Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is marvellous news and a reflection of the confidence in the economy of the UK and of the north-west. It also underlines the point that that is happening not only in our country’s big cities, important though they are, but in all parts of the north and, indeed, all parts of the country.

The Chancellor made it clear in the Budget that we have reached agreement with the 10 councils in Greater Manchester to devolve additional powers to them, beyond those powers that were devolved previously. A land commission will help to release public land to build new homes; fire services will be put under the control of the new mayor; and new powers will encourage further collaboration on children’s services and employment programmes. This historic process of devolution is now available to other cities and other parts of the country. The Chancellor made it clear that we are in active negotiations to devolve powers to the Sheffield city region, to Leeds, west Yorkshire and its partner authorities, and to the Liverpool city region. Each area will receive far-reaching devolved powers and resources in return for the election of a directly elected mayor. We are also in advanced negotiations with Cornwall on the first devolution for a county in this country.

This is just the start. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is before the House of Lords, will enable us to negotiate with cities, towns and counties right across the country to give them the power that they need to galvanise their local economies. Such deals are in their local interest, but also in the national interest. At a time when limited public resources must be invested wisely, it is right to offer our cities, towns and counties a bigger share of the funding that is available. Why? Partly, it is because they have already demonstrated that they can make funding go further by managing it more creatively and attracting private sector investment.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of devolving power in the way that he describes. However, he will recall that it was a Conservative Government who abolished Avon, Humberside and Cleveland—those much-hated examples of regionalisation. Will he make a commitment today that, although devolution is a good thing, it will not become a substitute for regionalisation, and that if counties such as Wiltshire, for example, do not want it, we will not have to have it?

[Greg Clark]

I can give that reassurance to my hon. Friend. That is the essential difference between the programme of devolution that we are offering and what has been attempted in the past. Every proposal will come from local people. I do not have the power, still less the inclination, to force local people into any arrangements other than those for which they are enthusiastic.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I do not want to say this to the SNP spokesman, but I am not sure that he is speaking for Scotland, because 58% of Scots want a referendum and 63% of SNP supporters want a referendum. He needs to get in touch with his grassroots.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is extremely important that the Bank of England report and, indeed, other Government reports and other organisations’ reports on this matter are published in the course of the next two years. However, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not agree that it is vital that such documents, which may well affect the outcome of the referendum, are not published in the so-called purdah period of six to eight weeks before the referendum?

[Mr Osborne]

As was made clear by the Foreign Secretary in debate and by the Prime Minister from this Dispatch Box, there are serious issues to address about the current law on referendums, because we believe that it would make the debate on the European Union unworkable and inappropriate. We understand the concerns in all parts of the House about that, and we will come forward with reassurances that enable the proper business of government to continue and allow the Government to make the case for the outcome that is achieved and the vote that we recommend, but that ensure that there is not an unfair referendum and that the Government do not, for example, engage in mass communication with the electorate. Those matters will be discussed later today.

Green Deal

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Yeo]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for his close study of the two reports that my Committee produced on this subject in the past couple of years. He is absolutely right that the Committee continues strongly to support, without reservation, the concept of the green deal. I assure him that our concerns about its progress are motivated by our wish to see it succeed.

We share the aim of eliminating energy waste. It is a scandal that millions of buildings in this country are still so energy inefficient that a large amount of energy is wasted. A consistent thread running through all our reports is our concern to ensure that the UK achieves the challenging targets we have set for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency has an enormous part to play in achieving those targets. Our criticisms derive from our disappointment and frustration about the relatively slow progress of the green deal so far. Even the most ardent defender of the coalition’s policy—as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there are few more ardent defenders of the coalition than me—would not claim that the high hopes about the green deal have yet been fulfilled.

As my hon. Friend the Minister said, progress is much better than it was this time last year. There has been an encouraging acceleration, from a relatively low base, of the take-up of green deal plans and enquiries. I cannot predict what my Committee will do in the next Parliament, because I will not be a member of it, but I would be very surprised indeed if it did not want to continue the watching brief that it adopted towards the green deal in this Parliament. In conclusion, I hope that this time next year another debate will take place on this subject, and that the Minister will be able to report on further substantial progress.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

We come to the next debate. I ask those who took part in the previous debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo)—I was his special adviser many years ago when he was a Minister in the Department for the Environment; he has served with distinction for many years—to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.

