Zero-hours Contracts

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. My contribution will not be terribly lengthy, which will enable other hon. Members to intervene or contribute, and to hear the Minister. I would like to start by referring to an e-mail that was sent to me recently. Knowing that I had secured this debate, quite a number of people got in touch with and wrote to me, as they feel so strongly about zero-hours contracts.

One gentleman who got in touch explained his life, saying that he lives to work and enjoys work, and wants to feel good about himself and perhaps own a house one day. He is signed up with an agency and has had various problems. Anyway, the agency felt that it could get him a job as a refuse collector. He has written me a long e-mail, explaining how he has turned up for work only to be turned away. He has had the odd day here and there, and he feels that the situation is like something from many years ago, where someone turns up not knowing whether he will be given work. He said that, when it started, he was “a little annoyed”, but “confused more than anything”. He said there were

“about 50 lads in that day and only 40 had work.”

He continued:

“It just carries on like this. I have been here two months now, and only ever had one full week; to cover a holiday, it looks like. And you daren’t take a sick day; not like I would anyway if it could be helped…you would just lose your place and start at the bottom of the pile.”

Reading that, as I did last night, brought it all back to me as to why my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and I started a campaign and a discussion on zero-hours contracts last summer. I will go on to talk about the numbers of people whom we do not know are on zero-hours contracts.

The issue is about people who are facing a difficulty in the workplace. It is about how that makes them feel. The indignity of feeling useless through unemployment is very bad, and we must never let up on our passion to get people into work and see the difference. However, it is no better to feel the indignity of turning up for work and being turned away. Zero-hours contracts can be used to make people feel as if their efforts are for no good at all and that they are not wanted. The issue is not just a fact of economics, but a moral question about how people are made to feel by certain features of our labour market. That is why we need real action. I want to say a couple of things about understanding the phenomenon of zero-hours contracts; about what the Government are or are not doing, and what they might be doing; and about such contracts as a symptom of other developments in the labour market.

Regarding counting, the Office for National Statistics said that the most recent labour force survey suggests that there are close to 600,000 people—I think the exact figure is 582,000—on zero-hours contracts in the United Kingdom. That is up from its previous estimate earlier this year of around 250,000. We knew that there was a problem with the survey’s counting of zero-hours contracts, because in a parliamentary response to me, the Minister of State, Department of Health, who has responsibility for care, explained that a national survey of care workers estimated that more than 300,000 people working in social care were on zero-hours contracts. There cannot be 300,000 people on zero-hours contracts in the care sector when there are only 250,000 nationally across all sectors. Therefore we knew that there was a problem, and now the ONS has said that there is.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to Westminster Hall. Does she agree that the recent figure of 500,000 zero-hours contracts is quite conservative? Other analysis suggests that there are more than 1 million people on such contracts. For those 1 million people, there is no production or wages, and they have no economic input whatever. If we have 1 million-plus people on zero-hours contracts, is that not a way of fiddling the employment or unemployment statistics that we are currently being fed by the Government?

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend has pre-empted exactly what I am going to say. It is interesting that a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Minister will respond to the debate, but we could do with having the Health Minister here, given how rampant zero-hours contracts are in the care sector. We could also do with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has responsibility for employment, because I want to know exactly how many people we have forced to take jobs with zero-hours contracts to get them off the claimant count.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

I thank the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for securing this debate. It is a very important issue, which has been widely discussed in the media, online and in both Houses of Parliament. She raised some important points.

The term “zero-hours contract” encompasses many different forms of employment relationship, in which the employer does not guarantee any work and the individual does not have to accept it when offered. Such contracts can be direct contracts of employment or can cover people working for agencies and so on, so they include a wide variety of different models of employment. The Government, and indeed most people now, believe that zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market, but we need to make sure that people get a fair deal when they are employed on such a contract. The Government have always been clear that we will crack down on any exploitation of individuals in the workplace and the zero-hours contract consultation that has just closed is an important part of the process.

As the hon. Lady highlighted, there has been some inconsistency in the statistics on zero-hours contracts. The picture has been very mixed. That is primarily because there is no legal definition of a zero-hours contract, so it has been difficult to gather good statistics. The labour force survey, as a survey of individuals, provides an estimate of the number of people who identify as being on zero-hours contracts. The greater media coverage in 2013 is likely to have increased awareness of zero-hours contracts. The Office for National Statistics believes that that has led to the estimate rising from 250,000 people in the final quarter of 2012 to more than 500,000 people in the final quarter of 2013; in other words, it more than doubled. We do need to gather information and analyse it sensibly if we are to know exactly what is going on and to achieve the right balance between the opportunities and the risks that zero-hours contracts provide. The hon. Member for Wirral South asked what is being done on that. The Office for National Statistics has been looking at the issue and will release the results of its new survey in April. That will, I hope, give us more clarity about the current figures and the number of people working in this way.

Let me put the issue in a little bit of context. Zero-hours contracts can give growing companies the opportunity to grow in a relatively safe way and can be used to increase flexibility in the range of services that businesses are able to give their customers or clients—for example, by employing people in specialist roles and in different geographical locations that a permanent staffing model could not provide for.

The contracts are sometimes portrayed as simply a way for businesses to try to reduce labour costs, to the detriment of the people who work for them, but we have also heard in evidence that we have received that the contracts sometimes offer positive work opportunities to people who would find it difficult to take regular work at fixed times. For example, one quarter of all zero-hours contracts are taken up by students, who cannot necessarily commit to a fixed working pattern, as their timetables change. The contracts can allow them, for example, to be more flexible around exams and so on. Zero-hours contracts offer them an opportunity to gain useful work experience and to progress on to other forms of employment when they wish to do so. That is also true of many other people with responsibilities outside work—in particular, caring responsibilities. The additional flexibility that zero-hours contracts can provide can be greatly valued.

Having said that, we must be clear that although zero-hours contracts suit some people, they do not suit everyone and there are people on zero-hours contracts who would prefer to be in full-time, permanent work. I am sure that, as constituency MPs, we have all seen people in that situation.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister agree with the comments from Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, who said:

“A zero-hours Britain is a zero-rights Britain in the workplace—Beecroft by the back door. Being at the boss’s beck and call is no way to build a skilled, committed, loyal labour force”?

[Jenny Willott]

As I said, zero-hours contracts can have a place in the labour market. They can suit some people—students, people with caring responsibilities and others—but clearly they are not appropriate for everyone. Anecdotal evidence, including that highlighted by the hon. Member for Wirral South and by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), suggests that some individuals are being pressured into working when it does not suit them and have the implied threat hanging over them of being denied future work, which removes the flexibility for those individuals.

HMRC Inquiry Centre Closures

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. This debate focuses on the Government’s proposals to close all HMRC inquiry centres in the UK. Inquiry centres provide a vital public service, allowing taxpayers to access free expert advice from highly skilled HMRC staff. In 2012, some 2.5 million people visited those offices, where they could take advantage of free phone and internet access, and 340,885 of those customers made a face-to-face appointment to get help complying with their tax duties and receive advice on their benefit entitlement.

Last month, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs announced that a “needs enhanced support” service model would be rolled out, resulting in the closure of all 281 HMRC offices by the end of June 2014. The taxpayers most likely to be prevented from accessing the proposed new service as a result of the cost are the unemployed, those on low incomes such as migrant workers and pensioners, and child benefit and child tax credit claimants. Such taxpayers rely heavily on the free service currently provided by HMRC staff at inquiry centres.

The closures will also put the 1,300 jobs of those who work in the centres at risk as a result of compulsory redundancies. Staff in the offices are faced with an impossible decision about their future as the Department rushes to implement the closure of the offices in four short months.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I apologise for coming in to the Chamber a few minutes late. My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. One of the offices affected is in Leicester, where a number of staff jobs are now at risk. Does he agree that the Government must put in the time to negotiate properly with the workplace unions, particularly the Public and Commercial Services Union, and do all they can to ensure that if they insist on closing the offices—although I hope they do not—the staff will be redeployed?

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that closing 280-odd offices—the service is provided up and down the country—will cause huge problems, mainly for people who are least well off but also, of course, for the staff themselves.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He will be aware that my constituency has an inquiry centre due for closure. I have been approached by constituents and members of PCS expressing concerns related to job losses and the impact that they could have on members of the public, particularly the most vulnerable. Does he agree that if the Government are serious about addressing the problem of underpaid and undercollected tax, the proposed closure programme is the wrong way to go about it?

