliberately driven for ideological and political purposes. If Ministers—or Whips—genuinely believe that the public and private sectors are separate and distinct entities, and never the twain shall meet, that shows a profound misunderstanding of how the modern economy works.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling argument. In my area of the north-east, in Teesside and East Cleveland, three areas worry me: cuts in Army, Navy and Royal Air Force troop numbers—mine is a big recruitment area for them—the three-year zenith in the contraction of manufacturing, which affects the north-east more than other regions, and public sector cuts.

As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Government’s ideological view that there is a private sector and a public sector goes against every piece of economics since Galbraith in the 1960s and undermines any economic recovery that we have desperately fought for.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend is right. I know that he remembers Galbraith in the ’60s.

Some 84,000 jobs have been lost in the construction industry, in part due to stopping the schools building programme, road schemes and social housing, which were all socially and economically necessary, because they boost productivity, efficiency and economic capability in the long term and, in the short term, in the worst and most severe global financial crisis ever, help to provide skills and capacity in the construction sector.

The Government fail to accept the basic economic point that, for every £1 of public money spent on construction activities, almost £3 of private sector money is generated back into the local economy, in terms of jobs, the supply chain and construction.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has made a compelling argument for a Labour Government. I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that there is one task that the Government ignore all the time? The only way that we can secure real growth is by the public and private sectors working together in partnership.

[Mr Wright]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who does not get enough recognition for the enormous amount of work that he has done on two fronts: securing the work for Hitachi trains in our area and ensuring that Durham Tees Valley airport can be a catalyst for economic growth and connectivity—a word that I cannot stand—so that we can compete and sell our goods and services and get them to the rest of the world.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He mentioned schools. The Duchess community high school in my constituency was constantly excluded from Labour’s school rebuilding programme. Now, three high schools in Northumberland will be rebuilt under this Government’s programme.

[Mr Wright]

There seems to be no connect between public and private sector and no connect or coherence between Departments. The Department for Communities and Local Government demands local authority cuts of 20%, which is having a profound impact on unemployment, not just directly in terms of council jobs.

Hartlepool borough council cut its bus subsidy, so Stagecoach has stopped operating bus services early in the morning and late at night. People are unable to travel to early shifts or late periods of work in the night-time economy. They are less likely to go out for a meal or to the town hall theatre or the borough hall, or to the pub for a few pints, so there is less economic activity and fewer jobs. The reality is stark: a lack of joined-up thinking in the Government is increasing unemployment in my area. What can the Whip do about it?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a great disconnect between what Liberal Democrats say at Westminster and what they are saying in the north-east? In the House, they are quite happy to vote with the Conservatives for some of the most drastic cuts that we have seen for generations in the north-east; but in the regions, they are somehow trying to explain to or convince the public that that has nothing to do with them.

[Mr Wright]

I am sure that we will see a “Focus” leaflet in due course saying that everything in the garden is rosy and that the Liberal Democrats are fighting hard. The reality—my hon. Friend is right—is that where they can make a difference by going through the right Division Lobby, they are failing to stand up for the north-east and for the people who need jobs and investment in our area.

The Government’s determination to depress demand before the economy has had a chance to recover from the global financial crisis is wrong. The effects of such a policy are a double-dip recession made in Downing street and an increase in unemployment. The Federation of Small Businesses in the north-east told me that the ability of small business to offer jobs is suffering directly because of falling sales, as the public sector reduces investment, confidence collapses and firms sit on cash. It is clear, as businesses recognise, that the Government’s policies are making matters worse. Does the Whip not understand that? Can he not see that if the Government pursued a more active role on jobs and growth, there would be more people in work, paying taxes, more companies paying corporation tax, a reduced benefits bill and the deficit being paid down faster. By sticking to an economic plan that is not working—that is clear to all and sundry—the Government must borrow £150 billion more than originally anticipated.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

We have commented on the position of Liberal Democrat Members from the north-east, but has my hon. Friend noticed that Tory Members from the north-east have not even come to the debate?

[Mr Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. I had noticed that the hon. Members for Stockton South (James Wharton) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) have not bothered to turn up for the debate, which shows the importance that they attach to economic enterprise, growth, jobs and unemployment.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is one neighbour, but if my Conservative neighbour, the hon. Member for Stockton South, was in his place today, he would point to our enterprise zone and our local enterprise partnership, which have been introduced by the Government. Yet despite their best efforts, unemployment in my constituency is nearly 4,200, up 400 on last year. Does my hon. Friend not lament, as I do, the loss of real investment that we had in the days of One North East?

[Mr Wright]

I should declare an interest: One North East used to employ me—that is one of the reasons why the Government wanted to get rid of the regional development agencies. I absolutely agree that a compelling economic vision helped by an RDA that can set strategic priorities is vital. My hon. Friend mentions the hon. Member for Stockton South who is, as far as I am aware, although I might be corrected, one of the only people in north-east and Cumbria not to have come out against the ludicrous proposal on regional pay, which is what I want to turn to.

The House is considering regional pay this afternoon. At a time of depressed demand, eroding confidence and rising unemployment, it seems economically ludicrous for the Government even to contemplate such a policy. The TUC rightly estimates that regional pay could take £500 million from the north-east’s economy precisely when we want consumer confidence to increase to allow people to start buying things and creating jobs. Does the Whip think that taking £500 million from the north-east will increase the number of businesses and employment?

Instead of continuing with failed economic policies that are increasing unemployment in the north-east, the Government should listen to regional businesses, which are asking for a cut in national insurance contributions to incentivise them to take on extra workers. The Government should consider a temporary cut in VAT to allow confidence to emerge. They should use the power of the Government’s buying position to use procurement to invest in the regional supply chain, to increase the number of apprenticeships and to give a chance to local firms. They should reintroduce the future jobs fund, which helped many hundreds of young people in Hartlepool and throughout the north-east during the worst times of the global financial crisis. Most of all, the Government should be pursuing an active industrial strategy, working with productive businesses to embrace the competitive sectors of the future. They have done that to some extent with Nissan and the automotive industry, by carrying out what the previous Labour Government were doing, but they should step up a gear with the low-carbon economy—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley said—chemicals and advanced manufacturing.

