Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and John McDonnell

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is exactly the point that I was trying to establish. When we anticipated the extension of the retirement age to 60, we did not think that every operational firefighter would be fit and healthy enough to work until 60. We thought that opportunities would be found for them in back-room jobs in fire prevention, school education and all manner of support roles to ensure that we took advantage of, and did not waste, the experience that they had accumulated over many years on the front line. However, because of austerity and the cuts and reductions that have been made in the service because we do not need as many fire stations and firefighters, there are many fewer such positions for firefighters who are not fit to fulfil other duties.

Under the new rules that the Government are trying to push through, firefighters are faced with a massive reduction in their pension if they go before 60. We never anticipated that there would be such a punitive element in the pension arrangements because, as part of the new deal, firefighters are being asked to contribute another 2.6%, which takes their deductions up to 12.6%. Many of us know the fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and we have a lot of time for a number of the things that he does. Everyone on the Government Front Bench keeps describing the firefighters pension scheme as generous. It is a good scheme, but they are expected to pay 12.6% for it and the reason for that is deaths and injuries. The scheme is valid and valued, as it ought to be, because of the nature of the job.

Colleagues regularly stand up in this House to applaud the role that has been played by the emergency services in dealing with some tragedy, disaster, flood or storm. These people risk their lives for us on a daily basis. In their view, they are being forced to take industrial action because nobody is listening. They might have to take a hit of up to a 50% cut in their pension because they cannot last until 60. I am 61 and am relatively fit. I know what that job is about because I did it for 23 years. I know what it is like to be on strike. No emergency service worker wants to go on strike. They risk their lives for 365 days a year and then they have to walk out the door and deny the community that they want to protect the ability, discipline and professionalism that they have built up.

This is a monstrous situation. My appeal to the Deputy Leader of the House is that he takes the strong message back to the fire Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Prime Minister that we need serious negotiations. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, if there are places for firefighters to work away from the front line, they will fill those places.

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

I will raise this matter, among others, when I speak. My hon. Friend should be aware that the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union has received a letter from the fire Minister that is dated 18 December, which suggests that he is willing to meet again. The union is responding immediately because it is willing to meet the Minister any time, any place. However, there must be serious negotiations to settle the dispute. There is the potential to avoid strike action if the Minister is serious.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because it is excellent news that the fire Minister has held out an olive branch to the Fire Brigades Union by saying that he is prepared to sit down with it, and that the union is contacting the Department for Communities and Local Government to set up the meeting. Nobody here wants to see any more fire strikes. Another series of strikes has been announced but I am convinced that nobody in the fire service wants to see more strikes. The last thing that the general public want to see is the withdrawal of any emergency service, with the cost and disruption that it causes to the authorities who have to provide the best possible cover.

In conclusion, I am grateful to the Foreign Office for what it is doing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for indicating that the fire Minister has extended an offer of talks. I hope that those talks take place. Like the hon. Member for Southend West, I conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff a very happy Christmas.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I am so sorry. I have a directional problem: I am lost once I get north of the A40, I am afraid.

It was proposed that those firefighters who were incapable of completing all of their duties could be moved to other roles, but then, unfortunately, the cuts took place and we identified that, in one year, there were only 15 vacancies to which front-line firefighters could be transferred in way that would enable them to continue in work and to pay into their pension and earn a wage. The reason for the disputes was that employers and the Government refused to recognise that there was an issue about the capability and fitness problem faced by firefighters. A strike took place, which at least led to a breakthrough in that employers recognised that there was an issue that had to be addressed. Negotiations took place on eight points, but they basically foundered on two main ones.

The first, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, was the risk of having no job and no pension. Firefighters find that they physically cannot do the job, which all the evidence points towards. To be frank, I do not want a geriatric firefighter coming up a ladder to rescue me, and all the evidence demonstrates that as firefighters reach 55 or 60, their capability goes down. In addition, there is further evidence about the—short—longevity of firefighters after they retire.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend referred to the Williams inquiry. Williams said that estimates were that from 20% up to 90% of firefighters would not be able to work until 60, so there is a big demand for alternative employment for them or for their pensions to be honoured.