[Ian Lavery]

I agree that the Government are going about it in entirely the wrong way. PCS, the union representing the HMRC workers, has agreed with HMRC that all members should have the opportunity for a formal one-to-one to help them consider their options. However, HMRC has withdrawn from that agreement in an attempt to pressure people into making decisions without information about applying for jobs and voluntary exits. That shows contempt for staff and puts huge pressure on people to leave by demoralising the work force.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I have four constituents who work at the Aberystwyth office and who will be affected in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Before he moves on from customer service, does he agree that there are particular concerns about how the new service, in so far as it is a new service, will be delivered in rural areas? Access will be denied to many of our constituents by virtue of the fact that huge tracts, in my case of rural west Wales, will be covered by a diminished service, and arguably a more costly one.

[Ian Lavery]

I will certainly come to that later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.

I am fairly positive that the Minister—perhaps he can indicate that this is the case—met PCS representatives this morning.

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

indicated assent.

[Ian Lavery]

The Minister nods positively. I am pleased: perhaps he can assure me that support will be given to staff who are uncertain about their future and that compulsory redundancies will not be made.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We are all grateful that the Minister met the union, but let us be clear: he met the union only after this debate was announced. There has not been full transparency in the sharing of information with the union by management about the various options going forward. The Government introduce changes, but it is best to do so in a negotiated way rather than by imposing them, as this management seems to have done.

[Ian Lavery]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for a positive intervention.

The pilot scheme has been rolled out not just in my constituency, but in my region—the north-east area. In June last year, 13 offices in the north-east of England were closed, including Royal Sovereign house in my constituency, in Morpeth. They were closed as part of a pilot of the new needs-enhanced support service model. If the closures of all 281 offices throughout the UK go as planned in June, I hope that HMRC does a better job of letting the public know than it did in our region last year.

I have heard examples of people travelling miles, only to find their local office no longer open to the public. In one prime example, an 85-year-old man used two buses to get to Scarborough, only to find the inquiry centre closed. Staff were actively prevented from assisting him: I repeat that they were actively prevented from assisting an 85-year-old gentleman. Another member of the public was trapped inside Gilbridge house in Sunderland, while trying to look for the inquiry centre, which had been closed. Many taxpayers decided to travel outside the region to inquiry centres that were still open, just so they could get face-to-face advice.

A recently widowed elderly woman turned up at Gilbridge house office for assistance with a tax form she needed to complete on behalf of her late husband. She told a member of HMRC staff that she simply did not feel that she could discuss her affairs over the phone, that she was afraid of completing it herself, just in case she did anything wrong, and that she could not grieve properly while she had this worry on her mind. I use this specific example, because staff are particularly concerned about the prospect of mainly older customers getting the support they need to complete the R27 form over the telephone, as these appointments need time. They not only need time; they need empathy, understanding and a common touch. It is common for staff, so they tell me, to keep a box of tissues handy on their desk for such occasions. It is hard to see how this kind of personal service can be replaced over the phone or on the internet. What assurances can the Minister give that such people, who will be in a particularly vulnerable state, will not be disadvantaged by the new service?

There are also problems involving equality issues. It is clear that the pilot scheme could not possibly identify the equality impacts on customers and staff, due to the demographics of our north-east region. For example, migrant workers make up 25% of all inquiry centre customers. However, the percentage of these customers is much lower in the north-east of England than it would be in other regions, such as London, which is a prime example. The consultation carried out by HMRC last year did not present equality data about customers. The document was not produced in different languages, which is of particular concern considering the high number of migrant workers who use the service. Only 11% of staff work part time in the north-east, compared with a national average of 36%. For example, 45% of workers in Wales and Scotland work part time. Only 7% of staff declared a disability in the north-east, compared with 27% based in Wales. Some 30% of inquiry centre staff in London and south-east are black, Asian and minority ethnic, compared with just 2% in the pilot area. How can the pilot area possibly identify the equality impact these closures will have on the country as a whole?

It is also worth mentioning, while considering the equality implications of this decision, that in October 2013 three appellants supported by the Low Incomes tax Reform Group won their appeal against the HMRC’s requirement that they must file their VAT returns online. A tax tribunal found that HMRC’s regulations that required online filing of VAT returns without providing exemptions for older people or disabled people, many of whom live in parts of the country that are too remote for broadband access, breached the appellants’ human rights and were unlawful in EU law.

If we consider the intervention of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), it is important that ordinary people can access those services. It does not matter whether those people live in London or in rural areas where access is extremely difficult. It was identified early in the pilot that a significant number of customers will not be able to call contact centres or interact with the website owing to the cost and low mobile or internet access in many parts of the UK. The taxpayers who are most likely to be prevented from accessing the proposed new service owing to the cost are the most vulnerable members of society. They are not able to afford a landline or a mobile telephone, and even if they own a mobile telephone it is often on a pay-as-you-go facility with a minimum amount of credit reserved for emergency calls only. Those taxpayers include the unemployed, people on low incomes, migrant workers, pensioners, people on child benefit and child tax credit claimants. Those taxpayers rely heavily on the free service that is currently provided by our inquiry centre network because their tax queries are often complex.

Low earners, for example, often work in multiple jobs to provide for their family, which means that the tax code is often incorrect. They visit the HMRC inquiry centres to use the free phones and free internet facilities or to receive face-to-face support and advice. HMRC agreed that an alternative access solution needed to be found if the new model was to be rolled out nationally. It is therefore concerning that the decision to move to the new service model and to close the inquiry centres has been made despite HMRC not having found those solutions.

Can the Minister reassure me that solutions have been found? If not, why has a decision been made without the Department having been able to resolve those important issues? Even in areas that have decent mobile phone coverage, taxpayers need to be reassured that contact centres will be sufficiently staffed to handle their calls. If the closures go ahead, people will no longer be able to walk into their local inquiry centre and receive face-to-face assistance on tax issues that are often complex. Instead, they will have to call a contact centre. A member of staff will then vet them and determine whether to refer them to another adviser. Only if that two-tier adviser deems it appropriate will a taxpayer classed as needing enhanced support be given access to face-to-face advice. Call handling levels have consistently been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. There are figures that prove conclusively that people will find it extremely difficult to contact the centres.

The fact that we are removing HMRC offices from local communities is one of the most important issues. HMRC is effectively moving its presence away from people who are supposed to pay, which will make closing the tax gap even harder. It will make tax compliance more difficult, both for those who want to comply but cannot get access to the information they need and for those who intentionally want to slip under the radar because they are disengaged with the tax authority at a local level. Those concerns have been raised by a large number of stakeholders in the public consultation exercise, including by the Association of Taxation Technicians, Citizens Advice, Gingerbread, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Lancaster city council, Milton Keynes council, TaxAid and a number of individual taxpayers. What work has HMRC done to estimate the amount of money that could be lost in uncollected tax owing to large numbers of taxpayers being prevented from engaging with the Department?

I conclude simply by asking the Minister to reconsider the decision to close the offices. There is a real danger that if the plans go ahead, some of the most vulnerable people in society will lose their access to HMRC’s services. Hundreds of quality jobs will be lost, and the Government’s attempts to tackle the tax gap will be seriously set back. It would surely benefit society and the economy if the Government would concentrate on closing the tax gap, not tax offices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

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

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

[Ian Lavery]

Is it not the case that individuals who wish to have a face-to-face meeting will be vetted on the telephone, and then someone will adjudicate whether they need one?

[Mr Gauke]

I will turn to how the new service will work in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. HMRC’s in-depth research further revealed that nine out of 10 of those who visited an inquiry centre last year did not require a face-to-face appointment and would have been able to resolve their queries through a phone call or by visiting the HMRC website.

[Ian Lavery]

On that point, will the Minister give way again?

[Mr Gauke]

I am keen to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will give way.

[Ian Lavery]

Where on earth did that information come from? Surely, people who wanted a face-to-face meeting had one and thought it beneficial. Where do the statistics that the Minister has just mentioned come from?

[Mr Gauke]

They are the result of research undertaken by HMRC. Matters can often be resolved over the telephone rather than in a face-to-face meeting. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted a case in which an 85-year-old gentleman caught two buses to attend an inquiry centre. If it is possible to drive that service more easily over the telephone, so be it, but there are circumstances in which a face-to-face meeting will be appropriate, so that will be provided.

HMRC’s research has highlighted that up to 1.5 million customers need extra help with their tax and benefits affairs. Many of them need help only for a specific event in their lives, such as when they approach retirement. Others may have low literacy skills, or a mental health condition may make it difficult for them to cope with their affairs. The new, more accessible service will be tailored to the needs of customers who require extra help. Specialist help will be provided over the telephone by extra support advisers who have the time, skills, knowledge and empathy to handle customers’ inquiries at a pace that suits them, and who can identify when a customer needs extra help. If a customer’s query cannot be dealt with over the phone, they can arrange a face-to-face meeting with a team of mobile advisers based across the United Kingdom. Such meetings can be arranged at a time and place convenient to the customer, and extra help will be delivered through HMRC’s voluntary and community sector partners who have been provided with extra funding so that they can support more customers and refer them directly to the new service.

