Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Swales Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Budget announcements are a matter for the Chancellor, but I recognise very much the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. That is why we have asked the Silk commission to consider changes to the financial provisions within Wales—we look forward to its report—but he will also know that the autumn statement saw an additional £216 million of capital funding going as a consequence to the Welsh Assembly Government. I am sure that he, along with me, wants to press them to announce how they will use that money.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Ninety-three organisations in the north-east have been awarded almost £100 million from the regional growth fund. May I welcome the additional £1 billion being allocated to the fund, and will the Chief Secretary ensure that bids are supported that would route more of that money to small and medium-sized manufacturers?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regional growth fund is making an enormous difference across the country, particularly in those regions that are most affected by public spending reductions. Many of those projects are creating jobs and boosting the economy in constituencies such as his. He is right to say that we need to find more ways to get those moneys to smaller businesses, and of course the next round will invite programme bids that can do precisely that.

Eurozone Crisis

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We keep under close surveillance not only British banks but the branches of Cypriot banks and the subsidiaries of other banks operating here in the UK. So we are closely monitoring the Cypriot banks, as we do with the other eurozone banks in Britain.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Has the Chancellor seen any credible figures that show that Greece can solve its long-term deficit and debt problems and still remain in the eurozone?

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, I think that there are plenty of things that Greece can do, which the Greek Government have already identified, to make itself much more competitive. It is coming from a long way behind, but it can do quite a lot in regard to its labour market, its pension ages, its tax rates and the like that would make it considerably more competitive than it is today.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Ian Swales Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, because I am just reaching the end of my speech. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to intervene when other Members are speaking.

The hon. Members for Redcar (Ian Swales) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) have tabled amendment 21, which calls for mitigation measures for energy-intensive industries. I hope that they and other Liberal Democrat Members will feel able to support amendment 12. It has 11 signatories, not all from the Labour party, and like them we call for support for energy-intensive industries. In addition, we have called for help for consumers and support for green investment. Our amendment also calls for the nuclear subsidy to be recouped, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) this weekend, according to the Daily Mail.

The Government have confirmed that there will in fact be a windfall for the existing nuclear industry, despite the Liberal Democrats’ party conference decision last year. Fortunately, the coalition agreement allows Liberal Democrat Members to vote against that without its being seen as an issue of confidence in the Government. I hope that they will make use of that ability today.

The Government’s carbon floor price will not do what they said it would do. It is a missed opportunity for the country. We could have seen a new generation of green investment and jobs, but instead we see ordinary people being hit at the time when they can least afford it. We see UK manufacturing being hit when the Government say they want to promote growth, yet we will not see carbon emissions into the atmosphere reduced by a single tonne, and we might not see green investment. The Government have got the policy wrong, and our amendment asks them to go back and think again.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

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

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

[Geraint Davies]

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

[Ian Swales]

I am not aware of Airbus’s activity in detail, but I will support the hon. Gentleman’s point later by saying that such industries have a role to play in our future, and that they are not just of the past.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has mentioned the comments of the head of Tata Steel. He also said:

“European steelmakers already face the prospect of deteriorating international competitiveness because of”

EU emissions costs. On the provision in the Bill, he added:

“This is an exceptionally unhelpful and potentially damaging measure.”

As well as steel, other large sectors are at risk—including chemicals; oil and gas; cement; aluminium; glass, bricks and ceramics; tyres; and paper. There could be more. Those are broadly the sectors that are most affected, but the EU has gone further and drawn up a list of 164 industrial sectors and sub-sectors that are deemed to be exposed to what it calls carbon leakage. That means that the EU recognises that the EU emissions trading scheme and other measures could disadvantage European companies that compete internationally. The sectors and sub-sectors that are judged to be at risk of carbon leakage are estimated to account for around a quarter of the total emissions covered by the EU emissions trading scheme, but for around 77% of the total emissions from EU manufacturing industry.

The UK Government's proposing to add a further tax to those already in place is bound to have an effect. We have just witnessed fresh closures and 1,500 job losses from Tata in Scunthorpe and Teesside. I see a number of hon. Members in their places who are directly affected by that. Tata again mentioned UK energy prices as a factor in its recent decision, but in the fourth carbon budget statement, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said that

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

The announcement has been welcomed, but there is concern that, to date, there has been insufficient detailed consultation on, and impact assessment of, the proposals with respect to energy-intensive industries. Consequently, the fear is that the Government might underestimate the risk to those sectors.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I suppose I should call him that—for giving way on that point. Does he find it slightly ironic that Members of all parties in this House have for years called for all sorts of extra costs on any industry that generates carbon in any form, but that now, all of a sudden, when the consequences of that become clear, they begin to express their reservations?

[Ian Swales]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

I should like to speak to amendment 12. It is a great pleasure to talk about places that I know well, such as the Teesside Cast Products plant in Redcar, Stocksbridge, Hartlepool and Scunthorpe, as well as Skinningrove in my own constituency.

The chemical industry is no longer the dirty industry depicted in Ron Angel’s “Chemical Worker’s Song”. On Teesside, between 35,000 and 45,000 workers are directly or indirectly employed in the industry, and over the past 18 years, it has reduced its emissions by some 75%. That has been matched by the steel sector’s reduction in energy per tonne of steel produced from 31.7 GJ in 1973 to 19.4 GJ in 2010.

[Ian Swales]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those industries need no further encouragement to reduce their energy use, because, by definition, they already spend a large proportion of their money on energy? They all have a good record in reducing their energy use.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and I entirely agree with him. The industries are in it to make money, and it is obvious to anyone who knows them that they need to reduce the amount of energy that they expend to make their products.

British manufacturing output as a whole has been growing for decades, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. Why is that? Output in the chemicals industry has increased, unlike in other sectors. During the 2008-09 downturn, the industry suffered the second smallest decline in production. The development of the chemical industry over the last decade under Labour has been largely unreported. Only now is it being seen as a sexy subject. However, in places such as Middlesbrough, Redcar and Billingham, we have always referred to ourselves as proud smoggies, in the knowledge that our manufacturing endeavours have far more worth than the machinations of the City.

According to DECC statistics on greenhouse gas reduction, the disappearance of the chemicals sector would directly save an average 10.79 million metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, out of the total UK generation of 627.85 million metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. Across industry, the chemicals sector is responsible for only 3.9% of energy-related emissions. The growth reviews in November and December last year gave good signals to manufacturing. However, the rhetoric contained in those reviews assumed that a low-carbon economy could emerge only by pricing energy-intensive users out of the market. The flaw in that logic is the assumption that the full substitution of fossil fuels will miraculously come about if intensive energy users are strangled. A further flaw is that the technology that will develop green industries actually flows from the existing energy-intensive industries, their research and development, and their skilled work forces, but they will obviously no longer exist in the UK if we force them abroad.