[John McDonnell]

I thought that the FBU was fairly reasonable in simply asking for some guarantee to take back to its members about their having either a job or a pension. It is as simple as that: the problem is that people cannot be in the situation of having no job and no pension. As I have said, the employers and the Government accepted that there was an issue to address, but how were firefighters to gain such a guarantee? That is the problem of the dispute at the moment.

In the negotiations, the fire Minister eventually offered a change to the national framework so that there is guidance to employers that some form of security should be given to firefighters in the form either of a job or of a guaranteed pension. The problem about the national framework is that it is guidance; it is not legally enforceable. The FBU has brought cases, so there is case law, and Lord Justice Rix has clearly demonstrated that the framework is guidance that employers can ignore. It is as simple as that. One problem with Ministers coming and going is that when Ministers give guidance, some employers perhaps abide by it for a period, but Ministers come and go and Governments come and go, and employers eventually interpret the guidance as they see fit.

The FBU put forward a draft proposal that instead of guidance, the fire Minister should adopt regulations linked to the pension scheme. If he had accepted that, one of the main points of the dispute would have been resolved, but that was refused. The FBU has warned of further strike action. It has balloted its members and received overwhelming support for strike action. As a result of the legal process that unions have to go through, it has now had to call the dates for the strikes. The Minister wrote yesterday to say that he was willing to meet it again, but as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, the FBU is willing to meet any time, any place—wherever the Minister wants—but the talks have to be meaningful, not just another round of public relations stunts or spin.

I have a lot of time for the fire Minister, but given the seriousness of the dispute, I would say at this point that the issue has reached Secretary of State level. As happened in the last fire dispute, the Secretary of State has to come to the table to start negotiations. In the last fire dispute under the previous Government, I remember the Prime Minister getting involved at one point to try to hammer out the issue so that people were not put at risk. We are within days of another dispute leading to another strike, and the Secretary of State needs at least to get involved in starting off negotiations. His coming to the table would demonstrate a seriousness of intent.

The other issue, which I will not go into in depth, is that of contributions. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend, who gave the figures in percentage terms. Under the new pension scheme, there will be an increase in contributions each year for four years: for members of the 2006 scheme, contributions will go up from 8.5% in 2011 to 12.6% in 2015. A firefighter on a salary of £29,766 will pay more than £4,000 a year for their pension alone if those increases are imposed. That is a significant increase for people who are on a relatively modest wage for professionals in this field.

I urge all Members, because the onus is on all of us, to ensure that we lay the path for negotiations to head off the current dispute. I think that the Secretary of State needs to come to the table for meaningful discussions to resolve the matter. I am happy to assist in the discussions at any time and to try to get people together. The FBU has made it very clear over the past 24 hours that it is willing to talk, but that the talks must be serious.

Another staffing issue that I want to raise relates to staff in this House. The dispute of the Commons Tea Room staff has still not been resolved a year on. To make Members aware of what happened, let me say that elements of the new management decided to reinterpret the contract that some of the Members’ Tea Room staff had been working on for more than 20 years. They decided that the old contract had been misinterpreted by the previous management and introduced what was effectively a reduction in pay and conditions. The dispute has gone on and negotiations have taken place, but it has not been resolved. I am told that the next stage is that the individual members of staff are getting together as a group to meet management again.

We are well served by those staff. They work incredibly hard, sometimes with demanding Members coming in at all hours and wanting all sorts of foodstuffs. They always serve us with a smile. I think that they deserve a bit more respect than they are getting. Trying to tear up their conditions of service when some of them have been working there for two decades is just not acceptable.