Economic Policy

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite simply lost all credibility as an individual and all credibility as a Chancellor. What will he do to regain the confidence of the general public? Hundreds of thousands of people have lost greatly as a result of the failure of his economic policies.

[Mr Osborne]

Actually, the unemployment rate is lower today than when we came into office, and there are 1 million more people with jobs in the private sector than there were two years ago. Families want to know that the Government are determined to tackle the nation’s problems, to keep rates low, and to ensure that we provide the right environment for business. They have our assurance that we will do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Unemployment rocketed because of the disastrous economic policies of the Labour party, and the deficit rocketed too. The good news is that 1 million jobs have been created and that the deficit has come down by 25%. Perhaps one day we will get an economic policy from the Labour party and we can make comparisons with what it would do in office. Until then, the hon. Gentleman should get behind the measures to clear up the mess that he left behind.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

2. How many households no longer eligible for child benefit have opted not to receive it.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

8. How many households no longer eligible for child benefit have opted not to receive it.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

The Government estimate that in the 2013-14 tax year over 1 million out of 8 million families are affected by the new charge. As of 24 January, over 340,000 recipients have opted not to receive the payment. The charge will raise over £1.7 billion each year to tackle the deficit.

[Ian Lavery]

The Government pride themselves on their fairness. Can the Minister explain to this House what is fair about a one-earner family making up to £50,000 having their child benefit cut while a two-earner family making up to £100,000—twice the amount—is able to retain their child benefit?

[Sajid Javid]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a man of principle, and I have respect for him, particularly since he refused to work for the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman); I do not blame him. I note that on his website he says that he has

“a strong commitment to supporting the…less well off in society.”

He is absolutely right and I agree with him, so perhaps he can explain why he is against a measure that is targeted at the 15% of people who are the highest earners in society. [Interruption.]

Autumn Statement

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what the Labour party offers: more borrowing, more debt, and a return to the mess it left this country in. People are not going to trust Labour with the public finances again, and they are particularly not going to trust the shadow Chancellor again.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 15.9% of young people aged between 18 and 24 are unemployed. That is twice the national average. What is in the autumn statement for them?

[Mr Osborne]

First, of course any young person who cannot get a job is a matter of regret, but youth unemployment has fallen this year. Our welfare to work schemes are helping to get people back to work, and our work experience scheme in particular is doing a great job of getting people into work, so I would ask those young people to go to their jobcentre and see the schemes that are available. As I have said, 1.2 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the past couple of years, in what are very difficult circumstances. I hope that, with the measures we announced today, business will be able to create some more jobs.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He knows my views and is tempting me down the path of debating the future of defined benefit schemes. I have been entirely consistent on this point: for many years, I have said that all defined benefit schemes are no longer sustainable, whether in the private sector or public sector. That is a debate for another time and is certainly not pertinent to the amendment, but I share his view that perhaps we need more wholesale change and a larger debate.

In supporting specific exemptions where physical demands can be proven, I am not undermining the broad thrust of ensuring that our public sector pensions are sustainable. I have long argued that the contribution rates of both employee and employer do not match: what goes in does not match what comes out. That has driven my long-held view that defined benefit schemes are no longer fit for purpose. Having said that, this Bill is a major step forward in making sure that our public sector pensions are sustainable. We have a duty, however, to protect those who protect us and we ought to revisit this point where there is hard empirical evidence that physicality, in certain roles within those categories, can be proven to be detrimental to people’s health after retirement. I am not suggesting that I will support the amendment, but I am urging my ministerial colleagues to revisit the matter.

I have rehearsed at length the point about physicality. I am sad that the Minister is no longer with us, but I hope that he will address that point when he winds up. Should empirical evidence emerge, I hope that we can revisit this subject.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I want to refer, in particular, to my amendment 1. I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) very interesting indeed. I certainly agree with a range of points he made.

The amendment seeks to place two additional occupations into the Bill, and they have been mentioned on both sides of the Chamber. They are those of prison officer and psychiatric nurse. Clause 9(2) lists the three occupations to be enshrined in the legislation as exemptions from subsection (1)—they have been discussed by various Members and there seems to be some agreement—which are

“fire and rescue workers who are firefighters…members of a police force, and…members of the armed forces.”

I fully support people working in those occupations and the courageous work they do on a regular basis. I fully understand why they are included in the Bill and support their inclusion, but for the very same reasons I wish to amend the Bill to include prison officers and psychiatric nurses.

It is widely accepted that prison officers and psychiatric nurses have to deal with some of the most dangerous, dysfunctional and disruptive people in society on an almost daily basis. Expecting these categories of worker to work above the age 65 is totally and utterly unjustified; in fact, when we look at it in great detail, the decision seems absolutely outrageous. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green mentioned a constituent of his, a very fit police officer from the territorial support unit who explained exactly how he kept himself in peak fitness to do his job. We cannot expect people in the Prison Service to be grappling with prisoners at the age of 65 and above, but the Bill as it stands would allow that.

Currently, prison officers regularly have to take five different tests: a grip strength test, an endurance and fitness test, a dynamic strength test, an agility test and a static shield hold test. If a prison officer fails any of those tests, they fail the entire health and fitness test. The current regime is therefore rather stringent. If clause 9 is agreed to unamended, it will mean many prison officers and psychiatric nurses either dying in service or retiring on ill health grounds and not having a very healthy lifestyle thereafter.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is doing a fine job of explaining the concern of people who work in the Prison Service or in psychiatric health. Ashworth hospital and HM Prison Kennet are in my constituency, and people working at both have expressed exactly those concerns to me. Does he think that, as well as potentially leading to damaged health and increased disability, the Bill will discourage people from entering the Prison Service and that part of the NHS?

[Ian Lavery]

That is absolutely right. When anybody looks to take up a new employment opportunity, they look at a whole array of things. The public sector is changing by the day—although the Prison Service and the NHS now involve not just the public sector, but the private sector. People look at how their pensions will end up and what the pensionable age is, which we have also been discussing this afternoon. That is a huge consideration for many people who want to choose their profession early on in life. This measure will put people off becoming prison officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

May I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to remind the House that prison officers in Northern Ireland also run a particularly grim risk? After a gap of almost 30 years, a prison officer, David Black, was murdered recently in rush-hour traffic on a busy motorway on his way to work. Prison officers in Northern Ireland run an additional risk. It is an absolute disgrace that prison officers are not exempted in clause 9.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Prison officers in Northern Ireland have had a particular problem with security for decades. They have the same security problem here, although it is definitely not as bad as the problem experienced during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, prison officers put their neck on the block at all times. I have been out socialising with members of the Prison Officers Association when they have been approached by ex-convicts. They were out having a decent time, and those people were coming up to them. They addressed the prison officers very politely, but I have to say that they looked rather strange. I would not want them coming to talk to me. We need to look at the security of the people who work in the Prison Service. As I have said, we need to protect those people.

The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green said that members of the police force were highly trained, and that they needed shields and other forms of protection. He said that they were out on the front line when there were problems, and that they would get stuck in to try to resolve them. Prison officers and psychiatric nurses do that on almost a daily basis, and it is not very pleasant for them. There are also problems in the Prison Service and the health service, when prisoners are not only violent but spit in people’s faces and when blood is thrown at people’s faces causing all sorts of distress.

It is common sense to try to ensure that prison officers and psychiatric nurses are added as part of the exemption under clause 9(2), just as we rightly wish to protect police officers in their daily duties. Our brave armed forces and our firefighters are other examples, so we should look to protect the prison officers and psychiatric nurses, whose duty is solely to protect us, in the same way.

I will not press my amendment to the vote, as I do not want to divide the House. Should I say that we are too conciliatory on this issue, and should I say that Members of all parties seem to agree—albeit to different degrees—on it? Rather than split the House on it, I gently ask the Minister at least to consider the amendment to ensure that psychiatric nurses and prison officers are included in the provisions of clause 9(2).

[Mr Gibb]

I shall make a brief contribution and oppose amendment 2, tabled by Opposition Members, which would leave out lines 22 and 23 of clause 9— essentially subsection (1)(a) and (b)—and insert in its place

“65, or current pension scheme age if lower”.

That would drive a coach and horses in many ways through one of the Bill’s key provisions, which is to have a link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. I think that is an important way to minimise the risk of longevity to the taxpayer.

Paragraph 4.5 of the final report of Lord Hutton says:

“It is generally assumed that longevity will continue to increase in the future, but there is significant uncertainty about the scale of any future changes.”

He goes on to say:

“Increases in life expectancy have historically been… underestimated”

when the calculations have been made.