If the north-east is given the tools by the Government, it will deliver for its people, its communities, its businesses and the rest of the country. I ask the Whip to help us to unlock the huge potential and end the human, economic and social waste of unemployment in the north-east.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for securing this debate; we do not get enough opportunities in the House to debate regional issues. As a Member of Parliament for Wales, I do get such opportunities when the Welsh Grand Committee meets, which it is doing this afternoon. Unfortunately, other regions of England do not have the same opportunities.

I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman started off on a slightly discordant note, by mentioning the absence of the Minister.

[Mr Iain Wright]

It is a fair point.

[Stephen Crabb]

No, it is not a fair point. What the hon. Gentleman did not say was that his Front-Bench team, in a rather cack-handed way, managed to timetable a debate in the main Chamber, requiring a Department of Work and Pensions Minister at exactly the same time as his own important debate this afternoon. If he does not think that the presence of the Employment Minister at the European employment summit this afternoon is critical given everything that is going on in Europe, I do not know what is—perhaps spending time with the Dalai Lama.

[Mr Wright]

How many Ministers are there in the Department for Work and Pensions? What about a Minister from the Treasury or from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills attending this debate?

[Stephen Crabb]

As the ministerial Whip for the Department, it is entirely appropriate that I respond to this debate, given that the other Ministers are tied up in other debates in the House.

The hon. Gentleman spoke well about the impact of unemployment on families and communities; that was one of the best parts of his speech. Like me, he comes from a part of the country where, historically, unemployment has been a blight on the community. He and I both have the privilege of representing constituencies in which we have grown up, and we understand the issues well. He powerfully explained the negative effect that unemployment has on communities.

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman and all colleagues in the Chamber this afternoon that the ministerial team at the DWP shares a passion and commitment for tackling unemployment. There is absolutely no complacency whatever within the departmental team about this issue. We recognise that unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is one of the biggest challenges that faces the Government.

Budget (North-East)

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on securing this important debate.

We in the north-east have fantastic potential to lead the country out of recession into sustainable, long-term growth. In the Budget last month, however, the Chancellor failed to help the region fulfil its potential or address its challenges. I am critical of the Chancellor not only because of what was in the Budget, in which he showed the wrong policies, the wrong values and the wrong judgments, but even more because of what he left out. He failed to use the opportunity to grasp the enormous potential of our region and, perhaps most damning of all, simply neglected to remember the north-east at all. For example, there was nothing to mitigate the effect on energy-intensive industries or to incentivise businesses and to give firms in the region or elsewhere the confidence to invest their substantial cash piles in improving the productivity of our region.

On Friday, I met dynamic, energetic and ambitious entrepreneurs in the technical, digital and creative sectors in our region, running businesses such as Stick Theory, Love Your Larder and Sherpa. They have the potential to grow, to thrive and to create job opportunities. I asked them what was the one thing they wanted from the Government. They said improvements in transport infrastructure, making it easier to get on a train, to get to London, to make contacts and win businesses. In the Red Book announcement of £130 million for the northern hub rail scheme, however, no north-eastern town or city was even mentioned, let alone had any investment.

In the time available, I want to concentrate on the biggest neglect of the lot: unemployment, which is the biggest single social and economic factor affecting my constituency. The number of claimants in Hartlepool has risen month on month and year on year to reach 4,678 in February. The number of unemployed in Hartlepool is now higher than it was at the height of the global recession, and tomorrow’s publication of the March unemployment statistics will probably see a further rise. Contained in those figures, however, there is even bleaker news. Almost one in four young men, or 23.8% of 18 to 24-year-old young men, is claiming jobseeker’s allowance. When an area hits one in four young men out of work, it has reached crisis point. We last saw such statistics for youth unemployment back in the 1980s, when my shipyards and steel works closed down. For many lads coming to adulthood in that time, theirs was a lost generation who faced no pay or low pay, benefits and illness; they failed to fulfil their potential. My town, arguably, has not really recovered from the social and economic shock of the deindustrialisation of 30 years ago, yet we are in danger of experiencing that shock again because of the neglect of the Government.

The Minister must recognise the lessons of history and ensure that young people are helped into work and training. It is economically ignorant to suggest that public sector jobs are crowding out private sector employment and growth, and that the best approach is to cut drastically public sector employment. It is economically illiterate to believe that a region’s employment and growth prospects will somehow bloom if spending, resources and demand are withdrawn quickly, or will be helped if regional pay bargaining strips out regional income. The Chancellor had a perfect opportunity to do something in his Budget to encourage employment, especially for the young. Instead, he chose to provide tax cuts for millionaires. Despite the importance of youth unemployment, the Red Book contained only one, single, derisory new announcement—complete with spelling mistake—about such a huge social and economic issue. The announcement that the Government

“will pilot the best way to introduce a programme of enterprise loans to help young people”

is patronising, smacks of gimmick and gesture politics and will do nothing to stop a lost generation of young people. I ask the Minister to think again.

Amendment of the Law

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier for the shadow Chancellor’s speech, he would have heard that point put down very firmly.

Let me refer to today’s papers. Did the Chancellor expect to wake up this morning to a 33 mm-high headline—

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Did you measure it?

