Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Ian Swales and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

Another thing that the Government have done is to move towards localising business rates again. Certainly my part of the world, which had huge industrial sites such as the one I have mentioned, was pretty nonplussed when all that money was collected by a Government in the 1980s, taken to the centre and then doled out in different proportions. We need to move towards more localisation, not least to incentivise councils to drive economic development. I would argue that that has not been happening sufficiently in some parts of the country, and I live in one of them.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and there is also the issue about where people live, where they work and what services they use. The south-west has a particular issue when its population doubles every summer, because people may not make a contribution through taxes paid directly in the south-west, but they are using services there. There is another whole argument to be had about the location of rates versus how they are collected.

I will not detain the Committee long. The Government are on the right track with corporation tax. Let us put it this way: there is plenty of work for the next Parliament to do, and I shall watch with interest from afar.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), because we have served together on a number of Finance Bill Committees during the past five years. The debates on the details of a Finance Bill in Public Bill Committee are often better than those on the parts of the Bill taken on the Floor of the House. The theory is that the debates on the more important and bigger parts of the Bill are taken in the Chamber and then the Bill goes upstairs, but the Public Bill Committee often allows us to have quite fruitful debates on many of the issues.

One thing that has been very clear during this Government—perhaps this has always been the case, but it seems to be growing—is that all the political parties are falling over themselves to talk about the importance of small and medium-sized businesses, and we are all the friends of small business. Small businesses are probably very pleased to hear politicians talk so much about them, but then the issue becomes one of whether it is talk or action. It is very easy to praise small businesses, but such businesses, especially new ones, sometimes feel that the system is set against them.

One new business in my constituency involved two young women who set up a fitness studio. They went into premises on what was effectively a redevelopment area after our old hospital had been relocated. Largely because of the financial crash and the recession, the whole redevelopment took longer than expected, so the population to support new businesses had not arrived at the expected rate. Although they got a rent holiday for the first 18 months from the developer who was renting them their premises, which was welcome, they were struggling with business rates. Oddly, even though my local council said that it wanted to encourage economic development and had particularly encouraged the redevelopment of that site, it was not particularly forthcoming with help for a new business.

Those young women were not in the region of having to worry about corporation tax—that was not where their business was. They had to worry about the rates. It was touch and go, but I was pleased to see recently that they are still there and have managed to overcome their initial difficulties. Some of the other redevelopment is beginning to happen, so I hope that they will continue to be successful. However, we do not always join the dots either locally or nationally. Things such as rates are essential for a lot of small businesses, and we have to support such businesses to the greatest extent that we can.

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in his points about business rates being retained locally. We have to work through the conflict between that and redistribution to ensure that different areas of the country are assisted in developing. When I was on the council in Edinburgh, we often raised the issue. It was and still is an expanding city, and it generates a lot of business. We have big events that generate worldwide attention, and a lot of businesses feel that they bear the cost of all that without necessarily seeing the rates coming back to the city. It is all very well to say that we get rates in because we have events such as the festival and big tourist attractions, but sometimes it feels that the rates are not coming back. I understand the tension between that and looking at the region or country as a whole and trying to build wealth. It is not easy, but we have to incentivise businesses as far as possible to feel that keeping on growing is to their advantage as well as to wider advantage.

Politicians and political parties must not just pay lip service to the importance of small business. We must do specific things to assist, and that is what amendment 2, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), is intended to do.

The hon. Member for Redcar probably has a different view of economics from mine, but he appeared to be of the view that if a company is making a profit, it will be ploughing it back in the right directions. I do not think that is necessarily always the case. Big businesses in particular should make a good contribution to our society, and we have to ensure that they do. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between Ian Swales and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark.

I represent areas that, I am sure, are not dissimilar to those of Members who have already spoken and intervened and where there is a great deal of deprivation. Anybody who wants to learn about my constituency can look at the long article about it in the business section of last weekend’s edition of The Sunday Times.