Offshore Wind Developments

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Seven Back Benchers are trying to catch my eye and 40 minutes remain available to us. I am not at all keen on formal limits, but it might be sensible as a courtesy to one another to limit one’s speeches to about four or five minutes each, if possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Just to be clear, is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that he is not in favour of greater subsidies for offshore wind but happy to see greater subsidies for other marine technologies? I support higher subsidies to allow those technologies to develop, but I am interested to hear what level of subsidy he is prepared to see given to them.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is, of course, about offshore wind.

[Mr Chope]

I am against all subsidies for offshore wind. If we are talking about the potential for the Government to engage in an industrial investment programme—the need to find jobs in new technologies has been spoken about this morning—from my experience in my constituency, there is a lot more to be said for investing in nuclear technology. Just before Christmas I visited an establishment in my constituency that is at the leading edge of nuclear technology. It has a fantastic record. If we have to put in subsidies, that is the sector in which we should do so, because subsidies for nuclear energy are far lower than the equivalent subsidies for offshore wind energy.

We have more than enough offshore wind provision already. I hope that the Minister will announce today that the Government will not put any more subsidies into that sector in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

I was listening carefully to the hon. Lady developing her point on Scotland. I thought that she was going to complete the point by mentioning the potential impact of independence, had it happened, on an environment in which one third of all subsidies are currently cross-border. I was wondering—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. That would, of course, be quite wide of the mark. The hon. Lady might restrict her comments to the effect of CfDs on the offshore wind market.

[Julie Elliott]

I take that guidance from the Chair, but I will say that we won the referendum.

Given this Government’s refusal to set a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target or allow the green investment bank to borrow, it is unsurprising that investment in renewable energy has fallen. Furthermore, according to the Environmental Audit Committee, investment in clean energy is running at half the level necessary if we are to meet our carbon emission reductions. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of renewable energy projects that have come online since May 2010 started under the last Labour Government.

The offshore wind industry certainly welcomed the increase in the budget for less established technologies from £155 million to £235 million, although it was somewhat tempered by the downward revision in the reference price. Can the Minister confirm that the downward revision will have a significant impact on how much capacity is feasible for the same amount of budget? Currently, approximately 5 GW of offshore wind is in operation or construction, and about another 3.2 GW has been given final investment decision contracts. Do the Government have a fixed ambition for offshore wind, either by 2020 or another date, and can it be assumed that that ambition has been reflected in the allocation funding pot? Does the Minister share the view of industry experts who have projected that the £235 million equates to approximately 800 MW, and is he satisfied with the Government’s ambition for offshore wind in this allocation round? Those questions reflect some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members in this debate.

This Government’s mixed messages and active hostility to onshore wind and solar PV, the cheapest large-scale clean energy technologies, have acted as significant blows to investment in all clean energy technologies. In the last few months, the UK slipped to seventh place on Ernst and Young’s attractiveness index for investment in renewable energy, and Ernst and Young labelled the Government’s

“policy tinkering and conflicting signals”

as

“too much for investors…to handle”.

Does the Minister accept that the Government’s mixed messages have damaged investment?

Although offshore wind remains an area in which the UK proudly leads the world, employing thousands of people and generating the clean energy that we need to meet our carbon emissions commitments, it is clear that costs will have to continue to fall, and allocation rounds should be designed to reflect that priority.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Mr Gray, I wish you and all other Members a happy new year. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I used to represent a similar part of Scotland in the Scottish Parliament, so I am well aware of the pressures and the demand for offshore wind in his part of the world. The north-east coast of Scotland is a beautiful part of the country.

What I am hearing in this debate is similar to what I heard in my previous work in aerospace. That industry had long lead times and required certainty, and that is also true of the renewable energy industry. There is a constant play-off between new investment in new technologies and mature and maturing technology elsewhere. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) made the point clearly that often there is a tension between maturer technologies and those seeking a fair audience, such as wave, solar or tidal energy. In my previous life before entering the House, in early 2003, I was part of a process of trying to get funding for tidal energy off Britain’s shores, and I remember being crowded out of the debate.