In paragraph 1.2 on page 22, Hutton says:

“As a result”

of this underestimation,

“pension costs…have been much higher than originally expected.”

He cites the example of a female pensioner in the NHS scheme who would retire at the age of 60 in 2010, and says that she would be expected to spend around 45% of her adult life in retirement, compared with about 30% for pensioners who retired in the 1950s. That is the issue that Hutton is trying to address. Spending 45% of one’s life in retirement is simply not sustainable for any pension scheme—even one backed up by the vast coffers of the state sector.

Page 9 of the Hutton report states:

“The main risks within defined benefit schemes are: investment; inflation; salary”—

because salaries can be put up without actuaries being aware of the rises—

“and longevity risk. While government, as a large employer, is capable of bearing the majority of the risk associated with pension saving…present schemes involve too much risk for government and the taxpayer.”

He went on to say:

“There should be a fairer sharing of risk between government”

and scheme members. It is that risk that amendment 2 would push back to the taxpayer.

Hutton says that the increases in life expectancy have been recognised within the state pension scheme, and he therefore recommends that we should follow that lead when it comes to helping members bear pre-retirement longevity risk. That is why he recommends the link between the state retirement pension age and the normal pension age. Recommendation 11—it is in a shaded box, which will please the shadow Minister—states:

“The Government should increase the member’s Normal Pension Age in the new schemes so that it is in line with their State Pension Age.”

Lord Hutton also says:

“The introduction of the link to the State Pension Age, which will initially move Normal Pension Ages to 65, will move the proportion of adult life in retirement for public service pension scheme members back to about a third: roughly where it was in the 1980s. The current State Pension Age of 65 is already the Normal Pension Age for most new entrants to public service pension schemes.”

Teachers, for instance, have a 2007 scheme and a pre-2007 scheme. For those who joined before 2007 the normal pension age is 60, while for those who joined after that date it is 65. Lord Hutton goes on to say:

“In the long term, the timetabled increases in State Pension Age should help to keep the proportion of adult life in retirement for members around this level”—

that is, a third—

“on current life expectancy projections.”

I believe that amendment 2 is a mistake, and would increase risk disproportionately for the taxpayer.

Finance Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

What I have set out also highlights the previous Government’s role in failing to regulate and, it seems, in indulging in a bit of market manipulation pressure of their own. I do not think that is acceptable. In her scene setting, the shadow Minister was basically saying, “What happened at Barclays is outrageous; therefore we need to do this.” What I am saying is that we should be careful what we wish for, because banks need enough capital to lend to small businesses, to create the jobs and money that we need to expand the economy and make this country a great success in the next 10 years, building Britain back up to the sort of success that we saw in the ’80s.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

New clause 13 is extremely important and deals with the bank bonus tax for youth jobs. It is an admirable new clause.

It is indisputable that the financial services industry is an essential part of our economy, but equally, there must be an acceptance that the industry—the banks and the financial institutions—needs to pay its way. The June 2010 Budget announced that a levy based on banks’ balance sheets would be introduced from 1 January 2011. Labour supports the bank levy, but we want to go further. We want to repeat the bankers’ bonus tax, which brought in an estimated £3.5 billion. We can argue about net and gross, as the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) explained; however, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the bankers’ bonus tax brought in £3.5 billion. Despite slight increases in the rate of the levy, the Government’s failure to repeat Labour’s bank bonus tax—and, in the meantime, create more than 100,000 jobs for young people—means that the banks simply received tax cuts last year and will do so in future years. It is wholly unacceptable, when we have a double-dip recession, for us to allow banks off with fortunes and tax cuts year on year.

In the last financial year, the amount raised by the bank levy was just over half the amount raised by Labour’s bank bonus tax—£1.8 billion, compared with £3.5 billion. The Chancellor’s spending review plans have simply failed. The Government’s austerity measures have led to the flatlining of growth in the economy, resulting in long-term youth unemployment spiralling to record levels. In the last year it has gone up by 112%, while the number of young people out of work for over a year has gone up even more, by around 156%. That is the result of the Government scrapping the future jobs fund, immediately after they came to power, without putting a viable alternative in place. They had no idea what would replace the fund or how on earth they would be able to create any employment, for young people in particular. The Work programme started only a year later, in June 2011, and we all know now, from people coming to our surgeries, about the difficulties that the workfare and other programmes have created.

That is why we are calling for Labour’s youth jobs guarantee, which would redress the Government’s scrapping of the future jobs fund. On a cautious estimate, we believe that the bank bonus tax could raise at least £2 billion this year, which the Government could use to build thousands of affordable homes and introduce the real jobs guarantee for young people who are long-term unemployed.

As part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, the real jobs guarantee would cost £600 million, and would provide a six-month job for every 18 to 24-year-old who had been on jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months or more. We estimate that it could assist up to 110,000 people in that category. The Government would pay full wages directly to the business, which would cover 25 hours of work per week at the minimum wage. That would equate to about £4,000 per job. In return, the employer would be expected to cover the young person’s training and development for a minimum of 10 hours a week. The ultimate objective would be the opportunity of a permanent job at the end of the six months. New clause 13 would tackle the issue of youth unemployment, and make the banks pay their way.

Finance Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, I do not want to focus on such issues at this time. I am sure that Government Front Benchers will want to take responsibility for their own actions.

I now want to address some points that Ministers may make about the Bill’s measures to reduce tax avoidance. The IFS has again been very busy and has made some extremely helpful and interesting points. It says this Budget compared poorly with Labour Budgets, which cut tax avoidance by more than £12 billion between 2002 and 2009—an average of more than £1.3 billion each year. This Budget, however, is estimated to have cut tax avoidance by just £800 million. Closing loopholes to prevent avoidance should be something that every Budget does, and we should not be required to compensate the very rich for the inconvenience.

The Government’s last line of defence will no doubt be that cutting tax for those who already have the most will unlock investment and kick-start economic growth, but that is pure ideology, with no evidence to back it up. The OBR documents accompanying the Budget show a continued pattern of the promised recovery of business investment being postponed. An 8% increase was promised for 2011, but the amount actually fell by 2%. A further 10% increase had been projected for this year, but the forecast is now less than 1%. The role of such investment in driving growth for future years has been significantly written down.

As for growth, again the OBR is clear. It states in box 3.1 on page 46 of its latest economic and fiscal outlook, which is headed “The economic effects of policy measures”, that the only policy with a measurable effect is the cut in corporation tax. It says that that will lead to an increase in GDP of

“0.1 per cent by the end of the forecast period.”

Beyond that, it says in the policy costings document:

“We have made no other material adjustments to the economy forecast as a result of Budget 2012 policy announcements.”

Therefore, according to the best evidence and the advice of independent experts, this is a tax change that will have no discernible impact on our economic prospects and, at a time of tight public finances and tough decisions on deficit reduction, it could cost billions of pounds, making it harder to deal with the deficit and necessitating harsher sacrifices for others in society.

The granny tax is addressed in another of our amendments, which would reverse the Chancellor’s shameful raid on pensioners’ incomes. We must give the Government a chance to make amends for what is essentially a broken promise, and for their shabby attempts to sneak this past Parliament and the public. We call on the Government to cancel this unfair measure for a number of reasons. First, the Government made a commitment as recently as last year that the age-related allowance would be uprated each year of this Parliament in line with the retail prices index. It is there in black and white on page 35 of the 2011 Red Book. Recently it has been reported that the Prime Minister is resistant to suggestions from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that he break pre-election promises on benefits for older people. Yet here is a promise made only last year that the Government have consigned to the dustbin. Instead of acknowledging this most disreputable of U-turns, the Chancellor actually sought to conceal it, dressing a crude tax grab up as a “simplification”.

According to the House of Commons Library, by far the majority of those being asked to pay more live on incomes that put them in the bottom half of taxpayers. The crucial point—again, I am sure that Government Members will have heard this—is that having a small personal or occupational pension of just £67 a week, or little more than £3,000 a year, would be enough to put someone in line to lose under this measure. We are talking about the people who did not earn big salaries in their working lifetimes but managed to save so that they could provide for themselves. These are more people doing the right thing; they avoided the means-tested benefits. So yet again I say: why are the Government so keen on policies that penalise the people who are doing the right thing? Why do they penalise the people who are trying to work—the low-paid, part-time workers who lose their tax credits—and the pensioners who have tried to avoid the means-tested benefits and have saved for their retirement and done the right thing?