The amendments tabled by Opposition Members forget some important things. The Labour party kept the top rate at 40% throughout its time in office, until its very last day in power. The only day the rate was 50% was 6 April 2010—the day Parliament was dissolved for the general election.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) have both questioned how principled the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, the right hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), were in their commitment to raising the rate to 50%. One thing is for sure: a general election was approaching and they probably knew that the increase would be the gift that kept on giving in terms of headlines. They had levied taxes in any way they could and they knew that going up from 40% was a dubious move in terms of raising revenue; otherwise, they would have done it earlier. What it did do was lead to more headlines.

Millionaires are paying £381,000 more in income tax in this Parliament than they did in the previous Parliament. Having said that, cutting the rate was not the top priority for me or my party. Our priority was to cut taxes for ordinary working people and we are very proud of the large moves we have made in that direction.

We should also remember that taxing the rich is not only about the headline rate of income tax. Let us consider some of the other measures this Government have already taken. Withdrawal of the personal allowance on incomes of more than £100,000 means that there is already a 60% tax rate on incomes between £100,000 and £120,000. On capital gains tax, anybody lucky enough to make a capital gain of £1 million will pay £100,000 more tax under this Government than they did under the previous Government. The 18% rate of capital gains tax under Labour meant that City operators who made capital gains paid less tax on them than their office cleaners paid on their income, which was truly outrageous. People with a pension contribution of £250,000 are now paying £94,000 more tax on it. If anyone is lucky enough to have £1 million to spend after all those taxes, they will pay £25,000 more in VAT, if they spend it on standard rate items. Tax avoidance has also gone down; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with its extra resources, is clamping down on it. The idea that this Government are sitting around allowing the rich to do whatever they want is absolute nonsense.

Labour’s proposal to put the rate back up to 50% has already been thrown into doubt by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I am the first to admit that £100 million is a lot of money, but that is all that would come out of it and the IFS has said that it is not a good way to narrow the deficit. HMRC has already said that what the rise to 50% would actually achieve is doubtful. If hon. Members want to review it, we already have real experience of rates of 40%, 50% and now 45%. The Treasury and HMRC conduct regular reviews and a similar review could be conducted on real, existing data. There was a 50% rate for a period, so a real review could be conducted. It is also worth remembering that national insurance is currently 2%, so the marginal rates that people are paying to the Government are not 45%, but 47%.

We have to be careful. The experience in France is fascinating. There has been a wholesale exodus, with the actor Gérard Depardieu taking the extreme step of moving to Russia to avoid what he regards as extreme tax rates. There is no doubt that people with such incomes and that kind of money can, largely, live wherever they like these days. We need to bear it in mind that the population is more fluid than it used to be.

The Red Book makes it very clear that the top decile pays far more tax than it did. That is right because, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr said, people with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden; and they are doing so, because of all the changes that have been made. Despite the fact that the amendment suggests otherwise,

“income inequality is at its lowest level since 1986”,

as the Red Book states. I find the idea that income inequality widened under a Labour Government abhorrent, because such Governments should have narrowing it in their DNA. My four grandparents, who all helped to launch the Labour party, must have been spinning in their graves during the 13 years of the previous Government. I am deeply cynical about Labour’s commitment: they cut taxes for millionaires every year that they were in government.

I look forward to discussing this further in Committee. I do not have a particular argument with reviews, but they do not need to be specified in Bills.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We touched on this issue in the earlier debate. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is no longer in his place, told me that I probably did not mix with many very rich people, which I suspect is probably true. My whole life and the constituency I represent have not been chock-full of people living in millionaires’ row and having lots of money in their pockets. However, his points, which other hon. Members have mentioned, about whether the recent rate changes—from 40% to 50% and back to 45%—are a good test do not bear much weight. It is quite clear, in such a short space of time that people, could rearrange their affairs in various ways first to forestall the income and then to ensure that the tax due in previous years was paid last year.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has said the same—that there has been an increase in payments, but that it was largely due to the fact that people could arrange their income in such a way as also to arrange their tax. When my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) intervened on the right hon. Member for Wokingham to suggest that people had rearranged their finances to suit the current tax regime, he was told that that was not the case. However, the right hon. Gentleman then talked about how those with high incomes—the rich, in his words—have plenty of ability to rearrange their affairs, so he in fact made precisely our case.