Decisions between investment in technologies and certainty are always subjective and never satisfy all, but we should not forget that more immature technologies are also helped elsewhere in Government through research and development tax credits, the patent box for matured technologies and other incentives in other parts of this Government’s business policy.

I hear loud and clear the point about having certainty when it comes to strategy, including certainty about what the British Government and Britain want for our energy mix and renewables obligations. Such certainty, and indeed a timetable, are important to investors. I point out to the hon. Member for Angus, however, that the Scottish National party does not add to that certainty by creating a debate about breaking up the United Kingdom.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Clearly that is slightly wide of the mark.

[Mr Wallace]

Well, Mr Gray, certainty is important to the issue of contracts for difference, and to whether investors are willing to invest in the British energy generation market. That certainty is obviously undermined by the potential to break the market in two and deny Scots access to some of the contracts for difference funding based on the fact that the subsidisers—the bill payers of the United Kingdom—are spread throughout the whole population. It is important to make the point that we are all looking for certainty, and I venture to say that separation is not the way to encourage that.

[Mr Weir]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I really would rather not go down this track.

[Mr Weir]

I will be brief, Mr Gray. I merely make the point that we are dealing with things as they are, and not how we wish they were. If the Minister is talking about certainty, he might care to comment on the effect of a proposed EU referendum.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I would very much rather the Minister did not. I think he should focus his remarks on the effect of the CfD allocation process on offshore wind developments.

[Mr Wallace]

As hon. Members will know, the Government will support low-carbon technologies in future through new contracts for difference, which we have debated today. The total amount of support that will be paid for by consumers is capped by the levy control framework. Support for projects, whether onshore or offshore, biomass or solar, will have to fit within the overall cap. We cannot worry about the standard of living of our constituents and the pressure on their bills on the one hand, and give a blank cheque to renewable projects, through their bills, on the other. We have to make sure that we balance that, which is why the cap for the current funding round is at £235 million for offshore wind generation. We need to ensure that we balance the need to get the investment in and the need to protect the people who are paying the subsidy—the bill payer.

Low-carbon electricity projects will compete at auction for the contracts, which will deliver new capacity much more cheaply than the previous arrangements. Recent studies have shown that compared with the renewables obligation scheme, the current scheme produced a difference of £19 per MW when it came to the pricing of this energy. That is important to recognise. It is estimated that the reforms to the electricity markets will mean that average annual household electricity bill will be around £41 lower over the period from 2014 to 2030 than if we decarbonised without making these changes.

As the CfD allocation round is ongoing, I cannot comment directly on what projects might have applied or who might be awarded a contract at the conclusion of the process. It is important that the Government are not directly involved in making those decisions. However, it might be useful to explain to Members the process of awarding these contracts.

Projects submitted applications to the National Grid, which is the electricity market reform delivery body, in October. National Grid assessed each application against the eligibility criteria. Any applicants judged as not meeting the criteria and therefore not qualified to participate were given the opportunity to appeal. Following the first appeal, National Grid has determined that at least one applicant has not qualified to participate in the auction. Those applicants have the opportunity to appeal to Ofgem, which they have done.

Ofgem is currently considering any appeals received and will take as much time as necessary to assess the appeal. However, the Secretary of State reserves the right to step in 30 days after Ofgem begins assessing the appeal and to direct National Grid to move to the auction process if the appeal has not been resolved. Once all appeals have been considered, National Grid will assess the value of all applications against the available applicable budget, taking into account technology pots, minima and maxima. If all the applicants can be satisfied within the budget, under the constraints of any minima and maxima, all the applicants will be allocated a CfD. If there is insufficient budget to satisfy all bids, or maximum constraints are exceeded, an auction will apply to the relevant bids and National Grid will invite those eligible applicants to submit sealed bids.

The timing of further stages in the allocation round depends on how long it takes Ofgem to process any appeals. If Ofgem takes 30 days, the auction notice is likely to be issued on 17 February and the sealed bid submission window will run between 18 and 24 February. National Grid would then notify the Low Carbon Contracts Company and applicants of the outcome of the allocation process on 18 March. The Low Carbon Contracts Company would then have 10 working days to prepare contracts and send them out for signature. Applicants would have a further 10 days to sign contracts, with the window for contract signature closing on 17 April for this round. If Ofgem processes the appeals sooner, all that will, of course, be brought forward. National Grid will continue to provide updates on timings as key milestones are met.