[Andrew Miller]

Yes, I got the tape measure out. It said: “‘Granny tax’ hits 5m pensioners”. The papers referred to a £3 billion tax raid on pensioners over the next four years, and pointed out that nearly 4.5 million pensioners who pay income tax will lose an average of £83 per year next April and that people turning 65 next year will lose up to £322. As you are in the Chair and know me rather well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suppose I should declare an interest, as it is my 63rd birthday tomorrow. Whatever the Chancellor says about increasing the income tax personal allowance, a family with children, earning just £20,000, will lose about £253 from this April. Shockingly, he slipped out that £3 billion tax raid on pensioners over the next four years. All this comes from a Government whose economic policies on growth, jobs and the deficit have utterly failed.

Of course, there have to be tough decisions on tax, spending and pay; otherwise, we would not get the deficit down. However, although the restoring of the cuts in the science budget is one of the few measures I agree with, a lot more funding is needed if we are to retain the quality of British science. I agree with Imran Khan, the director of CaSE—the Campaign for Science and Engineering—who said today:

“I suspect the Government realises that the multi-billion pound, 50% cut made to research capital in 2010 simply is not sustainable. Despite difficult times, they are trying to put it right, and it is not going to go unnoticed.

However, simply reversing the cuts isn’t going to be a game-changer for the UK. We need to be far more ambitious if we’re serious about having a high-tech future. The Chancellor should re-invest the windfall from the auction of 4G mobile spectrum, due later this year, into science and engineering.”

The Budget said nothing about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I think my hon. Friend has just done that.

The higher tax rate made Britain less competitive, and if we are less competitive, it means less growth, fewer jobs, reduced prospects for economic recovery and fewer tax cuts for the rest of us. Despite the perception, therefore, that this cut benefits the wealthiest, I believe that it benefits us all. Having a top rate of 50% rather than 45% raises only £100 million in direct tax, whereas the other Budget measures introduced yesterday raise five times that amount—£500 million.

We should not listen to Labour on this matter. Its aim is to reignite the class war and divide Britain along the lines of envy for its own political gain. I want to say to the people of South Basildon and East Thurrock, “Ask yourself this simple question: what is in the best interests of you and your family? If you answer economic growth, better job prospects, low interest rates or lower taxes, welcome this change, because it goes some way to delivering those aims.” On its own, however, it is only a small step. To achieve real growth, we need more, and I am pleased that we are getting more. The Chancellor both confirmed existing growth measures and announced new ones. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I am pleased that the science budget is receiving continued support. Investment in science and technology is vital if we are to emerge from financial austerity. New technologies, deployed for our own economic gain, can provide both jobs and growth. I therefore welcome the maintenance of the £4.6 billion science budget. I believe—I think the Chancellor does too—that science and technology form the basis of our future competitiveness.

Investment in sectors that Britain excels in is also vital. Investments such as in the Francis Crick Institute at St Pancras, the establishment of a UK centre for aerodynamics, which will encourage innovation in the aircraft industry and help design and commercialise new ideas for decades to come, and the £100 million of support, alongside the private sector, for investment in major new university research facilities are important parts of that support.

Also important are the changes to research and development tax credits to encourage businesses to invest in innovation and technology. We also need to improve links with small businesses and the research base to assist in the commercialisation of research and, I hope, capture the value that can come from that. These will be the key drivers of economic growth, and the Government should continue to strive to create the best possible operating environment in which this can take place to encourage greater investment and international interest. We want the international research community to see the UK as the best place to invest in science and technology. I am therefore pleased that the Science and Technology Committee will be looking at how we can bridge the valley of death—the chasm between concept and commercialisation.

This goes wider than just science-based businesses, however. We want all businesses to see the UK as the best place to set up and do business, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has taken to ensure that this becomes a reality. The reductions in corporation tax, the introduction of corporation tax relief for video games, animation and high-end television, and the investment in broadband provision and infrastructure are all welcome additions to the growth programme.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Notwithstanding the 1% cut in corporation tax, what impact will the 5.6% rise in business rates have on growing businesses and economic growth?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Obviously, any rise in cost base will have an impact, but we are working hard to reduce that to the absolute minimum, and we are putting in place a framework around which businesses can grow that will mitigate the 5.6% rise.

We all welcome the investment in infrastructure, which will be a driver for growth, although I add the caveat that I and my constituents remain wholly unconvinced that an airport in the Thames estuary is the right solution to maintaining our hub status. I would therefore encourage the Government to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who made a very good bid for that increased capacity in Birmingham.

I also want to put in a plea for small and medium-sized enterprises. In 2009, they accounted for 49% of private sector turnover. SMEs are vital to the economy. Cutting corporation tax, abolishing Labour’s job tax and offering support through the national loan guarantee scheme are all welcome, I am sure. However, if SMEs are to operate at their full potential, regulation, red tape and bureaucracy must be cut. They have been strangling the economy for too long. I am therefore encouraged to see measures that will allow greater freedoms for businesses in this area. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday that he plans to reduce the number of UK SMEs required to undertake an audit and to reduce the burden of financial accounting for UK businesses has to be welcome. I hope that the consultation on a new cash basis for calculating tax, which the Federation of Small Businesses has welcomed, will benefit many small and micro-businesses, allowing them to concentrate on growing their businesses, rather than spending time, money and effort fulfilling requirements that were designed for much larger businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that credit easing is a temporary measure. In the long term, the Government have to change the lending landscape for small businesses—that is the point I was driving at. We cannot continue to rely on five major banks, which is why I welcomed the business finance partnership, a £1.2 billion fund that the Government are using to support non-bank lending institutions that are closer to small businesses. Many of these are peer-to-peer lenders, such as MarketInvoice or Funding Circle, or more traditional institutions such as M&G Investments. It is absolutely right to diversify the lending landscape, so that businesses in my constituency and in many others do not just have to rely on the same bank manager and, more importantly, the computer, which will say no to them when they try to refresh a loan or get the credit that they need.