The argument that because something was not done during a certain period, it is not a good idea does not bear scrutiny either. Such a line does not relate to the financial situation in which we found ourselves. We hear a lot about the need for deficit reduction, as we have throughout this Parliament, and we know that the rate of deficit reduction has been far lower than was originally promised and planned for. Many of the changes—to tax credits, to benefits, to local government funding—were justified as absolutely essential for reducing the deficit. Under the previous Government, the reason for introducing the 50p rate was largely about that as well. It was and it remains our belief that we need a better balance when we are trying to reduce the deficit.

We all accept that there is no great virtue in running a long-term deficit. The debate has been about not whether to do something about it but the pace and efficacy with which we do something about it. Within that, there are choices to be made. There is a balance to be struck between taxes and spending cuts, and the Government have chosen to place a lot of emphasis on spending cuts and far less on tax. The 50p tax rate could have been sustained throughout this Parliament as part of the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I am following the hon. Lady’s argument about the tax changes, and I have two questions. First, does she object to the raising of the threshold to £10,000? Secondly, will she oppose her party’s policy of adding a 10p rate? She seems to feel that such things do not help the people she wants to help.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We have to be honest about the tax threshold. The primary driver behind the change is constantly presented as being concern for the low paid, but the major part of the benefit has accrued to those who are better off. The change also has a substantial cost, at a time when we are told that money is tight. It is worth considering what would help the less well-off in a more concrete way. When the threshold was raised, tax credit rules were changed, tax credit rates were lowered and child care help for people on tax credits was slashed. At some undefined point in the future, the threshold will again be increased, but that is not a lot of help for those who, for the past four years and for however long it takes to establish universal credit, have had their help with child care cut.

The threshold is not what it seems, and we have to be clear about that. If we genuinely want to help the low-paid, we have to consider the model that we use. Many commentators have suggested that, for example, we should consider child care costs and work allowances within universal credit. One change that the Government have made to universal credit since it was first proposed—not that many people are on universal credit yet—is to reduce the work allowances, which means that people lose universal credit faster as their earnings rise, so the low-paid will again suffer. It now turns out that the introduction of assistance covering 85% of child care costs for those on universal credit will have to be paid for from another part of universal credit, so people who, by definition, are not very well off will be paying for that child care assistance. That is rather strange because I do not believe that the tax relief for child care will necessarily be funded in quite the same way. If we really want to help the low-paid, it is worth considering other proposals and no longer simply arguing that raising the tax threshold is helping the lowest paid and will always be the best way to do so.

On the 50p tax rate, I contend that there has been a series of decisions that have heavily affected those who earn the least and are struggling the most, and no number of graphs showing that people at the high end are now paying more tax, or that the proportion of tax changes that affect their income is at least as high as the proportion affecting the low-paid, can show otherwise. The reality is that five percentage points off the tax rate for those on very high incomes is very different from five percentage points off the tax rate for those on very low incomes; it is the difference between parents being able to pay for their children to go on a school trip or being able to think about taking the bus into town because those things cost. A five percentage point difference for someone on a very high income might be the same numerically, but it does not have the same consequences for people’s lives.

[Ian Swales]

I am following the hon. Lady’s argument carefully, and she is straying from tax into welfare, which I understand is a real concern for her. She makes a good point on the effect of proportionate tax rates. The cut in tax through raising the threshold has actually reduced the tax and national insurance bills of people on the minimum wage by some 70%. If we are talking percentages, does she welcome that figure? Does she also accept that anyone working 30 hours a week or more on the minimum wage is earning £10,000? Finally, will she answer the question about the 10p tax rate? Will she oppose that policy?