The December growth review stated that high energy prices were a barrier to advanced manufacturing growth, yet the Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change said at the same time that recovery does not come from old industries “bouncing back”, and that the low-carbon industries would be an important part of our growth story over the next 10 years. That was in his speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 1 December last year.

For every tonne of CO₂ emitted in producing insulation, 233 tonnes of CO₂ are saved, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said, for every tonne of CO₂ emitted in producing a wind turbine blade, 123 tonnes of CO₂ are saved. For every tonne of CO₂ emitted in the production of energy-saving tyres, 51 tonnes of CO₂ are saved—and so on, and so on. In the case of insulation, one year’s CO₂ emissions created producing insulation saves 2.4 billion tonnes of CO₂.

At the heart of the issue is the lack of understanding in the Treasury and DECC that these chemical companies cluster, as they always have done, and as they previously did within the large-scale set-ups of ICI. As NEPIC—the North East of England Process Industry Cluster—has proven in my region, locally produced products often feed on-site sister businesses or other company-owned plants. That integration produces better economies of scale, efficiency, profitability and technological development. It is regional clustering, as exemplified by NEPIC in north-east England, which was set up by One North East, that exemplifies industrially-led industrial activism. The Government’s carbon floor pricing policy, on the other hand, fragments industrial integrative clustering.

Unfortunately, the Government assume that secondary industries will not leave the UK, even if the primary chemical industries do. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has said that

“quite a few of the high energy users have forms of natural protection like high transport costs so the impact is rather less than you might expect.”

Unfortunately, empirical evidence wholly contradicts the Government’s stance. As Jeremy Nicholson, director of the energy intensive users group has said:

“The idea that downstream industries are likely to remain here indefinitely if primary production goes might have a theoretical case but I’d say just look at the empirical evidence: downstream manufacturing thrives on co-location with primary industry and why would you expect that to cease in the future?”

Real life examples clearly show just how fragile downstream companies are. Let us consider Wilton, the former ICI site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). The plants were balanced with the ICI ethylene cracker at the top of the production pyramid; as foreign ethylene became cheaper and producers produced offshore, the requirement for the cracker was reduced, leading to other plants downstream such as the Dow plant also being affected.

When Dow closed, 55 direct jobs were lost. That is not as big a media story as the events that unfolded at the mothballing of the Redcar blast furnace at the then Teesside Cast Products Corus plant, but the repercussions of Dow were just as profound. An estimated 2,500 jobs were lost downstream as a result of the closure of Dow’s ethylene oxide production plant—the only ethylene oxide plant in the UK. NEPIC has bounced back, bringing in other investments to Teesside, but it is acutely aware of the loss of primary chemical production and of lost opportunities for technological developments that could be made on Teesside, securing new green markets in turn.

More than this, however, the Secretary of State’s comments condone the loss of primary chemical production as a result of the carbon floor pricing while actually actively pursuing it. The question I must ask is: if industry flees within two years, as feared, how on earth will this carbon floor pricing levy taxation apply when the energy-intensive industry is no longer here? An industry cannot be taxed if it will not hang around to be taxed, which leaves Britain with neither the tax nor the industry.

As many primary raw chemicals are very expensive to transport and in some cases are banned from transportation, the Secretary of State’s relaxed approach appears uninformed. Many secondary production companies are small and medium-sized enterprises, often with fewer than 10 employees, and economies of scale for the transportation of such vast quantities of chemicals are just not viable, making the whole operation futile and highly costly for such small operations.

Amendment 12 would ensure that the Government look at the immediate impact of the provisions in the schedule on energy-using manufacturing industries and on employment in those industries; and at how the moneys raised by those measures will be used to mitigate the immediate impact of the schedule on consumers and on manufacturing industries and to encourage green investment. At the very least the Government must monitor and review their own policy and its consequences, which I fear will be devastating for energy-intensive industry and for my area of Teesside. A review will allow the Government to take stock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am pleased to speak in support of amendment 12, because the House needs much more detail from the Government on the impact of a carbon floor price, including possible unintended consequences.

First, however, let me say a few words about amendment 21. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the comments made about the amendment, we need to be reasonable when looking at the impacts of the sort of floor price we are talking about on energy-intensive industries. I am quite sure that some parts within those industries will face real problems, and it is right to look at measures such as border tax adjustment so that they are not put at a competitive disadvantage.

Let us not forget, however, that the EU has already exempted large numbers of energy-intensive industries from paying for the EU permits under the emissions trading scheme. Let us not forget that not all energy-intensive industries are subject to carbon leakage. Some undoubtedly are, and we certainly need elements of mitigation for them, but some can quite easily raise their prices and pass them on. Let us not forget that what we are trying to do is to put a price on carbon. That is the purpose of the whole exercise. Yes, we need to look at mitigating measures, where necessary, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose the purpose of the exercise, which is to shift to a greener economy. Let us not forget that research by the university of Cambridge and others has found no empirical evidence to show that more ambitious climate policies will result in mass relocation of industries out of the EU.

[Ian Swales]

I respect the hon. Lady’s expertise on these issues. Can she give examples of energy-intensive industries that she feels are at no risk of carbon leakage?

[Caroline Lucas]

What I can say is that I have been in the European Parliament, that representatives of industries have told us time and again that the latest EU environmental law will lead to mass relocation from Europe, and that plenty of studies have shown that that has not happened. I accept that many energy-intensive companies will face problems that will need to be mitigated, but, according to those studies, the risk of relocation is far lower than has been suggested.

[Ian Swales]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I will not give way again, because I want to talk about amendment 12, which I have tabled.

I agree that an effective carbon price mechanism has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity power, mainly by increasing the carbon liability attached to energy use and thereby making energy efficiency measures and renewables more attractive. It also embodies the “polluter pays” principle, which, of course, I also support. I fear, however, that the proposed carbon floor price will not ensure that investment in energy generation is directed towards low-carbon technologies.

I hold that view for a number of reasons, including the fact that market-based solutions to direct investment in low-carbon generation have proved pretty weak in the past. For example, the EU emissions trading regime has so far failed to maintain the cost of pollution allowances at high enough levels to make any significant difference in reducing emissions. It is also true that, because the floor price will be subject to annual votes in Finance Bill debates such as this, it will fail to provide the price stability that is needed to boost certainty and security for investors in low-carbon energy sources. Furthermore, it can be difficult to judge the level at which a carbon floor price should be set to give appropriate incentives to the various technologies that the Government wish to support.

It is clear from those inherent weaknesses that a carbon floor price will maximise its potential to support a low-carbon economy only if any additional revenues that it raises are ring-fenced for use in support of that transition. That must include, in particular, energy efficiency measures for the fuel-poor. Many Members have raised that subject this evening. The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that an additional 30,000 to 60,000 households could be pushed into fuel poverty in 2013 as a result of the carbon floor price because it will push up the cost of electricity.