There is no doubt that pensioners have been hit hard by this Government’s decisions: winter fuel allowance has been cut; pensions have been indexed to a lower measure of inflation; the increase in the state pension age for women has been brought forward; last year’s VAT rise added £275 to the cost faced by an average pensioner couple; and cuts have been made to services such as the NHS, social care and local transport—all the things that matter on a day-to-day basis for pensioners. So pensioners have been hit hard by this Government’s decisions and policies, yet with this Finance Bill the Government are coming back for more. They are not content with all those things and are coming back for more. In total, this measure will raise more than £3 billion pounds over the next five years.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is it a coincidence that the tax cut to the rich costs £3 billion, which is exactly the same as the tax increase for elderly people in society?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. That must be purely coincidental, because surely no Government would want to take that amount of money from pensioners simply to give it to the richest. Perhaps this Government would though; perhaps we have the same old Tories with the same old policies, yet again. The pensioners who have been hit hardest by this Government’s decisions are seeing them coming back for more. That £3 billion raised over the next five years is the biggest revenue raiser in the whole Budget, and it is coming from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. And it is all going towards what? Is it going to paying down the deficit? No. Is it going to help young people get back to work? No. Is it going to help the poorer pensioners? No. Instead, this money is being taken from millions of older people living on modest pensions and redistributed to a few thousand individuals with incomes of more than £150,000 a year. What an absolute disgrace: taking from the pensioners to give to those already on those high earnings.

The Government were said to be surprised by the anger this tax change has aroused. If that is the case—if they were surprised—that shows just how out of touch they are with the values, principles and priorities of the British people. At the time, the response of Age UK was very clear. It said that it was disappointing that the Budget

“offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes, who are already being squeezed”.

We could not have put it better ourselves. The chief executive of Saga said:

“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected.”

The National Pensioners Convention said:

“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax—whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced.

This is seen by many as the last straw...Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich—and it’s simply not fair.”

Pensioners are absolutely right to feel that way.

These amendments are a chance for the Government to rectify one of the most blatant injustices in this Budget. It simply cannot be right to ask millions of pensioners on modest incomes to pay more while finding a way for a few thousand millionaires to pay less. It is extremely hard to comprehend how the Government could ever have thought that this was fair, or that it would be acceptable to pensioners and to others who care about pensioners, but now they have an opportunity to put it right, and Members from all parts of the House have a chance to show where they stand. They can support these amendments and do the right thing by the people who did the right thing for themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree. There has been a climate in which it is somehow acceptable to avoid taxation and I made many speeches in Committee about how that culture is unacceptable and needs to change.

It is up to us to send a clear message, as Members of all parties, that tax avoidance is wrong. That was why I intervened on the shadow Minister earlier to say that the message sent by politicians who use personal service companies is deeply corrosive. They should all pay a fair share of taxation and should not try to avoid it in that way, because it sends the wrong message. In all fairness, I say that to members of my own party as much as to Labour members. It is not acceptable in the current age.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman and I had some good discussions in Committee—I would not call them enjoyable, but they were good. Does he think it is fair to hit the grannies—to hit elderly people—with a £3 billion loss and at the same time to cut taxes for the richest people in the UK?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I think it is fair to say that we are not cutting taxes yet, because the change would not come through to the next financial year. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that is the case. We must consider the Exchequer numbers, which show that the cost of the cut is very low. I think those numbers are wrong, as they have not taken into account the dynamic effects of the change, which will probably be tax accretive to the Exchequer when all is taken into account.

As for the issue of age-related allowances, the Government’s triple-lock guarantee will mean that the overwhelming majority of older people—in fact, all of them, I think—will be better off and there are no cash losers. Secondly, we are talking about the very richest of the oldest. We are not talking about the oppressed pensioner with no savings but about the richest of the oldest and, as I say, there will be no cash losers. Although it is uncomfortable for many people and has been uncomfortable for all of us, the Government have been doing the right thing by the elderly and have been looking after the least well-off elderly first of all. It is really important to protect them from the difficult economic times we have had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

The age-related tax allowances only kick in to benefit those pensioners who have a substantial income, or a more substantial income, in retirement. We are not talking about the very least well-off pensioners who are affected by grinding poverty, but about pensioners who are better off and who have savings and income. As I said, there are no cash losers and they have had a massive benefit from the pensions triple lock.

[Ian Lavery]

When the hon. Gentleman says that there are no cash losers, does that mean that pensioners will not lose out?

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is my understanding, yes. Pensioners will not lose out, there will be no cash losers and no pensioners will be worse off in cash terms, As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we can have the argument about future rates of inflation and future rates of RPI, but one must also take into account the other side of the equation, as pensions and benefits for elderly people will rise in the same way and at the same time. Overall, we are not talking about a great difference; we are certainly looking after the least well-off of the elderly, and we have done so very well indeed. That is an important achievement of this Government. Pensioners have been better off under the Government and have been shielded from the austerity measures.

Let us look across the piece at what the Government have done. We have done the right thing to reduce taxation at the top level, which was meant to be temporary, to encourage investment in our economy and to encourage entrepreneurs. The Government need to take further action to deal with people who abuse personal service companies and other tax wheezes and to ensure that we have stronger measures against avoidance by individuals. We have seen enough of it in the newspapers, so I shall not go into individual cases because, as we know, that ends up in a spat about whether one likes Take That or late-night comedy shows. Nevertheless, it is right that we should ensure that individuals cannot play the system and that the law should be changed. It is all very well for the Labour party to take the moral high ground on the issue of tax allowances, but Labour was asleep at the wheel for about a decade and failed to deal with tax avoidance in the individual and corporate spheres. That was completely wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

“No cash losers”: I must say that I think that those are the most disingenuous words that I have heard in this Chamber for a great many years. I remember that in the Budget the Chancellor was not particularly keen to draw the House’s attention to this change.

In the Budget, the Chancellor glossed over the whole issue of the granny tax very quickly indeed, yet only a year before, he came to the Dispatch Box on Budget day and said that he would not hide anything—he would tell it like it was. He would tell the bad with the good. That was just a year before, but in this year’s Budget, he glossed over the granny tax altogether.

“No net losers”—how accurate is that if we look at the total picture for pensioners? For existing pensioners, the age-related allowance will be frozen. It is interesting that the year before, it was not the Chancellor, but the Prime Minister, no less, who promised that the allowance would increase in line with the retail prices index. “No net losers”—those who believed the Prime Minister’s promise to pensioners might be excused for feeling that they were losers under the change. That is what happens. People listen to what the Prime Minister says, and make their financial plans on the basis of it: “The Prime Minister promised me, so of course I can expect to have that.” Well, it did not happen, and I think that is disingenuous.

We heard in this Chamber that there are no net losers, but what about people who are about to become pensioners? Are they net losers? They certainly expected an age-related allowance, but they find that, for them, it is not frozen, but cut. We can stand here and call black white, but it is incumbent on us not to take the public for fools, and I am afraid that the speech from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) did that. I regret that, because he is not a disingenuous character—he is quite a lovable character in this House—but to say what he did is to treat people with contempt. It is treating them as though they do not understand their own affairs, when it is their own affairs—their own pennies, in many cases—that we are talking about. That hits hard.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it not a fact that 4.4 million pensioners will lose roughly £83 a year from next year, and that people who turn 65 next year could lose up to £322 a year? That implies that it is disingenuous to suggest that people are not losing out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. “Disingenuous” is not a word that we should use. I know that it is meant to be an appropriate term, but it is not the sort of parliamentary language that we accept. I am sure that we will not be using it again.

--- Later in debate ---

We have always had an age-related allowance for pensioners that is somewhat different from those for ordinary taxpayers, but one has to ask why that is the case. It is easy for politicians to go along with a system that has been in place for several years, but in an environment in which the Government are pushing up allowances, hopefully to £10,000 and beyond, at some point soon the basic allowance will overtake the age-related allowance. From a tax simplification point of view, that is sensible. People talk about pensioners, but they are not one homogenous group; they include poor people and rich people. In fact, many of my constituents have benefited from buying their homes and the post-war inflation, and the evidence from surveys suggests that the people struggling the most are actually young families with children.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way. Does he agree with hitting pensioners hard with the £3 billion tax increase?

[Mr Syms]

About a quarter of my constituents are pensioners, but I have received only three or four e-mails on this subject. It is not a major issue in Poole, where most of my constituents pay tax. I do not think that it is the big issue that Opposition Members claim it is. It depends on how fast the basic allowance for all taxpayers overtakes the age-related allowance, which I presume is logically what the Government want it to do. Of course, it also depends on the level of inflation. If we freeze the allowance and have higher inflation, it will be eroded more quickly than if we have lower inflation. Thankfully, one of the good points about the past few months is that inflation is starting to crash back down towards 2%, and the sooner we reach that rate, the better.