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is irrelevant to link welfare and tax, but I do not agree. Welfare and tax are intimately linked in a very practical way for someone who may have seen their tax bill go down but who has also seen their benefits go down substantially and so are either no better off or are actually worse off. That is a very real link, because raising the tax threshold has a substantial cost; it is not a pain-free, non-costed policy. At £10 billion, the policy costs a considerable amount of money that could have been spent in some other way. I am not convinced that the net effect for the lowest paid is such that they benefit. Given that so much of the benefit goes to people who are better off, I would have thought he would want to question that policy.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Ian Swales and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

I will come on to some of those tax rises in a moment. I am just saying that working people are not £1,600 worse off, as the Labour amendment suggests. There is no expert who says that they are.

This Government’s tax cut has reduced inequality. It has been praised by the Living Wage Foundation as reducing the gap between the minimum wage and the living wage, and I am proud that my party has driven it through in this Parliament. It is also good that the Budget shows that there will be real growth in household disposable income from now on.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Would the hon. Gentleman admit that, for many low-paid workers, the increase in the tax threshold over the past few years has been more than cancelled out by the cuts in tax credits, the freezing of child benefit and other changes? In fact, the Government have given with one hand and taken away with the other.

[Ian Swales]

Everyone is in a different situation, but it is certainly not true to say that, for more people, the Government have given with one hand and taken away with the other. The hon. Lady should know that.

The Opposition’s reasoned amendment also mentions a “tax cut for millionaires”. This is from a party whose former Business Secretary said that he was

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

And it showed in what the Labour Government did for 13 years: the top rate of income tax was 5% lower than it is now until 6 April 2010, the very last day Labour Members sat on the Government Benches—until then they cut taxes for millionaires every year they were in power; capital gains tax was 10% lower, meaning that hedge fund managers in the City had a lower tax rate than those cleaning their offices; tax relief was available on pension contributions of £250,000 a year, whereas the current figure is £40,000—the difference is £100,000 in tax; and VAT was 2.5% lower, making a top Ferrari £5,000 cheaper—that is what was actually happening for millionaires.

Inter-City Rail Investment

Debate between Ian Swales and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I suspect that the quiet coach operates to a large extent as a business class. Perhaps operators should consider expanding the number of those coaches. Many people want to use that time on the train—whether it is two hours, three hours or more—productively, even if they are only recharging their batteries and reading a book or whatever. If we are serious about the environmental advantages of rail over air, we need to make that journey as productive and as comfortable as we can, and also to speed it up. The big advantage of HS2 in Scotland would be a cut in journey times, even without the high speed rails reaching us. The city centre to city centre advantage of HS2 is huge, and it works both ways. For example, 11% of employment in Edinburgh, even after the recession, is in the financial service sector. The links from Edinburgh to other financial centres are important. If we are to continue to be the headquarters of some very important financial institutions, rather than a sub-office of somewhere else, it is just as important that people can come to us as it is that we can go to them.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Lady mentions HS2, so I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because I only know the figures for Newcastle. How much will HS2 enable trains from Edinburgh to save time? Does she think a similar time could be saved by investing in the straight and relatively flat current east coast main line, as referred to by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)?

[Sheila Gilmore]

My understanding is that when phase 2 is in place, we could save a full hour—perhaps slightly more—of the journey time. As we are talking about a long time scale, I am not averse in any way to looking at ways of improving the speed on existing rails. One thing East Coast has done, which is helpful, is introduce a train that leaves Edinburgh early in the morning and arrives in London at a time that allows people to attend meetings. It does that by having fewer stops, so there is always a trade off. By only stopping at Newcastle and then coming straight through, it has shaved off time. The only downside is that the train departs very early in the morning. We are privileged here in the House of Commons. As we go through until 10 pm on a Monday night, we do not start work at 10 am, which would be difficult.