It is therefore crucial for flanking measures to be introduced alongside a carbon floor price, including measures that will properly support and protect those in fuel poverty. They should include proper capitalisation of the green investment bank, support for the implementation of the green deal—for instance, ensuring that the “eco” element is increased considerably, given that it is the part directed at the fuel-poor—and, indeed, assisting in the development of innovative renewable energy technologies. Failure to ring-fence the revenue of the carbon floor price would mean missing a real opportunity to focus efforts on the technologies that will most quickly cut emissions from power generation.

Many other Members have reinforced the idea that the carbon floor price must not deliver windfall profits to the well-established nuclear industry, which has already been heavily publicly supported for many years. The Government’s own figures show that existing nuclear generators stand to gain £50 million a year from it until 2030. It is vital for the Government to clarify whether such a windfall constitutes the kind of subsidy for nuclear power that they have repeatedly said they will not provide. It looks very much like a subsidy to me, and it looks very much like a subsidy to the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), who has said that the Government should be upfront about the fact that it is a subsidy. He has also said that

“it would be deeply irresponsible to skew the whole process of electricity market reform simply to save face.”

I hope that Ministers will benefit from his expertise, and will recognise that rigging the electricity markets simply to try to provide more support for nuclear generation is entirely wrong.

Finance Bill

Ian Swales Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

Some of those things were tried in the past by the previous Administration—incentives for people to stop smoking, for instance. That is not what I am talking about, and I think you might well say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order if I started to drift on to those subjects. One of the great things about today’s debate, of course, is that we have all night to scrutinise the Bill. One of the benefits of having no programming is that nobody can stop our discussions, and so far there has not been any filibustering.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Clearly we have a financial problem in this country. Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the number of people who do not currently sign up for private medical insurance but would be likely to do so in order to establish the costs of the new clause?

[Mr Bone]

The proposal applies to retired people, so I think that it will affect people who have private medical insurance through their companies or who can afford to have it while they are employed, but who drop it when they retire, at the very time when they are most expensive to the national health service. The more people we can encourage to take it up, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

We will have to wait and see. I just hope that my words are powerful enough to entice them to come through the Lobby with us, but I am afraid we will have to wait until a little later in the evening.

I was talking about one positive reason for a temporary VAT cut, but that would not be my main, or only, consideration. The purpose behind the cut would be to help the millions of ordinary people who would benefit from not having to pay those extra pennies and pounds every day to the Government, which they could then use to spend or save elsewhere as they saw fit. They could spend them on other goods and stimulate the economy in that way or they could keep them to pay off their debts. At the moment, many costs have been factored into the margins of businesses and many businesses have not yet raised their prices to meet this new inflation from both VAT and other spending increases. If we can keep prices down through the use of a temporary VAT cut and keep high street prices down with it, we will help families. On the other hand, if we can secure the margins for shops and companies, we will help business. I hope that Government Members will agree with that point. Either scenario would be a win-win situation for families and business. Negating a key element of inflationary pressure would also enable monetary policy to be kept loose for longer, which I would imagine is a key objective for the Treasury and the Monetary Policy Committee.

In closing last year’s debate on the effect that the VAT increase would have on the budgets of public sector organisations, the devolved Governments and charities, I asked the Government what analysis they had made of the impact that increasing VAT would have on the operating costs of those bodies, as one study had estimated that increasing VAT would cost charities alone an extra £150 million per annum. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that specific point in winding up. We will be pushing for a division on new clause 9, as it would introduce a temporary reduction and is more likely to generate support across the House. New clause 6 would be our preferred solution in the long term, but I will not push it to a vote tonight.

[Ian Swales]

I rise to speak against new clause 6 and I note that we have had no costings from its proposer, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I would be interested to find out what he thinks the policy would cost. I can report that there was no dancing in the streets of Redcar when the VAT was reduced from 17.5% to 15%, and neither have we had riots in the streets about the rises from 15% to 17.5% and then to 20%.

[Ian Lucas]

There may not have been dancing in the streets, but after that reduction in VAT there was economic growth—something that has not happened as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s new-found friends’ policy, which he is now following, but which he refuted and rejected in order to get elected.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I believe that the policy that his Government followed cost £12 billion; it would be difficult to spend £12 billion and not give some stimulus to the economy. I shall come to my view on that in a moment.

There was hysteria about the VAT rate among Labour Members, but if people in the street were not shouting about it, it is worth asking why. Our predecessors in this place knew that putting VAT on everything would be a very regressive measure, so they did not do that. They recognised that the basic costs of living should be VAT-free. In fact, when it was first introduced in 1979, some reporters described it as a luxury tax. Let us just think about all the things that are VAT-free: rent, mortgages, council tax, water costs, fares on buses, trains and planes, prescriptions, dental and optical care, newspapers, magazines, books, betting, bingo, the lottery, postage, TV licences, children’s clothes and shoes and, above all, food. Although gas and electricity were originally VAT-free, they now have a fixed VAT rate of 5%.

[Ian Lucas]

Because of the Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

Yes, absolutely. This Government have made no changes on any of those items, nor will the new clause lower the cost of those items. Of course, that list covers the vast bulk of the weekly bills of lower-income families and pensioners. In fact, I am sure that many pensioners do not pay any standard VAT in many a typical week.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is hard to know where to start, given the number of areas on which the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but let me just point out one. The increase in VAT affects the cost of absolutely everything. As it is on fuel, it adds to the cost of getting food to our properties. VAT impacts on the cost of every single thing. It is an indiscriminate tax that hits the pensioner, the unemployed, and the single mother just the same is it does the millionaire in his castle.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I just read out a long list of items that are VAT-free; that was the point of what I was saying.

[Clive Efford]

Those items were VAT-free when the hon. Gentleman made his pledge at the general election. When he stood for election, he said that the poorest people in society were affected most by increases in VAT, and that it was therefore a regressive tax. He was right then, and that point is still right now. Why, then, is it correct and appropriate for the poorest people in our communities to pay for the deficit that was run up by the richest bankers in the country?

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman has strayed off the topic of the new clause, but on my party’s policy on VAT, obviously we are between a rock and a hard place, due to the economic state of the country. We had some very difficult choices to make, and a progressive expenditure tax is the right answer.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend points out that difficult choices had to be made; indeed, they would undoubtedly have had to be made if a Labour Government had been returned. Does he recall that it was the policy of the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise VAT to 19%?

[Ian Swales]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for reminding me of that fact. One of the things that have been absent from Labour Members is alternative policies to those being pursued by the Government.

The week after VAT was reduced by 2.5%, Cristiano Ronaldo, the premiership footballer, saved £4,000 on the cost of his new Ferrari. He will also have made massive savings on many of his other purchases during that period. I doubt whether any constituent of mine saved £4,000 as a result of VAT being reduced.