If we look at what the Government have promised in their triple lock for pensioners—the increase in the basic state pension of over 5%—along with the winter fuel allowance, which we continue to pay, and free bus travel, we will see that their priority has been to support pensioners. We have been criticised over the reduction in the winter fuel allowance, but I point out that the previous Government put it up for the election year but made no budget provision for the year after, and we are faced with some very difficult problems. Unfortunately, it is an expensive item and the Government have been unable to keep it at the level it was for one year, but on the whole we have kept it at the level it was for most years at the end of the previous Government’s time in office, and that is a boon to many pensioners. I think that what the Government are doing on the age-related allowance is probably the right thing to do.

[Ian Lavery]

I am surprised to hear that only three or four of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have contacted him on that point—I wish him good luck on that. Various figures have been bandied about and I wonder whether he disputes them. It has been suggested that 4.4 million pensioners will lose up to £83 a year and those turning 65 next year could lose up to £322. Does he support that?

[Mr Syms]

I am not sure that that is a massive loss of income. The most recent issue we debated was the 3p cut on fuel, which will make more of a difference to pensioners in my constituency than this minor change in tax allowances. I think that the Government’s policy towards pensioners is fine.

Let me turn to the top rate of tax. We all know that there is a lot of politics in this. The rate was 40p under the previous Government, except for the last 37 days they were in office, so the 50p rate was one of the wonderful inheritances from them. Clearly, if we want to stop people looking to avoid paying tax, we have to keep a competitive rate. At 40p we have a rate that was competitive with many western European countries, but at 50p we do not. If we have a country without exchange controls, a very mobile population, as we do, and people with highly tradable skills, there is a danger that if we start to put up the rates we will lose revenue and people will go abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, having had a 50p rate which meant people started looking at how to avoid taxation, that might stay in the system for some time. I welcome what the Government have done by reducing the higher tax rate to 45p. I think that it is a pity they delayed it, because I suspect that the impact will be to reduce income tax take for the current year, but when the rate drops to 45p for the year after, we will see an increase in the income tax yield.

It is important to give a message. I was in this House when the previous Government put up income tax. In one of his last speeches from the Government Back Benches, Stephen Byers said that he very much regretted that the Labour party had decided to do that. If all the evidence suggests that that has not raised very much this year, it seems to me that it is being done for ideological reasons, rather than practical, economic ones. If nothing else we ought to be practical in how we do things. Therefore, the Government’s reducing the top rate, as a start, is the right thing to do which will have a beneficial effect in the long term. But let us not forget that the allowances for the lower paid have gone up this year. The top rate of tax will come down next year, by which time we will have had another Budget in which I hope the Government will have made more progress on assisting some of those on lower pay and taking more people out of the tax net.

The one thing that can be said about the Government is that their thinking is joined up. We have welfare reform, we are pushing up the tax allowances to increase work incentives, and we are dealing with a whole range of tax rates, including trying to make corporation tax more competitive, and I think that that will make us a much more competitive country in the world. We look like an island of stability, certainly compared with the eurozone countries. Let us hope that they sort out their problems so that we can start selling them our excellent goods, but let us face the fact that we live in a competitive world and unless our taxes are competitive we will not be able to generate the wealth to pay for all the things we want: health, schools, foreign aid, defence and all the things we need to do. I think that the Government are on the right track. Clearly, it is a very bumpy economic environment, certainly rather bumpier than we might have thought it would be when we came into office, but provided we have leadership and vision, we will get through.

--- Later in debate ---

On that basis, I will vote for the tax measure, although it is very difficult to sell and we all know the perils of upsetting people of that generation in our constituencies, but we have to go out there and say, “We have to take tough measures”; we cannot please everybody.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman recognises that we cannot please everybody, but does he agree that cutting taxes for the rich pleases the rich, while the ones who will be less pleased are pensioners, having £83 a week taken off them, and people who turn 65 next year, losing £322?

[Nigel Mills]

I am sure that people who benefit from a tax cut will be pleased and those who lose out from a tax change will not be, so I guess I can agree with most of that, but it will be interesting to see in the Lobby later whether the hon. Gentleman votes for his party’s amendment, which would mean the House passing the Bill after abolishing the 45p rate completely and reducing it to a 40p rate.

It is all right saying, “Perhaps we can do that and perhaps the Government will do something different in future,” but we are legislating in Parliament, and if we were to vote for the amendment and remove the 45p rate, it would not actually exist, and I am not sure that those Members who would rather the provision read “50p” than “45p” could in all conscience vote for that. I clearly will not vote for the amendment, because it would be the wrong measure at this time; I will vote for there to be a 45p rate in next year’s tax regime.

When I debate these things, I could take a narrow constituency view. I suspect that very few of my constituents pay the 50p tax rate, as I have many pensioners who are not that well-off and will be adversely impacted by the granny tax, so from a political and personal view I could happily oppose the tax cut and the granny tax, too, but we have to get our economy into sensible working order.

--- Later in debate ---

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, the big question about this tax take is how much revenue will be brought in from so-called missed tax avoidance in future years given that people will front-load their tax benefits in the early years. Overall, there is an inherent unfairness throughout the Budget decisions and announcements that the Chancellor made, and I hope that this measure will bite the dust. It is as much about the signal that it sends as the reality of it. For me, that is very important, because my constituents, many of whom are working hard and just trying to hold body and soul together, do not see the fairness in this and do not see why the very richest should pay much less tax as a result. Indeed, these people are supposedly saving £10,000 in a single year, and that is as much as many of my constituents earn in a year.

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Ten thousand pounds a year equates to £833 a month, and it is more than hundreds of thousands of people in my constituency make on an annual basis.

[Meg Hillier]

Absolutely. If we have a duty in this House, it is constantly to remind ourselves of what life is like for our constituents. We can get lulled into a sense of safety and snugness on these green Benches and enjoy intellectual repartee and debate, but we are here to represent the people who elected us. It is incumbent on us to remember that many people are living on £10,000 a year or less, and it is important that we reflect their concerns in this House. For me, that is a burning issue. I want my constituents to earn more than £10,000 a year, but they will not be able to do so unless we get the economy moving.

Locally, we have real poverty and high unemployment. Youth unemployment has risen to about a quarter of the total number of my constituents aged under 24, as roughly a third of them are, and we are seeing an increase in over-50s unemployment. These are the people who are not gaining but seeing those earning over £150,000 gain considerably. There is a lot that we need to do.

We must look at the unfairness of the cut overall and at the needs of the people who are earning less. I do not think that the money that is supposed to come back will be used to reverse the cuts to further education, to make the banks lend or restore the overdraft facilities of small businesses in my area, or to restore the education maintenance allowance, which had a big impact in helping those in my constituency who wanted to skill themselves up to earn more money—the end of EMA put those people on the back foot. Those matters all impact on the lives of people in Hackney South and Shoreditch today.

A year ago, the Chancellor promised that the measures in the Budget, some of which we are debating today, would boost the economy. What have we seen in the past year? The economy has not just stalled, but shrunk. Again, who suffers the most? It is not the people who have gained from the reduction in the 50p rate of tax, but ordinary men and women up and down the country who are working hard and paying tax. The Chancellor has also had to borrow £150 billion more than planned.

I have mentioned the freezing of the personal allowance overall, but the decision to take away the pensioner element has the biggest impact on those who earn between £10,000 and £29,000 a year. There are not many pensioners in my constituency who earn more than that, although it does have an interesting mix. Being on the edge of a city, there are people of greater wealth in my constituency, but they are not many in number.

Somebody who is due to retire in 2013-14 aged 65 will lose £323 a year, which other Members have talked about at length. It is worth reiterating the point that I made to the hon. Member for Amber Valley: somebody who is on a fixed income or who will be on a fixed income in a year’s time will have to adjust their affairs overall, including their savings if they are lucky enough to have any. That £323 may not seem much to us on our comfortable salaries as Members of Parliament, but for people on low-level fixed incomes of just above the amount where they would get help other than the basic state pension, that will have a real impact on their household income. I reiterate that we must think about the message that that sends out: pensioners are the victims; those earning £150,000 a year or more are the victors. That is unfair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who made such an enormous contribution to the Public Bill Committee. She enlivened it regularly with her thoughts, with which I have almost invariably disagreed—and today is no exception.

We are now dealing with the best part of the Budget: the heart, soul and even the guts of it. We are doing some big and bold and important things, with which I shall deal in turn. One of them is tough and brave and noble. It is the proper aim of Government to take on difficult things which, although difficult, are right. But I shall start, instead—

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Of course I will.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it bold and tough to rob the pensioners of £3 billion and give the millionaires a £3 billion tax cut?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The pensioners are not being robbed. The pensioners have been extraordinarily well looked after by this Government, and rightly so. I agree in many respects with the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who talked earlier about how important the elderly were to our society. He called them the golden generation. I thought that, out of respect to Her Majesty, we ought to call them the diamond generation, as they are all over 60.