Last week, I met the security staff here who are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. I am chair of the PCS parliamentary group. New rosters were imposed on the security staff earlier this year. There was a strike, but it did not resolve the issue and the rosters were still imposed. The new rosters reduce the flexibility of the work and impact on carers. Those people are largely women, because they tend to be the carers in society, but it affects parents generally and other types of carers. The staff have demonstrated to management that the new rosters are costing more than the old ones because of the high levels of overtime that have to be paid and the lack of flexibility.

The security staff are employed by the Metropolitan police on a contract. That contract is up for renegotiation in 2015. The staff are worried that they are being set up for privatisation. They want to enter into negotiations with management so that staff are able to continue with that contract or, if the Metropolitan police do not want the contract, the staff can be brought in-house. If Members have the time, they should speak to the security staff, because they are unhappy and disgruntled. They are worried not only about their terms of service, but that their service is not good enough because they do not have the flexibility that they used to have, that it is costing more and that their position will be undermined in the longer term.

I want to make two last points. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) spoke about the Metropolitan police. I am anxious about what is happening in the Met. A range of cuts are feeding through. Safer neighbourhood teams were one of the best policing reforms that were undertaken by the last Government. It is good to have a local sergeant, two police constables and a couple of police community support officers located within the ward and to have the guarantee that they will not be pulled out of the ward for other extraneous duties. The cuts that are coming through now are undermining safer neighbourhood policing in our areas. There are not sufficient PCs, the recruitment of PCSOs is not happening and safer neighbourhood teams are being combined. That is breaking down the local connection.

The retirement of a large number of officers who had long service means that we have lost a lot of experienced police officers. When we lose that experience we also lose the supervision, and I am anxious about that. In my constituency, as in many across London, we are losing police officers and their visibility on the streets is being reduced. At the same time—I agree about this with the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and we share the same borough—the quality of policing we receive is superb. The police work extremely hard under extremely difficult circumstances and with reducing resources.

Finally, I will refer to one happy piece of news. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain is a small trade union that has been running a campaign to secure the living wage for cleaners, particularly in central London and the City. One employer that has been a difficult nut to crack is a company called MITIE. The union organised its workers and there have been disputes and demonstrations. MITIE issued a letter to all its staff, basically saying that any appearance on a demonstration related to the living wage would be interpreted as gross misconduct and they would be dismissed. After a short campaign by the cleaners and an early-day motion in this House, and thanks to the hard work of the union organiser, Chris Ford, negotiations have taken place over the past couple of days. MITIE is now in negotiations with the union about the living wage in relation to the contract. It has withdrawn its threatening letter to the staff and even sent out a letter apologising to them. I congratulate the IWGB—in particular the organiser, Chris Ford—on that success, and also the employer for seeing sense and coming back to the negotiating table. I hope that will send a message to other employers.

We all sort of glamorise John Lewis as a wonderful mutual—apart, that is, for the fact that it has outsourced its cleaners who are not part of the mutual system and not paid the London living wage. Again, the IWGB has been running a campaign on that, and I have been on the picket lines, trying to urge that company to recognise that its cleaners should be part of its mutual structure and paid properly. The other group of workers who I think will be mobilised over the coming period are fast-food workers. They are largely not unionised and many are on the minimum wage with poor employment conditions. We have convened a meeting in the House of Commons next year to bring together all those unions, and others who want to campaign for the rights of fast-food workers in the new year.

In the spirit of Christmas, I wish hon. Members a happy Christmas and a determined and campaigning new year.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and John McDonnell

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) will come back and argue about the practicalities of that for certain geographical locations in the United Kingdom. However, the desire must be to have slaughter as close to the farm as possible and to obviate the need for any long-distance journeys, whether in the UK or to the continent. I am arguing that we should look again seriously at the recommendations of Thanet district council, the RSPCA and others. From experience, every regime so far put in place has not worked. We had another scandalous example with Joline this time round, and there have been others in the past. That is why I support the proposal for an inquiry.