I welcome the fact that the Budget realises that debt finance should not be the only source of finance for businesses. Equity finance is very important, especially in the context of businesses that do not have the cash flows or the revenues to support debt. That is why I welcome a lot of the flexibility associated with the enterprise investment scheme, venture capital trusts and the seed enterprise investment scheme. Those are all schemes in the Budget that would not make the headlines; nobody is going to focus on them because they do not immediately tell people who are the winners and losers in the Budget. However, it is those measures that will ensure that individuals who want to take risk, to start businesses and to build up their companies are capable of doing so. Whether we are talking about The White Company, lastminute.com or The Body Shop, it is these British success stories that will get us out of where we are at the moment.

What would I like to see as the Chancellor reflects on his Budget, and I hope, takes it further? On the diversification of the lending landscape in this country, we need to be very careful not to stifle innovation as we examine banking regulation. So much of what we are doing on banking regulation is about dealing with the crisis of the past. We should make sure that, in doing so, we do not freeze our banking system in aspic so that new, enterprising and innovative companies that can get credit to small businesses fail to thrive. The Government have announced £20 billion of credit easing, but we probably need to consider doing more in that direction to help businesses.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the massive downgrading in business investment growth forecasts over the medium term is a sign that plan A is working?

[Mr Gyimah]

Anyone who has been in business before, as the hon. Gentleman has—he was an accountant—and as I have been, will know that one of the most important things is confidence. For businesses to gain confidence, they need to know, first, that the Government are going to create an environment of certainty in which they can operate. They also need to know that the Government are going to balance their books and to create the right environment in which to invest. Lowering corporation tax is a clear signal that we are going to be creating the right environment for businesses to operate in. I am confident that once we have that macro-economic framework right, businesses will have the confidence to invest. It is only through business investment that we will generate the growth and the jobs that all Government Members want and are fighting for. The Chancellor is on the right side of this argument, because we cannot do this through more borrowing, more spending and more debt—that is more of the same and it is all I have heard from Labour Members today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham]

The hon. Gentleman should not worry; I will try, although I am disappointed that I have only five minutes to do so.

The Growing Places fund for the local enterprise partnership in my area will bring in an additional £8.5 million, which will be a tremendous boost to the area. Nobody over there on the Opposition Benches really seems to be all that pleased about the largest increase in the personal allowance for 30 years, which I find staggering. I would have thought that they would support the measure, which will take a lot of people out of tax altogether; indeed, 24 million people in this country will benefit from that.

[Mr Iain Wright]

The hon. Lady has mentioned the personal allowance and talked about those of us on the Opposition Benches being miserable. Does she think that the 16,994 pensioners in her constituency will be miserable as a result of the actions in yesterday’s Budget?

[Pauline Latham]

I do not know how you have calculated that for my constituency, because I am not even sure you know where it is. We are looking after pensioners. They will not be losing what you are talking about. They are getting a bigger increase than ever from the triple lock, and we are increasing their allowances. There will possibly be a year when some people will have to pay slightly more tax, but not the majority. Most people will not be spending any more money, and they will certainly not be losing any more money next year compared with this year, so you might like to look a little more carefully at what we are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I begin by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) a very happy birthday? He does not look a day over 75, which is just as well, because he is only 63 tomorrow.

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, his is not the biggest birthday of the week. Today marks the birthday of my mother. I hope the whole House wishes her a happy birthday—[Hon. Members: “Happy birthday!”] She will not thank me for saying this, but my mother was born in 1948, so she is absolutely being hit by the Chancellor’s Budget provisions. She will lose out along with another 4.4 million pensioners. She has worked hard all her life, and still works hard, and will be penalised for it.

This has been an interesting and informative debate and I have enjoyed it immensely. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) mentioned regional pay, which is also a big concern to me as a fellow north-east MP, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) rightly mentioned the importance of youth unemployment, and his fellow Brummie and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), stood up fiercely for housing, if not for hairdressers. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned the importance of child poverty and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned the importance of ensuring that we tackle female unemployment.

I was interested in the points made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) on ensuring that the Budget provisions are fair and innovative. I agree with that. I want to ensure that work is incentivised, but he failed to mention the concept of fiscal drag, which will bring 300,000 people who are trying to work hard and do what is best into the higher tax rate.

I was also interested, as I always am, in the comments of the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). It is interesting that she is an out-and-out apologist for the Government. She has a majority of 175, so it will be interesting to see how she explains the fairness of the Budget to the 20,082 pensioners in her constituency.

In the opening paragraph of the financial statement yesterday afternoon, the Chancellor said that the Budget

“unashamedly backs business…and…is on the side of aspiration”.

The Opposition would want such a Budget, but if only yesterday’s Budget backed responsible business, rebalanced the economy in favour of manufacturing, built on the progress made by the previous Government on new industries and jobs, and put in place an active Government industrial policy that emphasised the need for Government procurement to establish a level playing field for British companies. Sadly, we did not get that.

We agree with the Chancellor that

“We earn our way in the world if we stop being afraid to identify Britain’s strengths and reinforce them instead”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 793.]

We also agreed with him when he said in his Budget speech in 2011:

“Yes, we want the City of London to remain the world’s leading centre for financial services, but we should resolve that the rest of the country becomes a world leader in advanced manufacturing, life sciences, creative industries, business services, green energy and so much more.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 953-954.]

The problem is this: the Chancellor keeps saying these things—these important warm words—but does not do anything about them. It is little wonder that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was forced to write in his leaked letter to the Prime Minister that the Government had

“something…missing: a compelling vision of where the country is heading beyond sorting out the fiscal mess; and a clear and confident message about how we will earn our living in future”.

The fact of the matter is that the Budget is yet another missed opportunity by the Government to put in place the framework needed for a 21st century rebalanced economy. Terry Scuoler, chief executive of EEF, the manufacturers organisation, was right when he said last night:

“The Chancellor began positively by setting out his thoughts for a new economic model. But, by the end of his speech, the task of rebalancing our economy looked as daunting as ever.”