VAT as applied in this country is a progressive tax on spending. The more people spend, the more they pay, so the inconvenient truth is that cuts in VAT benefit people in proportion to how wealthy they are.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that when Save the Children says that

“the discount rate and exemptions doesn’t take into account the incomes of people buying goods and services—so they are not enough to make VAT fairer”,

Save the Children has got it wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I understand that charities have an issue with VAT, and I understand that Save the Children is right in its analysis. I am talking about the effect on personal spending.

The concept of a progressive spending tax is well understood across Europe. New clause 6 would take VAT in the UK back to a level where, among EU countries, only Cyprus and Luxembourg would have a lower rate. We have not heard from the Opposition parties how they plan to finance the cut in VAT.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman think of any other way in which people who can afford a Ferrari could contribute to the tax system?

[Ian Swales]

Well, £4,000 extra VAT is obviously one way that they are contributing as a result of this Government’s policies.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the previous debate that the important focus of the tax and benefit system is on need and alleviation of poverty. I believe that VAT increases, which impact on the wealthy more than on the poor, are a good way of doing that.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to VAT as a progressive tax. It is a flat tax, proportionate all the way up the income scale. Progressive taxes have increasing rates at higher incomes.

[Ian Swales]

Technically, VAT is a progressive spending tax because the average rate paid increases the more one spends. That is the definition of a progressive tax.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in relation to the proportion of a household income rather than its expenditure, VAT is a regressive tax? That is why we on the Opposition Benches are opposed to it.

[Ian Swales]

No, I do not accept that, because of the long list of items that are VAT-free. If everything had VAT applied, I would agree with the hon. Lady.

We have had no view about how the Opposition would fund the proposed cut in VAT. If they wished to borrow, which presumably is the answer, there are many options which are fairer to pensioners and the less well-off and more likely to encourage economic growth. Reducing VAT would be a flawed policy, just as it was last time, and I urge the House to reject new clause 6.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I shall speak to new clause 10, but before I do so, may I remind the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) that he fought an election on the Tory tax bombshell? I remember pictures of the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), standing in front of a poster that referred to a Tory tax bombshell—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend’s region of Yorkshire and Humberside has a 9.2% unemployment rate overall, compared with 5.7% in the south-east of England. For someone who is unemployed, the figure is 100% wherever they are. Nevertheless, there are regions of the United Kingdom where many people are chasing jobs, there is a lack of consumer confidence, traditional manufacturing and the retail industry are being hit by a lack of demand, and growth is not occurring, and the VAT increase has been damaging to all those things.

[Ian Swales]

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech and that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). Neither has contained details of the cost of such a reduction in VAT. Once we know that figure, we will be able to give many ways in which our economy could be stimulated with such an amount of money. We are still not sure where it is coming from. Reducing the price of Italian sports cars and round-the-world cruises is only one option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to one of my friends from the north-east, who I am sure has something relevant to say.

[Ian Swales]

As a fellow north-east Member, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech. I believe that the previous VAT cut cost £12 billion. She makes a persuasive case for the need to stimulate the economy. Does she think that borrowing £12 billion and then cutting VAT is the best option from all the choices available?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The fact is that the current rate of 20% is hurting, and it is not working. Growth has stalled. We need to return to growth, particularly in the north-east, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support such a move.

A sector that has faced particular difficulties over recent months and years is the construction industry. It is thought that one in five of the firms going into administration are from that sector, and research recently undertaken by the Financial Times has found that construction orders have fallen by 40% in the past 12 months. That is an alarming figure. It is really worrying, when we consider that construction makes up around 10% of the UK economy, and that some 80% of the materials used by the industry are procured from within the UK, creating an economic stimulus and jobs in other sectors.

The construction industry is one clear example of how public spending can support private sector growth and jobs. Indeed, it is estimated that every £1 spent on construction leads to an increase in gross domestic product of nearly £3 and stimulates growth elsewhere in the economy worth nearly £2. The maths is simple. It is widely accepted that coalition decisions to cancel projects such as Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme, to cut the housing and regeneration budget by 70%, to end the HomeBuy Direct scheme, and to scrap regional spatial strategies, are having, and will continue to have, a seriously detrimental effect on the construction sector.

The coalition’s VAT rise is also having a considerable adverse impact on many small and medium-sized construction firms, particularly when combined with the draconian cuts that the Government are imposing on public spending. Indeed, at the time of the VAT rise the Federation of Master Builders—an organisation to be taken very seriously—expressed its concern that 11,400 jobs would be lost in the construction sector alone over the next decade as a direct result of the coalition’s decision to hike VAT to 20%. The impact of VAT must be kept under review.

Household income in the north-east is the lowest in England, and a temporary reduction in VAT would have a positive impact on the spending power of people living in my city and region, helping to support local businesses, local economic growth and local jobs. Such a reduction could not come at a more apposite time, given that my region is facing the policies of what Kevin Rowan, the regional secretary of the Northern TUC, has recently described as a “profoundly anti-Northern Government”.

That is a description I would agree with, in the light of the impact of some of the coalition’s policies highlighted by Mr Rowan. They include the abolition of One North East and the planned sale of its assets to finance national Government administration—something that is not happening in London. Furthermore, job creation is simply not keeping up with job losses, with up to 19 jobseekers applying for every vacancy in some areas of the region. The north has the highest unemployment rates in the UK, and it is seeing cuts in disability benefits that will have a disproportionate impact on former industrial heartlands, as well as cuts in tax credits, the abolition of area-based grants and local government cuts significantly higher than those in many councils in the south-east. It is for those reasons that I support the proposal for the Government to undertake an assessment of the impact on UK growth of the rise in the rate of VAT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

The whole point of an active Government who take an interest in re-igniting the economy was absolutely that—to create jobs and ensure wealth creation so that we would be in a better position to pay back quickly—

[Ian Swales]

Can the hon. Lady confirm that she is now proposing a cut in VAT and car scrappage schemes and other measures to stimulate the economy? Or is she offering a choice?

[Nia Griffith]

I am asking about the Government’s growth strategies. I am trying to explain by giving some examples of how Governments can stimulate the economy and make a difference. They can choose to kick-start the economy or to allow it to go spiralling down and unemployment to increase. These are active choices that a Government can make. We are asking in our new clause for a proper assessment of the effect of the increase in VAT on what is happening now in the economy.

HM Revenue and Customs

Ian Swales Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which has held a number of hearings with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the past few months. HMRC collects about £440 billion, but its estimate of the tax gap—the amount it thinks it could collect compared with what it actually collects—is £42 billion. Others, notably public sector trade unions, have produced even more ambitious estimates of that gap, putting it as high as £120 billion, although a lot of those numbers are more controversial. To put those figures in context, the entire cost of running HMRC is less than £4 billion.

As we have heard, huge systems changes and headcount reductions have taken place in recent years, and they have led to poor morale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) said, HMRC came a lamentable 96th out of 96 on staff morale in the previous civil service staff survey. It also came 95th, 95th and 94th on “Leadership and Management of Change”, “Understanding My Work” and “Learning and Development” respectively. Those are shocking statistics.