Of course we owe a great deal to the elderly. That is why it is right that they have kept their bus passes—which they are pleased to have, although there are not many buses in North East Somerset—and their winter fuel allowances. If they are over 75, they will also retain their free television licences so they can watch the BBC free of charge. I think that many of them prefer Sky nowadays, but that is a separate issue. The Conservative party, in alliance with our Liberal Democrat friends, has looked after the pensioners.

As for the thresholds, it is absolutely right that they should be evened out. Let us consider the people who are paying tax across the country. How is it fair for those who have retired to be given an automatic tax break, rather than those who are working hard and perhaps bringing up children? They need the income just as much as the pensioners, and in some cases more. That, I think, was bold and brave of the Government, and right.

I want to begin, however, by discussing the easiest step to defend—the one that was so startlingly obvious that it is surprising that the Government did not take it earlier and go further. I am talking about the reduction in the 50p tax rate to 45p. We know well that high taxes drive out enterprise and people, and drive down tax revenues. That is not because of evil schemes of tax avoidance; it is because people simply decide that if they are not going to get paid, they will not work. They remove their labour. Our socialist friends—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

But my concern was about Somerset county cricket club. Football teams such as Manchester United do very well through having more foreign players. Somerset, however, has yet to win the county championship, but this lower level of tax and greater freedom in employing overseas players may lead to its achieving that.

Returning to the question of the 45p tax rate, we have had a discussion about avoidance in that context, and I want to defend tax avoidance. I know this is not the most popular cause to espouse, but I do so because I believe in the rule of law, and I do not believe the rule of law is best maintained by Parliament being arbitrary in its taxation.

We have the power, through our votes this evening, to set rates of tax as we choose—to set schemes that allow people to be charged tax, or not to be charged tax, as we choose. If we in this House are too incompetent to draw up the tax law properly, is it reasonable to say to the taxpayer, “You must work out what Parliament may have wanted. This is not what is said, but Parliament may have wanted you to pay this extra amount on top”? Should we then also say that to people who put money into their individual savings accounts? Should we retrospectively say that they ought to have paid more tax on their ISA sums, or on their pension funds?

[Ian Lavery]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a moral obligation on people to pay taxes, as well as a legal obligation?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

No, I do not. I do not believe that taxation is a matter of morality. I believe the law is a matter of morality and it is immoral to break the law, and therefore I divide very firmly between tax evasion and tax avoidance, which is the historical position of this Parliament—and, indeed, of English law. Tax evasion is criminal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I think the scheme used by a comedian, whose name momentarily escapes me but who is quite famous, was almost certainly unlawful, and that scheme should be prosecuted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that last point; I recognise that there is a need for taxation, though slightly beyond the clauses we are immediately discussing. However, I will answer the important point that he has raised on the tribal nature of football and why people are willing to see these high salaries paid. It is because they recognise that those salaries get them the best quality players and they want to see the best quality players playing for the team that they so ardently and passionately support—it is an ardent passion that I do not have, but I understand that many people do have it. That requires low taxes, because otherwise these players take their talent abroad.

I come back to Professor Laffer, because his argument is one that is so obvious as to be self-evident: if the tax rate is zero, nothing will be raised and if it is 100%, no sane person will pay it either as there is no point in working or in earning. There is some point along that curve where the least legal avoidance takes place—I emphasise that avoidance is legal—the most amount of working is done and the highest amount of revenue is received. We have seen this. I know that some Conservative Members, myself included, think that there was a golden age when Baroness Thatcher was in charge—

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I give way to another supporter of the golden age.

[Ian Lavery]

I intervened just too early, because he mentioned Margaret Thatcher—another issue. Is there anywhere on this curve that the hon. Gentleman continues to mention where morality comes into play?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

This argument is not a moral one. We are not the House of Bishops. I am all in favour of the Lords Spiritual having a view on this, but I am not one of them. I did not go into the Church; I went into politics. Politics is about raising the revenue that is needed for the country to carry out its business, and it is not an issue of morality in terms of how we phrase the laws. That those laws are then obeyed is a matter of morality. I can probably quote paragraphs of the Catholic catechism on this, but you are looking fretful at that thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall move back to the golden age of the noble Baroness Thatcher, Lady of the Garter, Order of Merit.

In 1979, the top tax rate was 98%—83p in the pound on income tax and a 15p surcharge. [Interruption.] I hear Labour Members saying that that was excellent and a jolly good thing. It is rather splendid to know that I am not the only one with dinosaur-style views in this House; there are even greater dinosaurs on the Labour Benches. When those tax rates were reduced they came down first to 60% and then to 40%, to fury from hon. Members. I believe that the House was suspended when the noble Lord Lawson introduced the rate of 40p in the pound; I think the Scottish nationalists got up in a passion of anger, wishing for higher taxation to spread across the realm of the United Kingdom. What did that reduction do? It raised more money for Her Majesty’s Government, which meant that the Government could spend money on their priorities and pay down their debt. We had a golden economic scenario when the noble Lord Lawson was at the helm, because we believed in low tax rates and had the courage of our convictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there are studies that show that that rate would be 36p in the pound. I hope that the Minister is listening and that we can look forward in the next Budget to the rate being lower still.

We have heard discussion about the morality of tax rates, and I dispute that there is morality to tax rates, but there is a perniciousness about taxing for the sake of it and about taxing for the sake of envy, because people do not like the rich or because they wish to crush the income earners in society. That is not the type of envy that we have on these Benches. Even our Liberal Democrat friends do not suffer from that type of envy; they recovered from it after their experience in 1909.

We Conservative Members have never had that type of envy. We recognise that if the maximum amount of revenue is raised, it is better for everybody. We heard our Prime Minister giving an invitation to our friends in France, saying, “Come and join us. The weather here may be rainy, but the tax rate is only 45p in the pound, compared with the 75p that you may have to pay.”

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on what personal tax allowances he would put in place at different levels, if he were the Chancellor and had the power?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It would be an impertinence for someone who entered the House in only the past two years to aspire, even hypothetically, to the height of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I leave that question to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, who, having listened carefully to all that is said in this debate, will no doubt advise the Chancellor. They may consider the figure of 36p in the pound to be perfectly suitable—or they may go further and advocate a flat tax, which is a very attractive proposition. Perhaps people could have tabled an amendment to that effect, but sadly they did not. As I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is no longer in his place—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are talking about unfairness in the tax system as far as rates are concerned, I should say that the much greater unfairness is when wealthy individuals are paying very low rates of income tax—lower rates than are paid by the vast majority of people working in this country.

Let me say a word or two about avoidance. In the Budget, we announced a package of measures that will yield more than £1 billion and protect more than £10 billion in revenues over the next five years. Our approach to tackling stamp duty land tax avoidance and the banking scheme closed down in February demonstrate that we are prepared to move quickly and take radical action where necessary. We are introducing strategic changes to address the underlying loopholes in the tax system, as can be seen in clause 22, which is about the treatment of manufactured overseas dividends. More generally, the Government have been active in their response to tax avoidance schemes and can and do act as soon as they become aware of abusive schemes. We have provided HMRC with additional financial support and we remain absolutely committed to tackling tax avoidance.

Amendment 1 asks us to leave out the additional rate for 2013-14. It is exactly the same amendment as was tabled in the Committee of the whole House. I will not repeat every point that I made then, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, that might well leave us with just a 40p rate rather than a 45p rate. There is an alternative interpretation, which would mean that no income tax was charged for earnings above £150,000. I say that with some nervousness. I hope that I have not overexcited my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset; I think that even he would accept that that was below the revenue maximising point.

When the 50p rate was introduced, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the then Chancellor, explicitly stated that it was a temporary measure. We are announcing the cut to 45p now to provide stability for investment decisions and certainty for employees and the self-employed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the rate for 2013-14 this year.

It is right that we take these measures to improve competitiveness, and our doing so has been widely welcomed. This matter must be viewed in the context of the personal allowance increase, which shows that we are committed to a fairer tax system that provides greater reward for work while supporting the public finances. This year there is a £630 increase in the personal allowance, as introduced by clause 3. That represents the second step in our commitment to increase the personal allowance to £10,000 on top of last year’s increase of £1,000. We have also announced a further increase of £1,100 next year—the largest ever increase in cash terms. The Government are taking 2 million people out of income tax, we are providing a tax cut to 24 million people, and we are well on course to meeting our target of a personal allowance of £10,000.