He added that the measures in the Budget

“fail to send a strong enough signal to growing manufacturers that now is the time to bring forward their investment plans and to do it here.”

Steve Radley, policy director of the EEF, reaffirmed this when he said:

“This year it doesn’t look as though we will be making…much progress to a new economic model because we are now looking at business investment driving much less of the economic growth”.

That is the key point of a Budget that is meant to be backing business.

In the 2010 Budget, the Chancellor forecast that business investment growth would be 10%, and 10.9% in 2013. Last year’s Budget downgraded this forecast to 8.9% in 2012 and 10.6% in 2013. But according to yesterday’s Red Book, business investment growth this year is not going to be 10% or 8.9% but 0.7%, and next year 6.4%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) so rightly said. What on earth is the Chancellor doing with the British economy that he instils so little confidence in the business community? At a time when companies are sitting on record cash piles—something like £750 billion—which could be used to invest and make the British economy more productive and more competitive, the Chancellor is failing to persuade them to invest in Britain now.

Business investment as a share of GDP has fallen sharply since this Government took office and is now, at less than 8% of GDP, at the lowest level for more than half a century. So much for yesterday being a Budget for business. It is little wonder that John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, has said that small and medium enterprises—the very bedrock of this country’s economy and the firms we need to nurture today to make them the big, successful global companies of tomorrow—will be disappointed that the Chancellor did not do more to boost confidence. An additional 1% cut in corporation tax does not make up for the 5.6% rise in business rates still going ahead next month, or for the lower allowances for capital investment and a lack of incentives to boost employment, particularly for young people.

There was nothing in the Budget on supply chain improvement, despite the fact that the Business Secretary, in his leaked letter, specifically argued that

“There is as yet little attention given to supply chain issues.”

With this Budget the Chancellor has once again shown how he is a roadblock to reform. He has missed an opportunity to make Britain more competitive and fairer, and to ensure our economy is more balanced and productive. His own Budget figures, backed up by the OBR, reveal that his tweaks and fiddling, his tinkering and meddling, his leaks and pre-announcements, will make little difference to Britain’s growth prospects and global competitiveness. This is in a month when the likes of Brazil are powering away from us in terms of competitiveness and the growth and size of their economy.

The Chancellor’s tax cuts for the privileged and most prosperous, paid for by tax increases for pensioners, reveal that he, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are looking after their own. The Chancellor’s favouring of Mayfair over Middlesbrough and Belgravia over Burnley, aided and abetted by his Liberal Democrat accessories, shows that he has the wrong values and the wrong priorities, and he is making the wrong decisions. What we—and, more importantly, Britain—needed was the Chancellor to make a Budget focused on growth, on long-term business support, on a modern industrial partnership between business and industry, and on fairness in tough times. He failed to deliver any of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

We face a challenge. The OBR has said, on this Budget and the autumn statement, that the scale of the problem we inherited from the previous Government was bigger than everyone thought. The scale of the boom was bigger and the scale of the bust was bigger. That is the legacy that we are tackling.

Critical to realising our goal are the far-reaching tax reforms that the Chancellor announced yesterday. We are committed to creating the most competitive tax system in the G20—a tax system that supports work, encourages growth and keeps our most successful businesses here in the UK. While the previous Government increased taxes on small businesses, we have cut the tax rate on small companies to 20%; while the previous Government wanted to increase national insurance on jobs, we have cut it; and while the previous Government sat idle as our competitiveness drained away, we have already taken action to reduce the headline rate of corporation tax to 23% by 2014, cutting one of the most important and growth-impeding taxes there is.

As the Chancellor announced yesterday, we are going even further by cutting the rate of corporation tax to 22% by 2014—a headline rate of corporation tax dramatically lower than that of our competitors. It is the lowest in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20. It is a sign that we are open for business, an invitation for investment and a spur for prosperity and job creation across the economy. That is also why we are cutting the 50p rate of income tax—a rate higher than in the US, France, Italy and Germany, and a rate that damaged our competitiveness while raising nothing in additional revenue. From April next year, the top rate of tax will be 45%, which will restore our competitiveness and galvanise our private sector.

I turn briefly to what the Government are doing to help protect pensioners. I want to make it clear that the Government have taken action to help pensioners. We have taken action to protect the winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions and eye testing, free television licences and free bus passes, and our triple lock on state pension uprating means that the basic state pension is £120 a year higher than it would have been had the previous Government remained in office. The triple lock means that from next month, the state pension will increase by an extra £5.30 a week—in cash terms, the biggest increase in the state pension that we have seen. We are freezing the age-related allowance in cash terms, but no pensioner will pay more in tax. This measure simplifies the tax system, moving everyone towards a simple tax system, where everyone has the same allowance. Even taking into account the change in age-related allowances, everyone will be better off as a consequence of the increase in the basic state pension.

However, there are other things that we need to do to secure future economic growth. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, we need to lift the layers of stifling bureaucracy that serve to suffocate growth. For too long, businesses have been trapped by a web of bureaucratic cynicism and nimbyism. If we want our most innovative and entrepreneurial businesses to lead our economic recovery, we have to match their can-do attitude. That is why the Budget announced a fundamental overhaul of the planning system, replacing 1,000 pages of guidance with just 50, and introducing a presumption in favour of sustainable development and a new planning guarantee, so that no decision should take more than 12 months, including appeals.