My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Minister of State and I are aware that some offshore wind projects may end up disappointed at the end of the CfD allocation process and may need to wait for future rounds. It is not possible yet to say for certain which technologies will bid lowest and therefore win the auctions. However, if for example, offshore wind won the whole of the £235 million in the less established pot, that could lead to around 700 MW to 800 MW, depending on the clearing price, which answers the question from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) about the assessment of how much it could do. I should point out that we are making a substantial amount of budget available in this autumn’s allocation of contracts, and we increased the budget for both pots over the summer.

The offshore wind pipeline is currently strong, and the Government have taken the decision to hold budget back for future CfD allocation rounds. A number of offshore wind projects are not eligible to bid in this round but could be eligible to bid in future rounds. We do not want to allocate the whole budget in one allocation round; we need funding available for projects that cannot participate this autumn, to avoid a boom-and-bust investment cycle.

It is important to recognise that we need to ensure that the industry is taking the subsidy and then continually trying to drive down the cost of its technologies and the overall cost of the projects. If it were just to take the subsidies and carry on at the same level, we would not be getting the bill payer good value for money. Whether the window is five years, as it is currently, or whether there is, as hon. Members wish, a longer time scale, I hear loud and clear the valid point that we should at least see how it progresses.

I also note that the Government have taken decisions to support much more offshore wind than any other country in the world. The UK has around 5 GW installed or under construction and another 3 GW of projects have early CfDs. We are well on the way to 10 GW by 2020. The challenge is now for the developers to demonstrate that they can bring the cost of offshore wind down and build a UK-based supply chain.

In answer to hon. Members’ points about the supply chain, I refer to my experience of aerospace. It is simply not good enough for a generator to bring over a turbine, stick a few things on it and say that it is made in the UK. When we talk about a desire for a proper supply chain, we are talking about a desire for a proper development of technologies, a skill base and the actual manufacturing. It is important that we do not all fall into the trap of claiming, if someone opens a park and assembles the final pieces, that that is some great final achievement. The challenge is to make sure that in 2020, the industry is in a good place to take advantage of opportunities.

I take on board, from all Members here—there are too many to list in a short time—that the loud and clear message is about certainty, time frame, technologies and strategy. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Treasury hear that loud and clear in the long term. However, we have a considerable amount of money still to allocate under the framework—up to £1 billion—and as soon as we can, we hope to inform the industry and the public.

In conclusion, I thank colleagues for bringing this issue to the House’s attention, and for the desire to recognise that offshore wind plays a real role in meeting our obligations on renewables. We are on track to meet those targets in 2020.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Although it would be in order to continue with the next debate, the Minister is not yet here, so I suggest that we suspend the sitting until 11 o’clock, when we will commence, whether or not she is present.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The hard-working people of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency should take credit for the fact that unemployment is down by 21% in his constituency and youth unemployment is down by 29% there.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor join me in warmly welcoming this morning’s announcement that Dyson is to invest £250 million in expanding its headquarters in Malmesbury in my constituency and intends to employ 3,000 more people, 2,000 of whom will be high-quality engineers, designers and a large number of apprentices? Does he agree that that is hard evidence that that shrewd operator Sir James Dyson has every possible confidence in the Chancellor’s long-term economic plan?

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. This is a problem of over-consumption and tax can often be a blunt instrument in dealing with such problems. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and a delegation to discuss the matter.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Exchequer Secretary agree that tackling obesity in children should be a matter for parents, teachers and others who work with children, and that any tax increase such as that proposed by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) would be seen as a Treasury tax grab on those who enjoy Pepsi cola, Coca-Cola and Fanta?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It is right that the Government take steps, through the public health responsibility deal, to encourage companies to reduce calories in their products, and that we encourage participation in sport. That is more effective and targeted than a tax increase.

Finance Bill

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful about apportioning blame, because although we have seen an extreme rise in youth unemployment over the past couple of years because of the recession—I will move on to the problem of demand in the economy later—under the Labour Government there was successful action to prevent levels of youth unemployment from rising to those we saw in the ’90s. If he wishes to, we can talk at length in the Chamber on another occasion about some of the structural reasons for young people’s unemployment, such as how skills are transferred in different ways, how small businesses recruit differently, which hits younger people more than it does those with experience in the economy, and why those patterns were starting to emerge from 2005. However, in new clause 13 we are trying to establish the urgency of getting money from a particular source and prioritising the needs of young people in my constituency and in his.