Let me turn to the second subject that we have debated—age-related allowances. Amendment 23 seeks to leave out clause 4, which introduces a phased withdrawal of age-related income tax personal allowances. Those will remain in place until the income tax personal allowance for those born after 5 April 1948 aligns with or overtakes these levels. At that point, the clause guarantees that older people will receive the higher allowance. Amendment 23, like others tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, is a repeat of an amendment tabled in the Committee of the whole House. The Government have committed to increasing the personal allowance above the rate of inflation. Next year, the personal allowance will increase by £1,100—£840 above inflation—and so from 2013-14 everyone born after 5 April 1948 will receive the same personal allowance of £9,205. This will take a further 880,000 people out of tax altogether. Similarly, everyone born after 5 April 1938 will continue to receive the age-related allowance that they currently receive instead of moving on to the higher age-related allowance, which will be maintained for those born on or before this date. There will be no new recipients of age-related allowances from next April.

One of the Government’s key objectives for the tax system is to make it simple and straightforward for people to understand. Clause 4 helps to provide for a simpler system while ensuring that nobody will lose out in cash terms as a result. It will help to make sure that people get the allowances to which they are entitled and pay the right amount of tax, and make the system simpler for Government to administer, thereby minimising costs to the taxpayer.

[Ian Lavery]

It has been mentioned a hundred times tonight that no one will lose out in cash terms. Will there be any losers in this?

[Mr Gauke]

Nobody will lose out in cash terms; that is the point.

Age-related allowances are complex and hard for older people to understand, as the Public Accounts Committee confirmed in a 2009 report. The same report also stated that too much emphasis is placed on older people having to prove their eligibility, resulting in erroneous claims and potential overpayments of tax. Furthermore, in March this year the Office of Tax Simplification published its interim report on its review of pensioner taxation in which it highlighted no fewer than nine complexities with the age-related personal allowance.

Half the people aged over 65 in 2013-14 will pay no income tax at all and are therefore unaffected by these changes. Those who will now not receive an age-related allowance will benefit from a £1,100 increase in the personal allowance, which represents the largest cash increase ever. At the same time, those who are affected by the withdrawal of age-related allowances will still see the total deductions they pay reduce significantly because we have retained the exemption from national insurance contributions for those of state pension age.

It is important to consider these changes to age-related allowances in the context of the wider support that the Government offer to pensioners. Only 40% of pensioners benefit from age-related allowances, about 50% are unaffected by the changes made by the clause because they pay no tax and will continue to pay no tax, and the remaining 10% have incomes above the taper limit for age-related allowances and are therefore unaffected by these measures.

Let us also remember that the triple lock ensures that each year, the basic state pension will be uprated by the highest of these: inflation, earnings or 2.5%. This April, the basic state pension increased by the consumer prices index inflation rate of 5.2%. That meant that there was an increase of £5.30 a week in the full basic state pension—the largest ever cash increase in the basic state pension. Under the previous Government’s plans, the basic state pension would have increased by only 2.8% from this April—an increase of only £2.85 per week. That means that the full basic state pension is £127 a year higher in 2012 than it would have been under the previous Government’s plans. Next year, a full basic state pension is forecast to be £130 a year higher than under the previous Government’s plans, and the year after that, it is forecast to be £133 higher.

Each year, more than 11 million pensioners will benefit from the introduction of the triple lock. An existing pensioner with a full basic state pension will gain more from the triple lock in each of the next three years than they will lose from the freeze in age-related allowances. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“Our analysis shows that they have lost considerably less from recent tax and benefit changes than any other demographic group. And over the past decade and more pensioner incomes have risen faster than those of the working age population.”

To conclude, the Government are making changes to ensure that there is a fair and competitive tax system. Some of them are controversial, but we should look at the evidence, not the Opposition’s rhetoric. The 50p rate is not sustainable. The introduction of the triple lock on state pensions means pensioners continue to be better off. These changes are good for our long-term tax revenues, good for our economy and good for the UK as a whole. I ask the Opposition to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Changes to the Budget

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry if I did not explain the position sufficiently clearly—although I must say I thought I did. Some Members are making speculative bids for extending the U-turns. They may wish to do so, but the terms of the urgent question relate specifically to the announced changes. I am sure that understanding that point will not be beyond the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery).

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On the announced changes—the U-turns—on everything from buzzards and skips to caravans and pasties, when will the Government reconsider a U-turn on the granny tax and the cut in the tax on the rich people in society?

[Mr Speaker]

I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. He started out as such a good boy, and it is a pity that he spoiled that thereafter. I know that a similar sin will not be committed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), because he is a good listener and a quick learner.

Business and the Economy

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a privilege to speak in a debate when you are fiftieth out of 50 Members, having rewritten your speech four times, for three minutes, five minutes, eight minutes and then 10 minutes, which is absolutely fabulous, and having listened to the discussions and heard everything you wanted to say and every punchline in your speech used by other people. I think that is called parliamentary democracy.

The country was desperate for a Queen’s Speech last week that included a boost for jobs and a boost for growth. It was interesting to see the Government come forward with a plan B at the weekend, subsection (1) of which tells businesses and hard-working people to stop whingeing and get on with it, and subsection (2) explains to them that if they do not do so the Government will change workers’ protections at work and sack them. That is the change of direction we got from the Government.

The coalition Government’s proposals outlined in the Queen’s Speech do nothing to help my constituents, particularly those looking for work, the ordinary families who are already suffering and having their living standards squeezed, and the huge number of mainly small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses that are struggling even to survive, never mind expand.

In my constituency, which was already experiencing extremely high levels of joblessness and deprivation, we have recently experienced another hammer blow, with the forthcoming closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, the largest private sector employer in Northumberland. That has been followed by announcements involving a number of small and medium-sized enterprises, including Remploy.

Remploy factories were set up after the second world war to look after disabled people and to ensure that they could work in a particular environment and do meaningful work, but now we are looking at the closure of 54 such factories throughout the country. It is an absolute outrage that in 2012 we are about to put more than 2,500 disabled people on the dole. If anybody dares to suggest that it is the best thing for them, they had better have asked the individuals involved. I meet them regularly, and believe me, they have no future in terms of employment in this country.

The closure of Rio Tinto will have a massive and devastating impact on south-east Northumberland and what can only be described as an already fragile economy. Some 3,250 jobs will probably be lost, including 650 direct high-quality jobs and 2,600 in the supply chain. As I have said before, those are highly paid private sector jobs in an area that has already been hammered by the Government’s public sector job cuts. There will be a loss to the economy of £120 million on 2007 prices, including £60 million in the immediate vicinity of the plant. There will be an extra cost to the state of £10 million per annum in terms of state benefits and the loss of business rates.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you and many in the Chamber will have heard the saying, “It’s the economics of the madhouse,” and here we see it once again. The loss of the largest private sector company in Northumberland will be felt sharply by coalfield areas in my constituency. Of working-age adults in my constituency, 28%—one in five—are in receipt of out-of-work benefits; that is almost three times the national average. One in three children aged four or under is living in poverty. This is 2012. Those figures are absolutely damning of any Government. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am ashamed to be a politician when one in three children under the age of four do not have enough even to feed their bellies to go to school. It is an absolute outrage.

[Julie Hilling]

What was my hon. Friend’s view when he heard the Prime Minister say:

“You call it austerity, I call it efficiency”?

[Ian Lavery]

If I was not in the palace of varieties and the great hall of democracy, I would answer that exactly as I would like to.

I have mentioned public sector jobs—500,000 of them. Those jobs have not been lost. They have been torn from the economy; they have been stolen from ordinary people; they have disappeared because of the actions of this Government. Those jobs have been lost because of nothing other than the ideology of an incoming Government. We are desperate for growth, jobs and investment, but what do we have? We have a double-dip recession.

There is good news in my area, with Bernicia and Akzo Nobel having decided to locate there. That is absolutely fantastic, and I hope that it will continue, but there are problems with the regional growth fund and with not distributing money fast enough. Statistics announced at the weekend suggest that each job costs some £33,000, but that is not what it was like under the old regional development agency system. We had a shining light—a beacon—in One North East, which was providing brilliant results for the region. Sadly, though, it was abolished within weeks of the Government being elected.

If new companies are to be encouraged into our region, they need to be incentivised. Enterprise zones are fine, but if an area is not part of one and is surrounded by them, it will have huge problems, as we do in Wansbeck. The enterprise zone needs to be extended up through the Alcan site and around the town of Ashington, but the capital allowances must come with that extension. It is no good extending enterprise zones without capital allowances; it may as well not happen. I appeal to Ministers to consider extending the enterprise zone in south-east Northumberland around the Alcan site and to bring with that what capital allowances can be afforded.

We need to protect deprived areas from the effects of the discussions that are taking place in Europe about EU state aid. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises will still be able to get EU state aid after 2013. That is essential because otherwise we will have a double whammy. We also need infrastructure in south-east Northumberland in the form of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne rail line, so that we can get to and from other areas.

The Queen’s Speech offered little to my constituents. We have done everything we can to try to get them on to an even keel. I simply ask: do this Government care?