However, if businesses are to seize the opportunities to grow, we have to ensure that they have the finance they need to feed their ambition. If we want businesses to take the risk to invest, hire new workers and take a leap into the export market, we need to ensure that they have access to finance. In particular, it is critical that we support smaller businesses, which provide more than 50% of private sector jobs and 30% of private sector investment and have the potential to become the global leaders of tomorrow. That is why the Chancellor launched the national loan guarantee scheme earlier this week, to give smaller businesses with a turnover of up to £50 million access to cheaper loans. Through the scheme, the Government will provide guarantees on unsecured bank borrowing, enabling banks to borrow at a cheaper rate and pass on the full benefit to their customers. We have provided £5 billion of guarantees in the initial phase, with up to £20 billion of guarantees available in total.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

It is this Government’s deficit-reduction strategy that has earned this country market credibility and low interest rates, and it is this Government who are ensuring that the full benefits of those low interest rates are passed on to businesses across the UK. Barclays, Santander, Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland are already participating in the scheme—a new bank, Aldermore, has agreed to join in principle—helping thousands of small businesses across the UK. However, in addition to the national loan guarantee scheme, we are trying to broaden the range of sources of finance available to new businesses and tackle some of the issues in supply-chain financing, while also ensuring that other sources of finance are available to businesses. That is why we have launched the business finance partnership. I was delighted to see a large number of people coming forward to take part in the programme and ensure that more money is available to invest in small businesses. That is an important change to ensure that businesses are in a position to take advantage of the opportunities before us today.

[Mr Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hoban]

It is this Government who are committed to making Britain the best place to start, grow and finance a business. It is this Government who are putting the ingenuity, innovation and enterprise of people and businesses at the heart of our recovery. This Government are releasing our ambitions for a private sector recovery, through a competitive top rate of tax, one of the lowest rates of business tax in the world, an overhaul of cumbersome planning rules and bold action to ensure access to finance for businesses to lead investment and job creation across the country.

[Mr Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Hon. Members]

Give way!

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It was this coalition Government who established the Vickers report. Those questions were simply not asked by the previous Government—we are asking those questions. However, I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait until Monday to hear the Government response to the Vickers report.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Harold Macmillan, the most successful Chancellor and Prime Minister that Eton has ever produced, once said that effective Governments need to adapt to “Events, dear boy, events.” Could the Chancellor, dear boy that he is, outline to the House the events that would warrant a change in his economic policy, or is he woefully negligent, blinkered and complacent?

[Mr Osborne]

I think the hon. Gentleman is being rather harsh on Hugh Dalton, who I think also went to Eton.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

I thank my—yes—hon. Friend for his intervention. It seems that the issue is becoming more prominent. That is due partly to industry lobbying. Earlier this year we set up an all-party parliamentary group on energy-intensive industries. I have major concerns for my constituency and the Tees valley, and I am an officer of that group—at least one other officer is in the Chamber. The very high level of interest shown in the group by companies from all sectors indicates the potential gravity of the problem.

Those industries are looking not for special favours, but simply for a level playing field on which to compete internationally. Despite what some commentators claim, there is already a price issue. Even before the Bill, the increase in bulk electricity prices in the UK over the past 10 years was 22% more than in Germany, 29% more than in France and 64% more than in Spain.

The inconvenient truth about UK carbon reduction performance is that it is partly due to the rapid decline in manufacturing. As we have heard in this Chamber many times, under the previous Government manufacturing reduced from 22% to 11% of the economy. Our goal should not simply be to reduce our energy usage at the expense of those industries which, by their nature, are energy intensive. A tonne of steel cannot be melted, and chlorine cannot be made from brine, without using a huge amount of energy—it is simply not possible. Our goal should be to improve our energy efficiency for the same level of activity, not to reduce activity. Otherwise, the trend of the UK exporting jobs and importing carbon will continue.

To ensure that the UK makes a real contribution to climate change, we cannot look just at carbon production; we must also measure carbon consumption. I say that mainly to ensure that the effect of imports is recognised, but we must also acknowledge the contribution of export businesses to our economy. There is no better example than the restarted Redcar steelworks, which will contribute almost 1% to the UK’s carbon emissions, but whose output will go almost wholly to Thailand. Whose carbon is that?

The Government’s policy has far wider economic consequences. Energy-intensive industries play a vital economic role. For example, as the hon. Member for Bristol East said, the chemical industry is a vital exporter—in fact, I believe that it is our biggest exporter. That illustrates how important such industries are to our national economy as well as our local economies. Those sectors feed many other industries, such as automotive, aerospace and green technology, which needs materials for wind, wave and solar power.

We should also remember that the service economy does not exist in isolation—it partly depends on manufacturing, all the way from office cleaners to corporate lawyers and merchant bankers. Pricing those industries out of the UK would mean that tax revenues fell because of closures, and a lack of further investment. That will have the knock-on effect of higher unemployment and an increased burden in welfare costs. I therefore hope that the Minister considers the wider economic consequences of the effects of the Government’s policy on energy-intensive industry.

Energy-intensive industries are often capital intensive, which means that companies cannot just pick up their kit and move. The key thing for the UK is whether executives in boardrooms across the world are writing off the UK as a place to invest and reinvest. International businesses have options on where to put their money. I know from experience in the chemical industry that a business can take up to 20 years to die after an exit decision is effectively made by ceasing to reinvest.

Energy-intensive industry does and will continue to play its part in improving energy efficiently. It also produces a range of environmentally beneficial products, such as catalysts, insulation, lightweight plastics, and, as we have heard, energy-saving aerospace products. The all-party group recently heard how developments in tyre technology reduce fuel use in vehicles, how new types of glass reduce heat loss from buildings, and which industries are needed to make photovoltaic cells. To give another example, I am aware of a research project in my constituency between Tata, the steel producer, and the Centre for Process Innovation, to make construction-grade photovoltaic panels. Such developments are vital in moving the UK towards a low-carbon economy. We do not want that expertise to be lost to the UK. Energy-intensive industries are not sunset industries that stand in the way of our low-carbon goals, but crucial allies in delivering the necessary technology to make them a reality.