The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations has done an important piece of work to calculate the cost to the Exchequer of young people being out of work, and, although I hope that Treasury Ministers will have already heard the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) cited, I want to alight on this one. If youth unemployment continues at current rates, by 2022 the cost to the Exchequer and to the economy in lost output is estimated to be £28 billion—on top of the human and social costs. That is a huge figure, and we as a country cannot afford to see this crisis continue.

I shall take a few moments, however, to consider not only the financial cost, huge and important though that is, but the impact of the crisis on individuals, on their pride and on their self-worth. I mentioned earlier the Government’s own research, carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions, into the future jobs fund, and if Ministers have not read it they would do well to do so. The research, first, considered the impact on young people who took part in the future jobs fund programme, and it is a shame that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has left his place, because I wanted to ask him—I tried to intervene on him to do so—whether he had met, spoken to or asked the opinion of any young person who took part in the future jobs fund.

Just in case hon. Members have not had the opportunity to read the research, however, I shall quote a young person and how they were feeling prior to the introduction of the future jobs fund. They said that they were

“feeling a bit low. I was about four and half, five months, unemployed and I thought ‘oh no, this isn’t good’. Most employers I spoke to, it was like if you’ve been unemployed for more than 2 months, it really puts people off. I knew how to do a job; it’s just the fact that I’d been unemployed for nearly 5 months. Almost half a year, which was quite embarrassing really. I know there was nothing out there, but it was still kind of embarrassing.”

Despite this person realising that aggregate demand and low job vacancy numbers had caused their problem, they blamed themselves, so I ask hon. Members to consider the impact of low self-esteem and poor mental health on the extra 65,000 young people who have become unemployed since 2010.

The research, secondly, asked young people how they felt about their work once they had taken part in a future jobs fund employment placement, and to me the following quotation says it all. On the question of what the most important gain was, one person said:

“Trust in my determination. Self belief, the belief from my employer that I am able to succeed”.

What more important thing could anybody have for success in life than self-belief? When people are left to languish on the dole, such self-esteem is undermined every single day.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I strongly admire the sincerity of the hon. Lady’s compassion for those people, but I am not sure that reading out two or three vox pops necessarily adds to the intellectual coherence and probity of the argument. She admitted a moment ago that youth unemployment was dangerously high during the Labour years. It remains very high, and we are very worried about that, but what does she actually propose we should do about it?

[Alison McGovern]

I am not sure I know where to start. I am reading out the testimony of young people who have been unemployed. That is not some kind of media vox pop; it is an example of real people who have been affected by the phenomena that we have been talking about, and we should listen to them. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to what I have to say, let him listen to young people in my constituency and in his own, and to how they feel about being thrown on the scrapheap.

I shall briefly discuss bankers’ bonuses, and why the measure before us is an entirely appropriate one to take in order to fund for young people employment that will stand them in good stead for the rest of their careers. Profit-making banks have had a reduction in corporation tax, but I shall not go over the reasons why the tax in question is an appropriate one to levy on their payroll. We have to face the fact that in the City of London we have seen behaviour that cannot be tolerated. For the sake of the future of our young people, what is needed now is some sort of restorative justice to rebalance people’s ability to make a good life for themselves. Young people in this country are facing a more difficult labour market than they have for many years. I beg the Government to listen and take some action now.

First-time Buyers

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Owen Smith]

I am listening with interest to—perhaps “enjoying” is the wrong word—the hon. Gentleman’s comments. In his tour de force on the history of the left and its attitude to social housing, will he return to Nye Bevan and the great period of the invention of social housing in the aftermath of the second world war, and point to who on the left, in the Labour party, thinks of social housing as just a matter of social engineering?

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

With regard to first-time buyers, of course.

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Nye Bevan, because in the interest of brevity, I had crossed out my paragraph on him. I shall reintroduce it into my speech.

It was well known that what Nye Bevan wanted to do—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to return to the subject under debate, namely, Government help for first-time buyers. Nye Bevan can wait for some other time.