I recently visited an HMRC office close to me to meet groups of staff, and their comments confirmed the survey’s findings. Despite being generally low paid and having their job security and pensions under threat, they did not even mention those issues. They talked not only about pride in the service, and their experience and professionalism, but about their frustration at the chaos they could see all around them and, above all, about the “process as seen” mentality. It means that they have mindlessly to process data they know to be wrong. Examples of that can be as simple as not being able to use data from a P60 where they have been omitted from a tax return, which leads to erroneous tax bills or refunds. In the private sector the mantra “Get it right first time” has been around for at least 30 years.

In the same staff survey, damning verdicts were given under almost every heading, as we have heard. Only 13% of staff gave a positive response to the statement, “I feel HMRC as a whole is managed well”, and only 12% agreed with the statement, “Overall I have confidence in the decisions made by HMRC’s senior managers”. Despite those shocking results, the results on other headings still showed that the staff have the appetite and drive to do a good job, so they remain a very good resource for sorting the situation out. It appears that rock-bottom morale and a lack of faith in the management is blighting the department, but that the majority of staff are still interested, engaged and proud of their work.

As has been well reported in the media and in this place, the changes in HMRC have led to chaotic services being provided to clients, and the huge burden of work has led to a higher level of write-offs. For example, just increasing the threshold for claims from £50 to £300 for the past two years has led to the loss of £160 million in revenue. Moreover, each year local caseworkers refer some 4,000 cases of suspected serious evasion to specialised teams for investigation, but the centralised referral system has not been used consistently across the department, despite being mandatory. In 2008-09 just 20% of referrals were taken up by investigation teams, with the rest being returned to the originating officer to pursue.

The department does not analyse the reasons for rejection, which would help to judge the quality of referrals, nor does it know the result of returning those cases to the originating officer. Not only does that lead to caseworkers becoming disillusioned by the low rate at which referrals are taken up, but it has a serious knock-on effect on the tax gap. The average time taken to complete dealing with a case of serious fraud in 2009-10 was 25 months, whereas the internal target is 18 months. Some 75% of cases exceeded that target, and a substantial number took more than three years to deal with. Of course some cases are more complex than others and will take a lot longer to investigate, but it is clear that the department needs to improve the speed and efficiency of investigations in future, to increase the number of cases and bring in more revenue. Inefficiency is clearly causing revenue to be lost.

New structures, such as the penalty regime in force for tax returns relating to the past two years, have been blighted by recurring top-down problems. The new regime was designed to set tougher penalty rates for deliberate errors. It is obviously good practice that such penalties should be recovered promptly, but the department does not routinely monitor whether they have been collected. An analysis revealed that it could not trace payments for 27% of the outstanding tax due on completed civil investigations of fraud. Of the £58 million that could be traced, only 84% had actually been collected. The Treasury is therefore losing tax not only through evasion and legal avoidance but through systematic inefficiency in HMRC. This lends credence to the statistic mentioned earlier that only 13% of staff feel they are managed well. Given that the total cost of HMRC is less than 1% of what it collects, it should not be treated like a normal spending department—judged partly, at the moment, by its ability to slash costs.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Given his experience on the Public Accounts Committee, what is my hon. Friend’s view of HMRC’s claim that it made £1.1 billion-worth of pure efficiency savings between 2005 and 2009-10 without any negative impact on performance? Is that a credible claim?

[Ian Swales]

I can express a personal opinion, which relates to what I was just saying: we should not judge efficiency savings at HMRC without reference to the tax that is collected. We cannot judge it simply according to headcount reductions and those sorts of changes.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Is my hon. Friend aware that 194 million national insurance accounts are not rectifiable even though they are scanned twice a year? HMRC does not even know how much money is in those accounts. Does he think that that is equally a problem, in that the morale has gone because people do not understand what is going on within the system?

[Ian Swales]

Judging by the evidence that the PAC received, there seems to be a lack of control over the trail of cases. All the changes have resulted in less focus on individual companies and taxpayers. I certainly recognise that sort of story.

There should be a constant watch in HMRC on the business case for investment in it. I welcomed the announcement of £900 million in extra funds to address avoidance, but I remind the House that it is targeted at collecting £7 billion, although the tax gap is £42 billion even according to HMRC’s estimates. How have we arrived at the figure of £900 million, and how do we know it is the right amount? As a taxpayer, I would be happy to invest any extra money that could be proved to produce a positive return.

The department has recognised that it has lacked detailed information on the costs and returns of different types of enforcement activity. At present it does not know the costs of, or returns on, civil investigations, or the point at which further investment in a particular type of activity would produce diminishing returns. It is therefore very difficult for it to decide how best to deploy its resources. Its management and senior officials need to show strong leadership and pay close attention to the morale of staff if those problems are to be overcome. The headcount at HMRC should not be reduced further until efficient new systems and ways of working are properly established. The department urgently needs to manage its resources effectively to optimise the tax take. The current system is obviously not working effectively for people either inside or outside HMRC. At a time such as this, when everyone across the country is having to tighten their belt, it is unacceptable that HMRC is failing to collect such a large amount of money through inefficiency and mismanagement. I urge the department and the Government to put this right.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her creativity in using an estimates debate to get so many constituency cases addressed. Following her critique of HMRC, I say to her that the buck stops here in Parliament.

I am not a member of the honourable fellowship of the Public Accounts Committee or the Treasury Committee. I was a member of a Select Committee back in 1997, I believe, when the Labour Whips, in a fleeting moment of jocularity, put me on the Deregulation Committee. I sought to change it to the Reregulation Committee, and we parted company soon after. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) was in the Whips Office at that time, but I do not bear grudges.

I attended the debate on the legislation that founded HMRC. The House was relatively empty, and I believe that I was one of the few Members who tabled amendments on Report. At that time, a number of us were concerned about whether the merger was appropriate. We were also concerned about a trend that started immediately when the merger happened, when 3,000 job cuts were announced. Soon after that, 12,000 more were announced. I do not know of any organisation—public or private—that could have survived the treatment that HMRC received in recent years, including recent months.

When the merger happened, there were 104,000 staff. Since then, there have been 30,000 job cuts. We are now down to 75,000 staff. The £2 billion cuts as part of the comprehensive spending review amount to another 11,500 job cuts. I appreciate that the Government have put back £917 million to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, but cutting £2 billion and putting £900 million back seems like a ricochet policy rather than a planned approach to reform, as many Members have suggested.