Leaving aside the whole HS2 debate, we welcome the fact that intercity lines in other parts of the country are receiving significant public investment for electrification, new rolling stock and so forth. Of course, it is important to emphasise that all that investment is public and coming from the taxpayer. That fact was reinforced last month when the Office for National Statistics announced that it would reclassify Network Rail as a central Government body from September. That is an acknowledgement that it is not outwith the Government.

Part of the promise of privatisation was that it would generate investment, but it has not done so. We must be realistic about that. What about the level of private investment in other inter-city routes following the Government’s decision to prioritise the franchise competition for the east coast? I am sure that Members will remember that under the Government’s initial franchising timetable, a new contract for the west coast main line was due to start in October 2012, with Great Western starting in April 2013 and east coast in December 2013.

After the debacle of the west coast bidding process, a new timetable was announced last March. The east coast main line, which was previously last in the queue of those big franchises, was brought forward so that it would be let before April 2015. As the Government accepted the recommendations of the reports produced after what happened with west coast that only one major franchise should be dealt with at a time, that was only made possible by giving the current operator of the west coast main line—Virgin—a four-and-a-half-year franchise extension to April 2017. The operator of the Great Western line, First, was given a two-and-a-half year extension to September 2015. That is 77 months of extensions between the two operators.

Ministers who prioritised the east coast franchise and justified it by referring to the Brown review are presumably reiterating their belief that competition in the bidding process should drive private investment. Although franchise competition might achieve that, franchise extensions clearly do not. The Government have lost any bargaining chip they had in the process. Having made that set of decisions, they had no option but to negotiate with the existing operators. The only bargaining chip Ministers could use would be to threaten to call in East Coast’s parent company, Directly Operated Railways. The operators know the Government’s reluctance to do that and the very fact that they want to extract the east coast franchise from DOR shows that, quid pro quo, they would not want to put the other routes into DOR’s hands. That means that competition is effectively absent.

The companies have no incentive to invest during the remaining time for which they are operating the routes and have every incentive to demand significant subsidies. The extensions are likely to cost us, the taxpayers, dearly. In 2011-12, Virgin paid the Department a premium of £165 million and First Great Western paid £110 million. Will the Minister confirm that following the agreement of the extensions, payments of such an order are unlikely to be made? Perhaps he could confirm what sort of payments he anticipates. Will the Minister also confirm that apart from the roll-out of wi-fi on First Great Western, which we would have expected from any operator, the two extensions offer no improvement for passengers?

My key contention is that if the east coast franchise had not been prioritised, those extensions would not have been necessary and the competitions for the west coast and Great Western franchises could have been held much sooner had the Government wanted to pursue them.

Cost of Living

Debate between Ian Swales and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman has an excellent memory. I think that people will judge the council on how it is spending the money that it raises.

This Government have also scrapped Labour’s national insurance hike and, above all, implemented the Lib Dem policy of raising the tax threshold to £10,000.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Swales]

I am sorry; I have taken two interventions already.

We hear a lot from Labour about wages, but it is what ends up in people’s pay packets that really counts. When Labour left office, people on the minimum wage were paying a massive £35 a week in tax and national insurance. Since then, the minimum wage has gone up by £20 a week, but the national insurance bill for those people has gone down by £9 a week, with a further cut to come in April.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I certainly agree with that. I wish that my area was as fortunate with employment, but my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is the direction we should be taking.

I helped to launch an event for the Living Wage Foundation two weeks ago. It has stated that it

“supports moves to increase the personal allowance for the low-paid”—

because they—

“could make the Living Wage easier to attain.”

The living wage is about net pay, not gross pay.