[Paul Maynard]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I shall bear that advice in mind.

It is vital that the receipts from the new right-to-buy initiative are reinvested in affordable rented social housing, as I know has been made clear. The key aspect of the issue is the turnover of tenants in social housing. There needs to be an escalator. People may start off in a vulnerable situation needing full tenancies, but they need to be able to move swiftly and quickly on and escalate as high up as they wish. If that leads to home ownership, that is a good thing. However, we need to have fluidity in the social housing market, which we have not had under, I would suggest, any Government. The changes that the Government are announcing this week and those that are contained in last year’s housing Green Paper mark the start of trying to regard our housing stock as an asset for the whole community that is not geographically restricted.

Two of my favourite architects are Alison and Peter Smithson, a married couple who built many modernist buildings—probably many of them in Milton Keynes. Some of their views were bizarre, and they had a vision for housing. While they wanted to see the rubbish chute replace the village pump, somehow they believed that putting us all in high-rise blocks would enhance the bonds of community. As a Conservative—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman is launching into something of a tour de force on the whole of housing policy. We have to focus. Two other hon. Members are trying to catch my eye before I call the Front Benchers. Perhaps he could focus his attention specifically on Government help for first-time buyers and possibly, out of courtesy to the two other hon. Members, wind up his remarks quite soon.

[Paul Maynard]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for your help. I shall therefore come to an end by quoting one of our predecessors, Mr David Eccles, a Member of Parliament for Chippenham, who said in 1948:

“Men are partly selfish and partly idealist, and they give their best when they believe they have a reasonable chance to put something in their pockets and to realise a fragment of their dreams.”

That is what the Government have been doing and what we need to keep on doing. I shall give way so that the two following Members have their chance.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The cut in VAT to 17.5% is part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth. It would put £450 in the pockets of an average family, which is desperately needed to help people who are struggling with the rising cost of living—the rising train, energy and petrol prices.

We have rising unemployment and excessive bank bonuses, but it does not have to be that way. While millions of families up and down the country struggle with the effects of redundancy and millions of young people lose the hope of fulfilling their potential, very little is being asked of those with the broadest shoulders. Despite his pre-election promises to tackle the bonus culture, the Prime Minister will not take the measures recommended by the High Pay Commission to make a difference. Despite the Government’s call for more shareholder activism and engagement as a check on excessive remuneration, they wash their hands of the reported decision to award more than £1 million to the chief executive of RBS, in which they are a major shareholder.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady express some degree of regret, because bank bonuses under this Government are 40% lower than they were under the previous one? She must tell the House who it was who gave Sir Fred Goodwin his knighthood.

[Rachel Reeves]

The Leader of the Opposition has said that the knighthood for Fred Goodwin was not warranted, but I do not remember hearing Conservative Members saying that he should not get a knighthood when it was awarded.

Bank bonuses were taxed at 50% in the last year of the Labour Government. That brought in £3.5 billion, which was used to help to support families and to support young people back into work. Unlike Labour, which introduced a tax on bank bonuses, the Government are introducing a tax cut for banks this year. That tax cut is unwarranted and unjustified as unemployment and youth unemployment continue to rise.

The Opposition proposal is simple. While banks are still not doing their job—they are not supporting jobs or growth—the Government must step in to ensure that resources are put to better use. A 50% tax on bank bonuses above £25,000 would, on a cautious estimate, raise enough revenue to support the creation of 100,000 jobs for young people.

We know that such a measure would work because it has worked before. Labour’s 2010 bank bonus tax raised £3.5 billion, according the OBR. The future jobs fund, which was created by the previous Labour Government, supported more than 100,000 people back into work. That is a record of which Labour Members are proud. By contrast, the Government have chosen a tax cut for the banks and a belated, half-hearted and ineffective response to rising youth joblessness.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a serious matter. Many people who were once able to get bona fide loans from building societies or banks are now forced to seek finance from loan sharks—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

Order. We are ranging rather wide of the amendment under discussion. The Chair would be grateful for a little more focus on the amendment.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Gray. I thought it was my duty as a parliamentarian to try to answer Members who were asking questions. Thank you for telling me that I may not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the mandate, presumably if Labour had got 3% or 4% more in the vote and a majority of 60 or 70 seats on 35%, he would have considered that to be a mandate to do whatever Labour wanted to do?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment we are discussing.