I want to follow on from the points that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) made. I chair the parliamentary PCS trade union group, an informal group of Members of all political parties. It enables us to meet the trade unionists who represent HMRC staff—the tax inspectors. Reference has been made to the briefings that have been given in recent months. That has educated us about the role that the staff play and what they have had to endure. It is not just the job cuts; 200 local tax offices have also been cut. We have now been told that there is a radical reduction in the opening hours of the walk-in tax inquiry centres. The point was made that, in some parts of the country, there are no local tax offices and vast gaps. The worst example is Wick in Scotland, where there is nothing in the vicinity and nowhere to transfer the redundant staff to ensure that they are retained in the service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made the point that for every tax official appointed, £685,000 is gained in tax income that is generated.

[Ian Swales]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a walk-in centre that is open only a couple of days a week and staffed by somebody who knows nothing about tax, and whose main role is to note details or direct people to telephones, is not a good walk-in centre?

[John McDonnell]

Yes. In recent years and from the time of the initial legislation, there has been almost a Dutch auction between Front Benchers competing to see who could cut more jobs from HMRC. We tried to point that out. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East gave a good example of how not to do a tax return. Some people need a face-to-face discussion about their tax affairs and that cannot be done through a call-centre mentality.

Some Members have pointed out that the evidence on call centres is fairly appalling. The pressure on call centres has mounted. Let me give some statistics for the record. Calls were up 20% from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Call attempts were up 100% from 2009-2010 to 2010-11. Engaged and busy tones played were up from seven to 35 minutes. One can see why that tune—“Greensleeves” or whatever it is—pushes some people right over the edge if they have to listen to it for 35 minutes. The current contact directorate performance prediction for 2010-11 is that only 40% to 50% of call attempts will be answered.

Public Accounts Committee

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I shall be brief. I am also new to the House and the Public Accounts Committee, and I thoroughly enjoy working for the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and respect the massive expertise of my fellow Committee members.

I wish to discuss the recurring themes of our work, which is an issue that has been mentioned today. Even at this early stage, I recognise the same messages coming out again and again. The hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who are the corporate memory of our Committee, often remind us of that. I was recently contacted by a former senior civil servant in the Home Office, who discovered that I was serving on the PAC and wrote me a long e-mail outlining the issues as he remembered them, how the Committee’s recommendations were dealt with and the crucial issue of accountability. Although he retired seven years ago, his e-mail could have been written about what was happening yesterday.

I am conscious that the Committee tends to review problem areas, rather than successes, and so one perhaps gets a slightly jaundiced view. However, one is struck by the eye-watering sums we often talk about and one can get desensitised. One begins to think that £100 million of waste does not seem too much. Last week, we held a review of errors in the benefits system and it was suggested that £1 billion might be some kind of irreducible minimum. It is inconceivable that that discussion would take place in the private sector with that conclusion being reached.

I support the comments that have been made about leadership. I describe the people who the Committee sees as the good, the bad and the slippery. We get some very good ones, but we certainly get some of the other types too. I was going to talk in detail about the consultancy area, of which I have direct experience, but time does not permit me to do so. I shall therefore pick up just one point on that, which was that consultants tend to be engaged on a time basis, rather than on the basis of fixed outcomes, fixed prices.

So many of our reviews have huge time scales; it is common to be talking about issues that have taken longer than the second world war to sort out. That raises questions about the way the Government contract, engage consultants and so on and whether they really get things done in a timely fashion.

I recognise that there are challenges ahead. Although I welcome some of the Government’s movements on accountability and business plans, there are challenges involving the comprehensive spending review as well as two issues that have not been mentioned yet. The first is the abolition of the Audit Commission, and I still think we need to decide what the post-life is on that. Secondly, crucially, much Government money is now going to outside bodies that are beyond the reach of the National Audit Office. For example, in the consultancy world, £700 million is estimated to go to outside bodies versus £1 billion in departmental spending.

I welcome the motion, which seems a step in the right direction. It is right that we should not engage in political discussion or decision making, but many of our conclusions are not just about the Treasury—they require ministerial action. I commend the motion to the House.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

There is a great deal of detail in the spending review document, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he has had a chance to study it, and of course Departments will set out more detail in due course. He would have a bit more credibility on the subject of controlling the public finances if his colleagues in the European Parliament had not just voted for the 6% rise in the European Union budgets.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the 2007 CSR called for £35 billion in cuts, and that in July 2010 the National Audit Office could find only £6 billion that had been achieved? Does he agree that the failure of the last spending review makes this one much more difficult?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The NAO has indeed criticised the effectiveness of the previous Government’s so-called efficiency programme. Many of those criticisms are well founded, and we will proceed on a very different basis. To give an example, the single indicator that they set out for local authorities to report on their own efficiencies had 66 pages of guidance for them to follow, thereby creating a huge industry in local authorities just to meet the reporting requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

No, I shall finish answering the question. The hon. Gentleman can sit down and be patient, and we will see whether I give way to him a little later.

The Ministry of Justice is already planning cuts of 14,000 in front-line staffing. It has also set aside £230 million to pay for the costs of those redundancies. I asked the Chief Secretary what the figure was for the rest of Whitehall. He will know what that figure is, because he will have signed it off. Twice I asked him for that figure, and twice he avoided the question. It does him no credit if, knowing what that figure is, he comes to this House for a debate on the comprehensive spending review but avoids the question of the costs to the public purse of the redundancies that will be directly caused by the statement made by the Chancellor last week. He knows that figure and he should stand up now and give it to the House. Silence is sometimes far more revealing than an answer.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Lady referred to the number of job losses mentioned in the comprehensive spending review. Can she tell us how many job losses were involved in her alternative plans?

[Ms Eagle]

The key point about our approach to the difficulties in the world economy was that we spent and invested money to keep people in work. We know that the cost of every 100,000 people on the dole is half a billion pounds. The difference between us and the Government is that we were keeping people in work whereas they are taking people out of work. We know from PricewaterhouseCoopers that half a million jobs in the private sector that are directly connected to public sector contracts will also be lost as a result of the Chancellor’s statement last week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Sadly, the Chair left the Chamber a few minutes ago, but we still have some other members here. It is the Committee’s task, usually twice a week, to listen to a saga of Government mismanagement and overspending: some of the cases that we hear about are quite breathtaking, running into billions of pounds. I could give lots of examples, but those who are interested should take a look at the National Audit Office reports. It is absolutely clear from those reports that there is massive potential to save money in the operation of government.

I would like specifically to talk about the report on the previous comprehensive spending review in 2007, which required sustainable value-for-money savings of £35 billion over three years, a period which ends next April. That illustrates the phoniness of saying that everything was fine before the credit crunch. The previous Government clearly knew that spending was getting out of hand, and a year before the credit crunch they looked for £35 billion of savings. It is interesting that that is nearly half of what is proposed in the current CSR.