I have talked about tax and spend measures. I also mentioned interfering in industry. I welcome today’s announcement on payday lending, following an amendment tabled by a Lib Dem peer the other day. The Government have stepped in quickly to do something about the problem. We interfere in industry at our peril, however. The Opposition motion mentions an “energy price freeze”. I worked at a senior level in business, finance and industry for more than 25 years, five of which were spent working as an accountant in the electricity industry. I could scarcely believe Labour’s proposal for a price freeze. In three and a half years in this place, I have never heard a policy announcement so guaranteed to achieve the opposite effect to the one intended.

It has been obvious from the start that any business faced with having its prices fixed but its costs varying dramatically, as they do in the electricity industry, would have real problems. Prices would increase before the freeze and after it. Prices that had been frozen could not decrease if the costs reduced. Above all, less investment will take place, especially from new players. So what has happened since Labour’s announcement? We have seen huge price hikes, which I am sure include hedging just in case the public are stupid enough to elect a Labour Government.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Swales]

I have already given way and I am in my own time now. Two weeks ago, National Grid said that half of proposed investment in energy was now on hold because of political uncertainty. This week, RWE abandoned the Atlantic array. This is what is happening in the real world of business as a result of the irresponsible announcement from Labour. At Dod’s energy lunch a Cross-Bench peer described how this policy was disastrous for commercial confidence, and he is absolutely right.

As the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said, the irony is that the policy protects the big six. When I mentioned that before, the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), said from a sedentary position that we were protecting the big six by challenging the policy, but that is not true. In my constituency, three new energy investors want to invest—two in fossil fuels and one in renewables. There are US, Japanese and Korean investors behind these projects, but the projects are now in danger because their bankers are wondering what on earth is going to happen to this country’s electricity industry. So this irresponsible announcement by Labour threatens investment and security of supply, and, above all, it will raise prices, both in the short term and the long term. So I urge the Opposition to withdraw the policy as soon as possible to avoid more damage to consumers and to the electricity industry.

We do need to do things about our energy future. One key thing that must happen is that we must have genuine competition, based on more players. The fact that pay levels are too high in many industries, including the electricity industry, is clear. However, at least this Government are taxing capital gains at a higher rate, taxing pension contributions at a much higher rate and taxing income at a rate 5% higher than under the previous Government.

A few weeks ago, the shadow Health Secretary made a point about Front Benchers of all parties—I think he was thinking partly of his own. He said that we now see policies developed by people who have been trained—this is about career politicians—to write press releases rubbishing the opposition. We can tell the lack of strategic thinking behind that announcement. The Opposition have shown that they know how to write headlines, but they do not understand business and finance. As always is the case, we cannot trust Labour with the economy.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Ian Swales and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am certainly not going to say that many of my constituents did not benefit from the record of the last Government, and I am not going to accept her characterisation of that Government as not having helped the majority of people in this country. Yes, I have spoken to local businesses, and many of them have been struggling, particularly over the last three and a half years, to get loan finance to get their businesses functioning. Many have found it extremely difficult to operate in an economy that has been sent into decline by many of the measures that the incoming Government imposed. The picture presented by the hon. Lady is wrong.

As I was saying, the concentration on what happened during the last Labour Government is a reflection of the fact that this Government know that their previous proposals on national insurance contributions simply did not work. We have heard a lot about predictions, and some people have suggested that the Opposition’s predictions about the economy were wrong, so the Government’s predictions, presumably by extension, must be right.

However, what the Government told us in 2010 and 2011 was that they were going to eliminate, not just reduce, the deficit over the course of one Parliament. What we now hear over and over again is that the deficit has been reduced by one third, but it seems to have reached a plateau. That figure of one third has been invoked for a very long time now, which suggests that the Government’s original intentions and purposes have not been achieved. They have clearly accepted not only that they will not eliminate the deficit by 2015, but that everything has stalled and that deficit reduction has, as I say, reached a plateau. In 2010-11, it was predicted that we would see economic growth in 2010-12, not that we would be still waiting for it in 2013. Even now, the amount of growth we are seeing is very limited.