I would prefer the Government to set up an independent inquiry, but if it must be the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so be it. That Committee can look at animal welfare, the economics of the industry and why there is such economic necessity for live animal exports, as well as at the distribution of abattoirs, which in themselves have the potential to generate employment. It can look at how, if we are to transport animals in the future, we can reassure people that those animals will be safe and secure, and that their welfare will be maintained not only in this country but, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, when they reach other countries. In the past we seem to have lost control of what happens to our exported stock in other countries.

That is the short-term practical approach; we need to undertake an inquiry, take on board Thanet district council’s recommendations and introduce an economic debate on this issue. I am also worried about the staffing of individual organisations on which we rely to undertake these tests and checks. I give the example of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Its offices are being closed, staff are being laid off, and I doubt whether it has the capacity to maintain the vehicle inspection regime that we would expect of it. I am also concerned about staffing in DEFRA and the cutbacks there, and about the resources available to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The inquiry should consider that range of staffing issues because the worst thing that could happen is that we put an inspection regime in place, but the resources and the expertise are not available. That includes the expertise of working alongside voluntary organisations such as the RSPCA. That is the problem with a pragmatic approach in the near future if we do not move towards a ban.

So often, promises have been made, and procedures and regimes have been put in place that have not worked. My view now is therefore that a ban should be introduced because the animal welfare issues are overriding.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about ensuring that adequate resources are available to do the job. On Tuesday, Committee proceedings finished on the HGV Road Levy Bill, which gives the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency additional resources to monitor and enforce the levy that will be introduced in due course for foreign hauliers using our roads. Perhaps the Minister will say whether, given the additional safeguards that appear to be required at Ramsgate, DEFRA will provide additional resources to address that matter.

[John McDonnell]

I think that the Minister heard the question; he does not need me to repeat it.

The Minister has a job to do now in negotiating with other Departments. Yesterday, I met some Public and Commercial Services Union representatives, who are involved in the Department for Transport, including VOSA and DVLA. There are genuine issues about the future, including the review of Department functions, the threat of privatisation and outsourcing, and staff numbers. I am therefore fearful for whatever regime we expect to be put in place. I believe that neither the staff nor the expertise are there, or that they will be so stretched that the regime will not meet our requirements.

After several years as a Member of Parliament, with the problem arising regularly, it is clear that every regime put in place has not worked, resulting in immense animal suffering and immense concern throughout the country. I have many letters from constituents who are concerned about the matter and constituents who have been on demonstrations in Ramsgate. Time and again, they have come back extremely concerned about what they have witnessed. It is now therefore my view that we should introduce a ban and, if necessary, lobby Europe to challenge the European interpretation of the directives, thereby reassuring many of our constituents who are anxious about the matter.

Failing that, if there is to be an inquiry, it needs to be done quickly and be fully inclusive. I am anxious that organisations such as the RSPCA, as well as producer representatives and the trade unions, are fully involved, and that the inquiry comes up with some recommendations fairly soon. That must include representations about the level of resources, as well as the regime that will be put in place.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and John McDonnell

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I entirely agree that seeking to place an environmental duty in the Bill is in no way inappropriate. We think it is entirely in keeping with the new powers to confer on the CAA a duty to take cognisance of the environmental impact of aviation.

Concerns were raised in Committee about the inclusion of the regulatory asset base, and the Gatwick Express was mentioned, along with other aspects. The Opposition believed that stronger powers were needed—and that they were needed on the face of the Bill.

We ask the question once again: why is there no environmental duty for the CAA as a regulator? The Government say that they want to be “the greenest Government ever”—fine words. The Minister proudly says that she will “yield to no one” on environmental protection. I congratulate her on that, as these are more fine words. The Lib Dems say that we were not tough or focused enough and that our words were not appropriate—more fine words, if they mean anything. The time to take action, however, is now, because we have the opportunity to do so now.

With new clause 6 and amendment 7, we think that seeking to inform passengers about the environmental impact is wholly appropriate. The Minister agreed with the principle when she said that she shared with Opposition members of the Committee

“the goal of harnessing consumer power in our efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation.”—[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 314.]