There is therefore an urgent need for simplicity in carbon taxes and for long-term certainty for the industry. Energy-intensive industries need such clarity before the carbon price support mechanism is introduced. Will the Minister assure me that she supports the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, who said—and I repeat—that

“we need to ensure that energy-intensive industries remain competitive and that we send a clear message that the UK is open for business”?—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 177.]

Will she ensure that the Government engage in comprehensive consultation, and take steps to ensure that a full package of mitigation measures is agreed and legislated for, ahead of the introduction of carbon price support?

[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.”

Finance Bill

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I will give as much precision as the Leader of the Opposition and say that they are the squeezed middle. They are exactly the people in whom the Opposition are meant to be interested but whom they clearly now wish to attack in the debate.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

I give way first to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright).

[Mr Wright]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much the measures in the new clause would cost?

[Mr Redwood]

I will take the other intervention before I respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. It is quite obvious that the NHS is the dominant health provider in our country—it has been for the many years since its foundation, and it will continue to be so under any schemes proposed by any governing party or parties in this House of Commons.

I wanted to concentrate on the cost and benefit of the proposals. I am an agnostic on this issue, which may come as a surprise to the House, because I am far from being a deficit denier, and I believe that we must weigh carefully any proposal for tax relief against other such proposals. In this case, I would be interested to know more about what the savings would be. There could be significant savings. If Ministers do not adopt the proposed scheme, they need to introduce others to promote more private health care of the right kind, because we will need a lot more of that to meet our targets and requirements, alongside the very large, and rightly favoured and supported, NHS.

Perhaps my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald), who have spoken so strongly for the new clauses, wish to move closer to the Liberal Democrat coalition partners. Perhaps they had ringing in their minds the words of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who set out a comprehensive universal insurance scheme for health in the Orange Book. We will have to disappoint him today, because the proposal is modest, and it will not cover nearly as many people as he would like. Were he here, we could debate that with him, and perhaps he would see that caution and moderation is the hallmark of Conservative approaches to such things. This proposal might be the way to get started on the journey that he wished to make.

[Mr Iain Wright]

In terms of spending on health, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that we should move away from a policy of funding through general taxation and towards comprehensive medical insurance, which is the policy advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws)?

[Mr Redwood]

No, I was just wondering whether my hon. Friends had that in mind, knowing how much they treasure the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and knowing that such bold statements were made in the Orange Book by no less than a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who presumably knew the price of everything and the value of some things, and who would want to ensure value for money.

I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench consider the wider issue that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. How do we get extra resources and money spent on health in a friendly and sensible way, on top of the very great and important NHS, which my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley, for Christchurch and for North East Hertfordshire rightly back? If not by their route, what route? May we please have some numbers? The proposal could be a good-value buy, but that depends very much on how much cost would be taken out of the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

The Government are seeking to support families and stable communities. In supporting marriage, that is what we are seeking to do.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will the hon. Lady define what she thinks a family is?

[Fiona Bruce]

Committed relationships.

Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain recognised marriage in the tax system. The Labour Government did away with that in their first term. Britain’s fiscal arrangements effectively made it more challenging for people to marry than was the case in most other developed countries. Today we still live with that legacy. Apart from those in the UK, only 18% of citizens of OECD states live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system. Most of them live in Turkey and Mexico. Our failure to recognise marriage puts us out of line with fellow developed countries, and that arrangement continues to be a cause for concern, for a number of reasons relating to both fairness and social well-being.

The Economy

Iain Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned last week’s speech by the Chancellor at the Mansion house, which came at the end of his first year at the Treasury. He concluded his speech by saying:

“I believe that sentiment of cautious optimism has been borne out by events in the twelve months…The British economy is recovering.”

If current economic performance is cause for cautious optimism, I dread to think what deteriorating performance and cause for pessimism would look like.

The fact of the matter is that the Chancellor has failed even on his narrow policy on growth and investment. In his Budget a year ago today, the Chancellor stated:

“The Government has set out a credible deficit reduction plan that should provide businesses with the confidence they need to plan and invest, supporting the necessary recovery in business investment.”

That simply has not happened. Business confidence is almost 12 percentage points lower than it was a year ago, according to the confidence monitor report by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member, and Grant Thornton. Business investment in the first quarter of this year, according to the Office for National Statistics, was 7.1% lower than the previous quarter and 3.2% lower than a year ago. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises—a necessary precondition for growth—is behind schedule, as set out in Project Merlin by the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary.

Retail sales––an important barometer of the health and confidence of the economy, because the retail sector constitutes one tenth of the economy and employs 11% of our work force—fell sharply by 1.6% last month, which was much worse than commentators’ estimates. That reflects consumers’ lack of confidence for the future.

Ministers often cite growth in manufacturing, but the purchasing managers index for manufacturing fell to a 20-month low of 52.1 last month. Since a welcome boost in January, the purchasing managers index figure has fallen every month this year, indicating a worrying and slowing pace of growth in the manufacturing sector. After a relatively robust growth spurt immediately after the recession—largely the result of the Labour Government’s actions—growth has effectively stalled and stagnated for the past six months. I am pleased that my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) is here because I have to conclude that growth predictions are being revised down faster than Middlesbrough’s chances in the championship next season.

In the Budget a year ago today, the Chancellor forecast that growth would be 2.3% this year, 2.8% in 2012 and 2.9% in 2013. No credible economic forecast predicts that, and nor does the Chancellor. In November, he predicted that growth this year would be 2.1%, and then, in his March Budget, he forecast that growth in 2011 would be 1.7%. The OECD has recently forecast that growth will be 1.4% this year, not 2.3% as forecast one year ago, and 1.8% in 2012, not 2.8%. Every time the Chancellor stands at the Dispatch Box, confidence in the economy falls. He should stay out of the House more often.