So how is it going, judged against the 2007 review? Some £15 billion of savings have so far been identified, but when the National Audit Office examined the matter it said that 18% of that did not represent improvements in value for money, and it rejected 44% on the basis that the Departments did not have the cost and performance information to underwrite their claims, so only 38%—£6 billion—has actually been saved. It is clear that the current spending review has to be tougher because of the failure to deliver the previous spending review. As the report that we agreed just yesterday in the Public Accounts Committee states, if Departments had been successful in making real savings of 3%, fewer painful cuts would be necessary now.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank my colleague from the north-east for giving way. Does he have any idea how much it will cost the taxpayer to clear up the social consequences of the Government’s decisions in the north-east?

[Ian Swales]

Clearly the north-east has already suffered, and no doubt there will be more cuts there. The decisions about how much it will cost will come out in the overall review, and I do not have a specific figure, but I do know that the 2007 comprehensive spending review showed a litany of management failure. There were no baselines against which to measure, so we did not even know whether savings were being made. There was no radical thinking, with few of the savings representing major departures from current thinking. That was because the Labour Government did not allow input from civil servants, so it was a top-down exercise. They did not listen to the people who were actually doing the work, and I am sure the current Government will do better than that. There was no proper reporting framework to review progress and there were no milestones—things that would be taken as read in the private sector. There was no personal accountability. We ask questions about that time after time in the PAC—did anybody lose their job as a result of some fiasco? The answer is almost always no.

In the NAO’s July report, the Treasury admitted that it did not have the capability to deliver value-for-money programmes in full, and that needs to be addressed urgently. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will learn the lessons of that report and ensure that the comprehensive spending review is driven effectively in the new environment. We need a better framework, clear personal accountability, proper baselines, clear milestones of progress and detailed monitoring. As the NAO stated, the Treasury cannot just reduce budgets and then walk away. I hope that there will be a hands-on approach and that we will deliver the savings that have been set out.

I deplore the fact that the manufacturing industry went from representing 22% of the economy to 11% under the previous Government, and that a recent BBC Experian study showed that my area was 319th of 324 in the country economically; that Hartlepool, across the river, was 314th, and Middlesbrough, next to mine, 324th. I see my fellow local MP, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), in his place. We need take no lessons from the previous Government about economic development in the north-east.

I welcome today’s announcements on the Tees valley local enterprise partnership, the regional growth fund and the green investment bank, and I look forward to a revival of the local economy under this Government.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Ian Swales Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes, we have to wonder whether the absence of so many Members from the Government Benches was due to a lack of interest or the fact that some of them have serious reservations about what is being proposed today. It was particularly noticeable that very few women Members from the coalition parties attended or spoke in the debate. I hope that that shows some concern on their part.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys suggested that children would be better served by a piggy bank in their bedroom than a child trust fund, which shows a shocking lack of understanding of the issues. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) showed a similar lack of understanding by saying that an individual savings account was a better form of saving at zero cost to the taxpayer than a child trust fund. I gather from his CV that he worked for Baring Asset Management; I suspect that a background of working for Barings is not the best qualification for advising other people on how to manage their assets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) made an eloquent speech in defence of the child trust fund. I want to congratulate her on becoming a grandmother today—[Interruption.] Has it not arrived yet? Well, I hope mother and baby do very well when it does finally come along. [Interruption.] Yes, there should now be a pregnant pause in my speech, as the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), says.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleagues from Northern Ireland showed how important they thought the child trust fund was for the people of Northern Ireland. He mentioned that it is backed by the credit union movement, which is obviously well developed there, and that it has cross-party support. We very much valued his support on that point.

The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) described the contributions of Labour Members as “hysterical”. I have to say that that word is often used by a certain type of man when women express strong views. I am sorry if this makes him uncomfortable, but Labour Members are not desiccated calculating machines and we care passionately about defending the measures that the Government are trying to abolish in this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) gave, as always, an awe-inspiring speech. She has impeccable credentials on this point and demonstrated the eloquence that comes from truly knowing her subject and caring passionately about it.

My constituency neighbour—in all other senses he is probably from another planet from me—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), talked about these measures involving “pitiful” amounts that are “too small” to make a difference. It may be that in the world that he inhabits these sums are pitiful, but I ask him to cross the constituency border and come to meet some of the people whom I deal with in Bristol East, because he would then learn some lessons about how much difference these small amounts of money can really make.

That was something that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) showed in a well researched speech full of statistics. She described just how investing small sums can create substantial assets for a child in its future.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way because we are a bit under the cosh.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) talked about how scrapping the child trust fund would heighten the contrast between the tax advantages for the wealthiest savers and the poorest and vulnerable slipping further and further behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reminded the House of the old biblical tale of the widow’s mite and the comparison with the poor being made to contribute to deficit reduction at great sacrifice while the very richest in society will not feel the same pain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson) talked about how the saving gateway had been piloted in Hull. That measure was not mentioned as much during today’s debate, but it is obviously important and it was praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)—I think that I finally pronounced that right after several attempts—talked about how the child trust fund is about freedom and opportunity, and not about the nanny state. That is such an important point to make, because the fund is about creating the ability for young people to go out into the adult world with a little bit behind them that they can put to good use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly pointed out that those on the Government Benches have been using specious arguments against universalism all afternoon, yet they are not arguing that the health in pregnancy grant should be targeted, although that would be the logical conclusion of their argument. They are also not using the same argument to say that the winter fuel allowance, for example, should be targeted.

We heard a passionate defence of the health in pregnancy grant and the child trust fund from my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). The latter described some of the language used or some of the suggestions made by those on the Benches opposite about what the health in pregnancy grant could be used for as quite offensive. The suggestion that ladies, as my neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Somerset, would say, cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely in a way that would benefit their health and their child is quite offensive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Swales Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not read the Red Book. I think that pages 66 and 67 show the distribution analysis in cash terms and as a percentage of income. We do not need to take any lectures from members of a Government who widened the gap between rich and poor.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to support economic growth in the north-east.

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

To support private sector enterprise throughout the UK and to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from sustainable economic growth, the Government will use the national insurance system to reduce the cost to new businesses of employing staff in all parts of the UK outside London, the south-east and the east of England. We will establish a £1 billion regional growth fund to support strategic growth and focus investment in the English regions. We will also publish a White Paper later in the summer on a new approach to sub-national growth, including local enterprise partnerships.

[Ian Swales]

Does the Minister agree that Teesside represents a great opportunity for the new green investment bank, and that it would be a good location for the administrative centre of the bank?

[Mr Hoban]

I welcome the interest shown in Teesside as a location for the green investment bank. Throughout the north-east, on Teesside, Wearside and Tyneside, we are seeing significant investment in green technology, which is a key way of rebalancing the economy and creating more private sector jobs in the north-east.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Lady clearly did not listen to my earlier answer. When looking at the distributional impact, it is very important, particularly with indirect tax measures, to look at the expenditure effects, not the income effects. The IFS report shows very clearly the enormous distinction between the conventional answer on the distributional impact on income and the answer when we look at the expenditure effects.