We all know that the tools exist commercially. Travel companies produce information on the environmental impact of different modes of transport, and this is advocated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by the Department of Energy and Climate Change—so why not by the Department for Transport?

We heard powerful evidence in Committee to suggest that passenger choice is based not on green issues—if that were the case, it would be welcome—but on the location of the airport, whether it serves their destination and on the convenience of getting there, as well, of course, as the cost. It is not based on the environment, but the environment does matter, and it will matter increasingly in the years ahead. Now is the time, and here is the opportunity, to encourage that type of decision making on the environment by including information about environmental impacts on ticketing and the CAA could do that. We will therefore seek to test support for new clause 6.

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, said:

“The Government has refused to recommit to the targets on reducing emissions from aviation set by the previous Labour government and has yet to respond positively to the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation that this should be extended to include the UK’s share of international emissions, which is explicitly covered by the amendment.”

I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. I cannot repeat what my hon. Friend said about the Liberal Democrats, unless the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) wants me to. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] Well, she was not very kind to the Liberal Democrats. She said that they were “meekly” following the Government in rejecting our amendments. Clearly she anticipated their exact response, which is entirely inconsistent with their pre-election stance on dealing with the environmental impact of aviation.

We think that the Government should be bolder, cleaner and greener, and should accept the principle of environmental duty. If we do not receive the reassurance that we seek from the Minister—and I do not expect that we shall—we will seek to divide the House on amendment 3 and new clause 6.

Let me end by quoting recommendation 38 of the Transport Committee’s report. I see that the highly regarded independent Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—for whom the whole House has regard—is present. Her Committee said:

“Without giving the CAA a supplementary duty on the environment in relation to its economic regulation role, there is some risk that airports may be reluctant to invest in improving environmental performance. Whilst, as the Minister says, there may be ‘absolutely no doubt’ about measures taken to comply with statutory environmental obligations, there remains a doubt about whether the costs of discretionary measures, such as improved public transport access, can be recovered by airports in charges to airlines.”

That is one recommendation that we solidly support, which is why we wish to press the new clause and amendment to a vote at the appropriate time.

[John McDonnell]

I support all the new clauses and amendments, and I am sure that when the Minister has explained what her amendment is, I will support it as well.

I thought that Members throughout the House had learned as a result of the debate on the third runway and overall aviation strategy that—as the Select Committee has said—it was necessary for proper account to be taken of the environmental impact of the development of aviation, and of airports in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pointed out, this evening we have been presented with an opportunity to ensure that that happens.

Let me explain why this is important to my community. Tonight I am to attend the annual general meeting of the Harmondsworth and Sipson residents association, which will also be attended by representatives of each of the Heathrow villages, including Longford, Harlington and, I hope, Cranford Cross. The issues that will concern them are the issues in the amendments. They will be concerned about the noise from the airport itself and about the environmental impact of air pollution, but also about the future of their villages. In other words, they will be concerned about the overall impact of the airport on their local communities.

New clause 6—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse has spoken so eloquently, both today and in Committee—highlights the fact that the measures taken so far to address the problem of noise pollution from the airport have simply not worked. There has been some improvement, but nothing like the improvement that we want as a local community, and certainly nothing that is acceptable. There is a voluntary agreement at Heathrow purely and simply to provide insulation for a limited number of properties—private houses, and some public buildings—but although that is welcome, it is a voluntary agreement and has had no impact in bearing down on the noise from the airport. I believe that posing the threat of a compensation scheme will focus the minds of the airport authorities and the aviation industry, and will constitute a promise to local residents of at least some compensation.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked how such a scheme could be devised. We arrived at the idea of the insulation scheme and devised it during our debates, and although there was no actual consensus, at least we secured agreement in some form. I am sure that we can use that as a model for our scheme, which is being consulted on at present. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to devise an appropriate scheme and build upon it for the future.