[Nic Dakin]

Thank you, Mr Gray, although I think that the hon. Gentleman was reminding me of the part in my speech in which I referred to mandates, as it was important to reiterate that the Government have no mandate for the NHS reorganisation, for police cuts, for the VAT rise, for abolishing the future jobs fund or for trebling tuition fees, and they certainly have no mandate for cutting too fast and too deep. However, they do have a mandate for listening to the amendment we are considering today on the bank levy. There absolutely is a mandate for the bank levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend refers to schools, and she knows from her constituency and borough how the coalition parties’ drastic, ruthless and unplanned cuts to Building Schools for the Future have caused great grief to her constituents, yet she says that they could have been compensated for by the measures to which she has just referred—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

Order. I have been quite generous so far in not picking up hon. Members on what they have said, but we have to focus on the bank levy, how much it should be and whether it should be reviewed annually. Debating the way in which the Government might spend the proceeds from any such levy is not in order during discussion of this amendment.

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I appreciate very much the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) expresses his concern about BSF, which is a sentiment that I share, but I take the Chair’s point, and the bank levy is exactly what I want to speak to. I am concerned, because it offers an opportunity to deal with the challenges to our economy, and therefore the Bill should be amended by amendment 9.

I return to the case that I am trying to make about the high-cost credit market in the UK and its impact. It is precisely because the market has not been subject to any regulation, which could be introduced under the amendment, that we have seen a massive explosion in payday lending—a quadrupling of the industry in the past 18 months alone.

Dollar Financial, which Members may know better as The Money Shop, has already stated that the lack of regulation here brought it to the UK. The company had one store in the country in 1992, 273 by 2009, and it has announced plans for a further 800 this year alone as a result of that lack of regulation.

The question of adequacy, which the amendment raises, includes how those companies act—certainly, that is how I interpret it—and the opportunity that the levy and its review could provide for dealing with the impact of their actions on consumers in the UK. By using the review, we could ask whether the levy might be applied in such a way as to deter consumer detriment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the importance of this Bill putting first the needs of this country and, therefore, about the importance that others attach to it. I hope that we have support from members in all parts of the House for the need to act on the high-cost credit market. There has certainly been support among Government Back Benchers; noticeably, however, Government Front Benchers have so far reacted with negativity to that support. I hope that they will change their minds, given the possibilities that we have through the Bill, the amendment and, indeed, the regulatory measures being considered to make progress on an issue that concerns many Members. Our concerns are about a number of products—I want to put on record what we are talking about—and the lack of action on such products in contrast to dealing with the bank levy and whether it is applied appropriately.

First, there are payday loans. Many people will be familiar with the concept of a short-term loan, and given that almost half of households cannot make their pay cheques last to the end of the month, it is no surprise that almost one third of households are now considering such products. Interest rates on such loans include one from a company called Oakam, of about 443%; and many people will be familiar with Wonga, whose rates are more at the 4,000% level. We are also talking about the home credit industry and companies such as Provident. Many people will be familiar with Provident going from door to door in their communities lending money to people at interest rates of, say, 272%. That means that if someone borrows just £300 from the company—perhaps to buy a new sofa or TV, or to fix a washing machine or a boiler that has gone wrong over the winter—that will cost them £546.

Were we to use this amendment and the opportunity of the bank levy to deal with some of these problems and with the actions of some of these companies, we would be encouraging the Government to look at the concept of adequacy and consider some of the issues in that market. First, there is the lack of competition in providing credit to those who are denied mainstream credit. That is embodied in the fact that there is no innovation in these products; they are very similar. There is therefore a great contrast with people who are able to borrow from mainstream creditors. Many people will be familiar with mainstream banks offering preferential rates and loyalty schemes to customers who they want to hold on to because they know that they have alternative sources of credit. We could apply the bank levy to the question of adequacy and ask whether these companies are acting in a way that is detrimental to consumers and whether the lack of competition is detrimental to consumers and to our economy. Many people have expressed concern that our banking industry is already overloaded, which requires more competition. I would argue that there needs to be more competition in lending to people who cannot access mainstream credit, and this is one way in which we could achieve that.