The choice for this Government has been clear: either we manage the transition to lower borrowing to sustain the recovery, or we will have those choices yanked from our hands by the markets and we will face force majeure. It is far better to design a fair package, as we have done, than to have an unfair package imposed on us that no one has had the time or thought or energy to design.

No fiscal package responding to a market emergency that I have ever seen has been fair, whatever Opposition Members may say. I spent five years of my pre-political life analysing sovereign risk and sovereign crisis. I was in Seoul before Christmas 1997, in Djakarta at the time of the food riots, and in Bangkok when the authorities struggled with the collapse of the Thai baht, and I never want to see a British Government have to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund as those countries did, as Greece is now doing and as the friends of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North had to do in 1976.

Had we run the risk of contagion—of a sharp spike in Government and probably short-term policy interest rates too—the impact on growth would have been severe. The truth is that the course of action that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends recommend—the Micawberish course of hoping that something will turn up—would have put the British economy and British jobs in the international firing line, and no responsible Government would have done that. Frankly, I have enough respect for the intelligence and judgment of the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he would not have adopted that stance if he and his friends had been re-elected.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that regressive taxes are those that stay the same regardless of people’s income, such as council tax, whereas progressive taxes are those that increase with income, such as value added tax, under which the rich will pay more because they will spend more? [Interruption.] I say that as one of the qualified accountants in this House. [Interruption.]

[Chris Huhne]

Before Opposition Members start chortling away, let me say that my hon. Friend makes a very good point. I would merely remind Opposition Members which Government raised council tax so steeply—the most regressive tax in the entire toolkit. Year after year under a Labour Government it was pushed up and up and up.

Let me now turn to the issue of growth and jobs. At this stage in every business cycle that I have followed, going all the way back to the recovery from the bust that followed the Barber boom in the early ’70s, the cry always goes up, “But where will the jobs come from?” That cry is particularly urgent whenever, as has too frequently happened, Governments are trying to deal with the legacy of past fiscal misdeeds. However, the forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility is a reasonable central assessment and is similar to independent forecasts. It shows that the biggest impetus to growth this year comes, as is usual at this point in the cycle, from the inventory cycle. Recessions inevitably put businesses under enormous financial pressure. Businesses try to raise cash by cutting output and by meeting the demand for their goods from stocks, but that process has to exhaust itself as those stocks of finished goods run down. More of the demand for those goods then has to be met from output, and businesses once again gear up production. That is where we are today. The inventory cycle is a powerful stimulus. The OBR forecast has it contributing 1.2% of gross domestic product this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I am coming to them in a minute. That has been the case historically, but the difference this time is that the Liberal Democrats are faced with a choice. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—someone I respect; a person of good conscience who came into politics to make our country fairer—has a big decision to make. He is not going to fall for the stuff we have heard from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, trying to explain away the Budget.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark knows an unfair Budget when he sees one, so he has a decision to make in the coming days. He has an honourable path to take. He can say, “Up with this I will not put.” That is what Liberal Democrats throughout the country will expect him to do. Maybe he will defeat the Budget, maybe he will get the Government to rethink parts of it, but he could lead a movement, not just of Liberal Democrats in the House but of Liberal Democrats outside the House who will join him. He did not come into politics to put up VAT or to freeze child benefit. He campaigned against the freeze in child benefit in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher. He did not come into politics to abolish the health in pregnancy grant. He did not come into politics to do those things, and he is not in office. He does not face the choice of resignation: he faces the choice of how to vote. In all candour I say to him that he wanted a Lib-Lab alliance after the last general election because he knew what would happen otherwise. He saw it in the runes. He saw where things would go, and he was proved right. But now he faces the ultimate choice in politics, which is between principle and expediency—and he should follow principle.

[Ian Swales]

Yesterday The Independent described the Budget as a social democratic Budget. I came into politics via the Social Democratic party, and I am very happy with the Budget.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in The Independent. I say in all seriousness to him that, as we saw, the presentation from the Chancellor was that this was a fair Budget, and for a few hours it fooled some people, who thought that perhaps it was fair. But that has been completely exposed and blown apart by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but we all know what he would be doing if the Budget had been presented and he was not in government. He would be railing against it with his great eloquence. He would be talking about what he came into politics for: his belief in fairness.

One of the central arguments of the leader of the Liberal Democrats at the election was that the poorest people in our society paid too much in tax and the richest paid too little in tax. That was the central and powerful claim made by the Liberal Democrats at the election. The question one must ask is: what happens as a result of the Budget? It makes the situation worse. How can the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark possibly vote for that? This is not a Budget that he can in all conscience support.

The Budget does not help to lay the foundations for economic growth and it is not fair. It also attacks some of the most important things that we have in this country to help the poorest families, such as tax credits. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he would reduce payments to families earning over £40,000 next year, but we learn from the Red Book that the cuts are for those earning over £25,000 a year—not well-off families.

What about fairness? How have the banks fared as a result of the Budget? The banks were a big target for the Liberal Democrats during the election campaign. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shouts “Bank levy”. Perhaps this is the saving grace for the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps that is something that he can cling on to. It is interesting, because that is starting to unravel too. There was much trumpeting of the bank levy in the Budget as a fairness measure. But the reality is that the corporation tax cut from 28% to 24% will help every bank in the country. HSBC’s banking analysts say:

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

When the measures are taken together, the banks are not worse off but better off—another shred of credibility for the Budget destroyed. Deutsche Bank says that it is a good outcome for the banks. It is plain to see who bears the burden. This is not a Lloyd George Budget; it is a repeat of the unfair, unequal, unjust Tory Budgets of the past.

I end on a point about trust and credibility. The Liberal Democrats said that there should be no spending cuts this year; now they support them. They said that they supported our four-year deficit reduction plan; now they do not. They said that there should be no VAT rise; now they support it. They said that there should be protection for young people through the future jobs fund; now they support its abolition.

It takes a long time to establish an honourable political tradition, but it takes a very short time to destroy it. This is a week of judgment for the Government, but in particular it is a week of judgment for the Liberal Democrats. I say to them very clearly that they should exercise their conscience and be willing to oppose the Budget. The question that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues need to consider this weekend is whether they are still the party of Keynes, Beveridge and Lloyd George. We all know that those three men would turn in their graves at the idea that the inheritors of the liberal tradition were supporting this Budget.

Today, Liberal Democrats face the ultimate choice between power and principle. They did not come into politics to raise VAT, freeze child benefit or do all those other things. No doubt they think that voting against the Budget would truly make them turkeys voting for Christmas. The opposite is true. If they vote for the Budget it will bring unfairness and injustice to the people whom they claim to represent. It will go against everything that they have claimed to stand for, and it will destroy for ever their claim to be a progressive alternative. That is why they should vote down this unfair, unjust Tory Budget that will damage our economy and divide our society. That is why they should join us in the No Lobby to vote down the Budget next week.