This comes at a time when public service cuts and public sector redundancies have not necessarily started to gain pace, so the problem of no growth is only likely to get worse. The economic growth forecasts are below those for France, Germany, the US and even Japan after its natural disasters and the eurozone after its economic difficulties. Why on earth is this the case? Why is the British economy not bouncing back in the way that our competitors seem to be doing? In his opening remarks in announcing last month’s inflation report, the Governor of the Bank of England stated:

“the recent pattern of revisions to the projections over the next year—downward to growth and upward to inflation—has continued”.

The Governor went on to state that risks and negative factors within our economy—high levels of inflation, squeezes on wages and household incomes, weak levels of activity in the economy and uncertainty about the speed at which net exports will pick up—are persisting.

These factors are persisting for far longer than the Treasury and the Bank of England foresaw. Inflation has been much, much higher for a longer period than was anticipated, exports are not as buoyant as they were forecast to be at this stage, especially given the weakness in sterling, and economic activity is weaker than was expected. The Governor concluded:

“the outlook for growth and inflation is likely to remain unusually uncertain. No one knows how the economy will evolve over the next few years; nor how policy will need to respond.”

Given those comments and the huge and persistent uncertainties that exist, is it not ridiculous for the Chancellor not to concede that an alternative economic approach might be necessary?

Let us contrast what is happening in the UK with what is happening elsewhere in comparable economies. In Germany, the export-led recovery is leaping ahead, despite a slow-down in global economic growth. Domestic demand and private consumption are increasing, contributing to growth, wage increases are taking place as well as rises in employment levels, and Government finances have benefited from strong economic growth, to help offset the fact that Government debt in Germany rose significantly in 2010 to stabilise the banking sector. Despite all the deep-seated problems that it is facing, even Europe is expected to grow significantly faster than us, at 2.5% this year and 2.5% again the following year.

These economies will grow faster than ours and put themselves in a better position to take advantage of a growing global economy in the years to come, because they realise that a single-minded focus on deficit reduction, to the exclusion of everything else, particularly a disregard for the long-term social and economic consequences of such a move, is detrimental to the long-term interests of their economies. In his remarks today, the Chancellor mentioned PIMCO. Only yesterday, Bill Gross, the manager of PIMCO, which is the world’s largest bond fund company, said that to remain on the road to economic recovery, the US needed to focus on job creation instead of fiscal tightening and budget reforms. The conclusion he came to is pertinent to the British experience.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I have just joined the debate—

[Claire Perry]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been tied up with constituency business. I just wanted to say that I welcomed the reference to Bill Gross, who, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, also described the UK’s economy as sitting on a bed of nitroglycerine ahead of the election.

[Mr Wright]

I hope that the hon. Lady, who has not listened to the rest of the debate, will take into account the conclusion drawn by the manager of the largest bond fund company in the world. He stated that the budget reforms

“are long-term requirements for a stable and healthy economy, but the move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth.”

That seems an eminently sensible conclusion.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Why should we accept the hon. Gentleman’s version of events when the OECD, the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses are calling for fiscal tightening in order to ensure the stability in the economy necessary to provide growth, as is happening?

[Mr Wright]

The growth projections are falling rapidly, and have been downcast three times. When I speak to my constituents and businesses in Hartlepool, they are concerned about a lack of confidence and a lack of investment in the future of this country that will undermine our long-term ability to fight the global downturn.

[Mr Anderson]

Is it not the case that, like me, my hon. Friend has been here before, when the Conservative party did exactly the same thing not just in our lifetime, but our fathers’ lifetimes? We know that the actions that the Conservative party takes will result in ordinary people paying the price for its failures.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend represents a seat in the north-east, as I do, and he knows full well that our region has borne the brunt of this recession, like we bore the brunt of the 1980s recession. It does not have to be like this. We have got enormous economic potential in our region that can really contribute to wealth creation in our country, but that is simply not happening.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

No, I am not going to give way, because I do not have long left.

There is an acute need for a more balanced economic policy, focusing not merely on deficit reduction, but on incorporating job and wealth creation measures, on weeding out inefficiencies—that is true—on raising our productivity, on improving our infrastructure and on rewarding enterprise and ambition. In fact, a more balanced view would help to reduce the deficit faster. An emphasis on growth and jobs would increase output, raise tax receipts and reduce benefit bills, thereby helping to cut the debt. Given the lack of growth in the economy and persistent uncertainties about inflation, economic activity and net exports, for the good of our country and economy, will the Chancellor concede that he might—just might—be wrong?

Regulatory and Banking Reform

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) noted in his remarks. It is absolutely vital that the Bank has a good and robust relationship not only with the Treasury, but with this House. I think that we all agree that the relationship between the Treasury Committee and the Monetary Policy Committee, for example, is one of the most transparent between any central bank and any legislature across the world. We want similar standards of transparency and openness to apply in the relationship between the FPC and the House.

The White Paper sets out how the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank will be strengthened and how the Governor will meet the Chancellor to discuss the outcome of the financial stability review. We are also in the process of developing a crisis memorandum of understanding to ensure that the proper channels of communication are open between the Treasury and the Government. That is a much better set of arrangements that will ensure that the House is kept informed and that we can hold the Bank to account for its new responsibilities.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Is there not an inherent contradiction in Government policy? On the one hand there is stricter ring-fencing of banks’ capital reserves, and on the other there are the Business Secretary’s proposals, via Project Merlin, for banks to lend more to small businesses. Who will win this battle of economic policy—the Chancellor or the Business Secretary?

[Mr Hoban]

There is no dispute between the two. It is very clear that we need banks to hold more capital and, based on the work done at Basel III on the implementation of the higher level of capital, that should not restrict the amount of credit available. Yes, we need to see banks deleveraging and reducing the size of their balance sheets, but that should not be at the cost of businesses in our constituencies and across the country that need capital in order to grow and expand. Banks should be reducing their lending to each other, rather than reducing the exposure to businesses in this country.