A group of my constituents live in the most air-polluted area of the whole country, along with the City of London. That is reflected in the incidence of respiratory conditions and cancer in the area. We have been designated an air quality management zone, but that has had no effect whatever on the level of air pollution in the area, because of the increase in aviation. Therefore, I support the amendments that place a responsibility on the CAA and the Secretary of State to look at environmental impacts, including air pollution and emissions. They contribute to climate change as well.

The Bill provides us with an opportunity to make this a cross-party priority. That will send the aviation industry the message that we must address these issues. Air quality management zones and all the other policies of the past 20 years have had very little impact.

I welcome the amendments that would place a duty on the Secretary of State and the CAA to take into account the overall impact of aviation activities on local communities. That is important for my community. BAA and the aviation industry have taken no account of the impact of their activities on the village of Sipson. They have blighted the Heathrow villages for almost 20 years as a result of threats of expansion. They have brought in a bond scheme whereby they have bought up the village of Sipson, even though the Government have now said there will be no third runway, for which I thank them. The Labour Opposition have said exactly the same; we are opposed to a third runway now. There is cross-House consensus on this, therefore. I am not completely sure that that is written in blood, but it will be if there is any going back on the commitment.

However, BAA is still not giving up those properties. In fact, this month it has bought more, and it has housed people in them on a temporary basis—for 12 months or two years. That has destabilised Sipson.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and John McDonnell

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

As my right hon. Friend said earlier, all these clauses are linked and it is difficult to disaggregate them. Clause 10 is certainly being used a mechanism to fund the allowances being distributed to companies overall. As I say, I find it extremely difficult to link that to the rationale that has been given by both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister in the past.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

One of the biggest elements of British manufacturing is the food industry. When I was a Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Farmers Union lobbied me aggressively. Consequently, I lobbied the Treasury, as DEFRA does, about capital allowances in respect of buildings and equipment for the farming community. Has my hon. Friend had a chance to talk to the NFU about the comments he is making? Has he any understanding about whether it is being penalised in order to assist transnational corporations from outside the UK? Is this being done instead of supporting British manufacturing and British business people?

[John McDonnell]

Strangely enough, given that I represent Hayes and Harlington, an urban area, I do not have an awful lot of engagement with the NFU, although my area does still have one farm left in it. I have an engagement with Hillingdon chamber of commerce—I am meant to be hosting its annual parliamentary lunch at the moment—and a number of its members have explained to me their concerns about the impact on small firms. I share the view of the hon. Member for Amber Valley: capital allowances should not be used just as mechanisms to be manipulated in years of high profit. There is a need for an overall review of capital allowances, but I find it unacceptable to cut them in the short term to pay for corporation tax reductions and for the beneficial treatment of multinational corporations. That is why I support the amendment, which is fairly mild-mannered and simply asks whether we can reconsider the matter.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, I would expect a wise Government to have the Treasury carry out such an assessment regularly. The amendment asks for that process to be more open and transparent and for it to be reported to the House so that we can have a full and thorough debate. I hope that the Minister can assure us that he can at least give us some line of reporting on the implementation of the policy over the coming period.

It worries me that as we cut capital allowances, which will reduce corporation tax in this country, we will get into a cycle just like that in the 1930s with an internecine battle between countries about reducing corporation taxes. That will lead to a policy of beggar thy neighbour in order to secure some short-term gain in the form of overseas investment in the UK. I do not believe that that is the solution and I think it will be found to be counter-productive in the long term, even though there might be some short-term gains to tide the Government over for the next 18 months, if they survive that long.

I believe that the Government are mistaken in bringing forward this process of corporation tax reduction. If we are paying for that through the capital allowances changes, we will divide industry and the private sector. A large number of small firms, particularly in the manufacturing sector, will lose out and will not gain sufficiently as a result of the corporation tax cuts. Other areas of the economy, particularly the finance sector, will gain yet again and yet more anxiety will be expressed in the private sector about the Government’s divide-and-rule policy.