[Ian Swales]

Is the hon. Lady happy about the fact that she stood on a manifesto which included a national insurance policy that independent observers said would take 57,000 jobs out of our economy?

[Sheila Gilmore]

We do not know that that policy would have taken jobs out of the economy, because we did not have the opportunity to implement it.

Another issue that is subject to repeated predictions is jobs. The number of new private sector jobs is constantly being put at about 1.4 million, but, interestingly, in January 2011 the Government were already saying that 500,000 jobs had been created. It is clear to anyone that even if those figures are accurate, and even if factors such as the re-categorisation of jobs into different sectors are taken into account, the pace of job creation is not quite as dramatic or as effective as we might think.

We were told that the earlier proposal for a national insurance holiday was intended to create jobs. The fascinating aspect of that was the very low take-up. If all those new employers had set up new companies and provided new jobs, why did they not want to take advantage of it? Why did so few come forward? That surely casts doubt on the notion that numerous people were desperate to start up new businesses and to take on employees. In December 2012, there were only 20,365 applicants for the scheme. The Minister has told us that eventually there were 26,000, but the initial prediction was 400,000. There is a considerable difference between those figures.

It is not surprising that the Minister was reluctant to respond to interventions from his own Back Benchers and to say what he thought might be the outcome of his current proposals, because he knows how poor earlier predictions have been. It is not just in respect of the national insurance holiday that predictions have been wildly at odds with the reality. For example, the Youth Contract, which involved offering money to employers to take on people aged between 18 and 25, was apparently going to be one of the major answers to youth unemployment. It was designed, we were told, to help 53,000 young people per year. However, in the first year of its operation it helped only 4,690. That was another not very successful policy that we had been asked to believe would help people in an important way. In that context, I think it significant that only last week the Work and Pensions Committee heard from the CBI that it would have liked to see extra money for training, rather than cash incentives for employers to take on young people. Perhaps the Government should listen to what people think would help create jobs.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the current proposals do not guarantee any additional jobs and that this is simply a tax cut. A tax cut may be beneficial and may bring about more jobs, but in itself it will not necessarily do so. Again, I would point to the previous record. The IFS says we do not know whether this proposal will have any effect on job creation as it will not be piloted and will be almost impossible to evaluate, and that we will therefore be unlikely to know whether it will be money well spent. We must bear in mind the previous history, which I have mentioned, of two schemes that both failed to help create employment, and we must ask the Government to monitor and evaluate this new proposal as much as they can if they are going to introduce it.

The Government must realise that the creation of jobs is extremely important for many parts of this country. Many Government members and Back Benchers have expressed pleasure at the reductions in unemployment in their own constituencies, which is all very well, but unemployment levels in many parts of the country are still extremely high. What is even more important for many people is the lack of quality jobs and the fact that they often cannot work the number of hours they want to. We currently have the highest recorded level of people working part time who want to work more hours. That means people have low incomes and are often dependent on top-ups from Government benefits.

The Government sometimes wonder why things like housing benefit keep going up rather than down, despite the reforms they put in place. The main reason is that people in part-time, low-income jobs on zero-hours contracts have no choice but to apply for such benefits, so even the jobs that are out there are often ones that leave people with a cost-of-living crisis. That causes real suffering, and there is no point in pretending otherwise.

I ask the Government to indicate the likely take-up of this scheme—reluctant though they are to do—and to accept that their previous measures in this field have not been successful. Three years on, their initiatives have simply not been successful, and we see the results in the state of our economy today. Of course it is good that growth is beginning to return, but such low-level growth after such a long time can hardly be hailed as a success. If we want to argue about whose predictions were right, perhaps, at best, we have to say that nobody’s were. The Government’s predictions on coming to power in 2010 were certainly not borne out, and people have been suffering the results of that in the past three years.