A quarter of the customers who use high-cost-credit companies cannot borrow from other lenders. As a consequence, they do not build up the evidence of being good borrowers that would allow them to use mainstream sources of credit. These companies do not share information on their customers, making it incredibly difficult for customers to prove that they could use more mainstream sources of credit. The question of adequacy could also be applied to companies’ use of rollovers and stepping up of loans, which means that borrowers are stuck with using them. In particular, because they often lend only small amounts of money to begin with—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a passionate point, but it is associated only very loosely with amendment 9 to clause 72, so I wonder whether she could bring herself back to the matter that we are discussing.

[Stella Creasy]

I apologise to the Chair if I am not being clear, but I see this in the context of paragraph (b) of the amendment on the wider regulation of the banking system, and the importance of trying to use the opportunity that the bank levy presents to effect a positive impact on the way in which money is lent to those on low incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend is right, but perhaps he has missed a further element of that toxic mix. That is not the role of the rating agencies, although they played their part in bundling up sub-prime mortgages. In order to securitise them into revenue streams for companies, they had looked at the historical rate of default in the sub-prime sector in 2000, when only 5% of the market was being sold to sub-prime borrowers, not in 2005, when the figure was 47%. The effect was that many companies had security streams that were not very secure. The piece of the toxic mix that we need to introduce is the way in which hedge funds brought to bear their financial might.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

rose—

[Barry Gardiner]

I give way to Mr Gray.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way to the Chair, but resuming his seat. He is giving an interesting explanation of the causes of the banking crisis. He must relate his point to amendment 9, which we are discussing, rather than dilating more generally on the subject.

[Barry Gardiner]

Of course I wish to abide by your ruling, Mr Gray. I am referring to earlier comments in the debate, which I am sure you heard, from the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who was not ruled out of order. He gave an interesting explanation of the history of what we are discussing.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. I was not in the Chair at that time. It seems to me important that we relate the debate to what we are supposed to be debating, namely amendment 9. I am not aware of what happened previously, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman relates his comments directly to the amendment.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very happy to do so, Mr Gray. We are talking about a bank levy, and amendment 9 refers to

“the Government’s analysis behind the rate and threshold chosen for the bank levy”.

It seems to me that if one is to perform an analysis of the rate and threshold chosen, one has to understand how these things came about and the historical context. More importantly, one has to understand the regulatory context and what went wrong in the regulatory system. Much of the debate has been about that regulatory structure. I am seeking to address subsection (2)(a) proposed in the amendment. That is exactly the import of my remarks.

As the hedge funds brought their pressure to bear, they identified the problem of the companies’ overvaluation in the market. They saw that the structure of the bundled streams of security was not providing the security to the companies that the market believed it was providing. The hedge funds then short sold on those companies. That was an important regulatory failure. There was no uptake rule and no clear limit on the arbitrage window that was allowed for trading on such shares, so the short selling allowed the hedge funds to beat down the value of those financial institutions in such a way that there was a precipitation of the collapse of the credit that could flow through the financial institutions, which infected all the other companies in the stock exchange. That is how the situation became a global crisis.

In addressing the analysis that the amendment asks the Government to engage in, I urge them to take seriously the regulatory failings at that time. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says from a sedentary position that those were the mistakes of the previous Government. What I am pointing out to him is that they were not simply mistakes made by the previous Government, but mistakes that were made on a global scale. The financial crisis started in the sub-prime market in the US, and that infected the global markets. The reason that it took hold in the UK, to the detriment of this country, was that we had placed an over-reliance on the financial markets and the financial sector as opposed to manufacturing and industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

You cannot intervene on an intervention. I am going on because the Economic Secretary has been wittering on for so long.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

Order. Interventions must be short. The tenor of the debate is moving widely away from the amendment that we are supposed to be discussing. The amendment is about the bank levy, the way in which it is raised and the way in which it affects the wider banking sector. I accept that there is a point about that, but we must return to our consideration of the amendment, rather than having such a wide discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I should apologise to you and the Committee for an inadvertent breach of the conventions of the House, namely that having chaired the Committee earlier this evening, I inadvertently forgot the convention that I should not vote. I have, in fact, voted twice in Divisions since then. I apologise for that oversight.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Committee is grateful for that explanation.

Clause 7

Increase in rate of supplementary charge