Autumn Statement
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to help people on middle incomes as well as those on low incomes. Many of the measures, in particular those on fuel duty and rail fares, will help those people. The personal allowance is now passed through so that those who pay the higher rate of income tax, although not those who pay the top rate, get the benefit if they earn less than £100,000. The benefit is therefore flowing through to those people as well. That is all part of what we are doing to help working people in both the middle and lower income brackets.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Last year, wholesale energy prices rose by 1.7%, but energy bills rose by more than 9%. Why does the Chancellor think it is appropriate to reduce the number of solid wall insulation tasks for energy companies, thus destroying thousands of newly created jobs, rather than tackling the excessive profits of the greedy energy companies that have their hands in all our pockets?
Mr Osborne
Of course, it was the Labour Government who left us with six energy companies—[Interruption.] I do think that is relevant, because it is this Government who are seeking the competition that will bring new entrants. Let me address the specific point that the right hon. Lady makes. To compensate for the fact that we are rolling back some of the levies, for example in the energy company obligation, we have set out schemes today that will reward home owners who use energy efficiency measures to improve the efficiency of their home. Those include an additional bonus for solid wall insulation. There is also extra money for public sector organisations and private landlords to make their buildings more efficient. Across the board, we are supporting the insulation industry, but we are doing so in a way that does not penalise people through their electricity and gas bills. That is something that she should support.
Autumn Statement
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Of course I understand why my right hon. Friend speaks on behalf of her constituents who will be affected by the High Speed 2 development, but I think that it is the right infrastructure for our country, and that it will help to change the economic geography of Britain by connecting some of our northern and midland cities with London. I hope she will acknowledge that we have been generous with some of the compensation as well. She asked specific questions about the extension to Heathrow and the design of the route. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary would be better placed to answer them, and in the new year he will have more to say about the route to the north-west and to west Yorkshire.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Bloomberg New Energy Finance has demonstrated that investment in renewable energy has fallen by a half since this Government came to power. Does the Chancellor not agree that we need to look to the future and to invest in green jobs? To that end, will he stop the veto in the Energy Bill of the 2030 decarbonisation target that has been demanded by 1,500 leading companies in this country and recommended by the Committee on Climate Change?
Mr Osborne
This Government have introduced the UK Green Investment Bank, which is now making investments. I have also introduced a carbon price floor, which is recognised around the world as an effective way of ensuring the decarbonisation of our economy in a market-driven way. We have just published the Energy Bill and a levy control framework that would allow for new investment in renewables through the rest of this decade. The industry has that certainty, alongside the gas strategy. On the decarbonisation target, we are going to take a power in the Bill to set a target, but that will be a decision for after the next carbon budget, which will happen in 2016. That is a perfectly sensible and rational approach to take.
Amendment of the Law
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tyrie
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend serves with me on the Treasury Committee, and we have published quite a detailed report on competition in retail banking that has won the support of Vickers and of the Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and somewhere. [Interruption.] Harpenden, is it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley)? Anyway, wherever it is, it is somewhere in Hertfordshire.
The loan guarantee scheme was at least announced. I have to tell the Chancellor, who is in his place, that several colleagues on both sides of the House have complained to me about the leaks and briefings in the days prior to the Budget. All I will say at this point is that the Treasury Committee will look at the matter.
The Committee will also publish a preliminary report on the Budget in time for the consideration of the Finance Bill. The timetable proposed by the Government is very tight, but we will do our best. In particular, we will scrutinise what the Chancellor has described—correctly, by the look of things—as a tax-reforming Budget. We will examine whether the main tax measures live up to what it is claimed they will achieve. We will assess them against a number of principles that the Committee believes should guide tax reform, which we set out in a report 14 months ago, “Principles of tax policy”.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am most grateful. I hope that when the Committee does its review, it will consider the fact that for an ordinary family with two children, the losses coming this April will amount to £530 and the compensation that the Chancellor boasted of giving will amount to only £220.
Mr Tyrie
We will seek evidence on that point and on all the main measures, and we will publish it as quickly as we can. I thank the right hon. Lady for making that point.
The principles that we set out in our paper a little over a year ago were more or less endorsed by the Chancellor today. They were: does a measure make the tax system more simple, predictable—the Chancellor used that word—stable, fair and coherent, and does it unlock higher economic growth? As last year, we will ask the major accountancy bodies—the chartered accountants, the certified accountants and the Chartered Institute of Taxation—to score each major measure against those principles. We hope the Committee can thereby assist the House in gauging progress towards a simpler, fairer tax system. That is what all our constituents want.
We will also ask those bodies to scrutinise some of the measures that have been announced today—the cap on tax reliefs and its workability; the yield from the 45p rate; the general anti-avoidance provision, about which a number of us have concerns; and the reference to retrospection in the tax system that is associated with that provision, which many have held could damage the yield in the long run. We will also take a look at the Leader of the Opposition’s point that this was a Budget for millionaires, at the expense of the squeezed middle.
A number of colleagues have asked the Committee also to examine measures that were introduced in previous Budgets, to see what the effect of them has been. Have they had the effect of raising more revenue and generating more efficiency than was outlined for them when they were introduced? We have not made up our mind about which measures to examine in that respect, but I suspect that in a few years’ time the cut in the top rate of tax announced today will be a prime candidate. We will be able to judge whether Mr Laffer really was out and about.
Mr Redwood
We all know from the output and jobs figures that the economy did not do as well at the end of last year as it had done at other times since the Government were elected, but we also know that the forecasts are that growth will now pick up. I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome that and join me in having a serious debate on what this Parliament can do to make it more likely that my constituents and hers have jobs, and more likely that they are better-paid jobs.
The question whether real public spending is falling or not depends on the rate of inflation in the public sector, so I urge again that we take advantage of the tough times. There is a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers, and the Government say that they are buying things more cheaply throughout the public sector. In addition, there are recessionary conditions in Europe and other parts of the world. If we take advantage of those things, it should mean that we do not have to have big real cuts in spending, because we will have that £90 billion per annum to spend by the fifth year of the strategy.
However, we should focus today on taxation, which is clearly what the Leader of the Opposition wanted to focus on. I do not think he listened to the Budget speech or the numbers he was told, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it very clear that he had come up with a series of targeted measures to tax the very rich more than if he had not made the changes. That is fine by me, and I would hope it is fine by the Labour party, but the Leader of the Opposition seemed to say that it was not fair, because some rich people would still get away with it. However, if we get enough or more out of them overall, is that not worth while? Surely even Labour would accept that if we raise rates too high, the very rich go away—they find ways around paying the tax or do not pay.
Labour in opposition does not take that seriously enough, but the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), took it very seriously when he was in office. As Chancellor, he had the option of putting the 40% rate up to 45% or 50%, or the 83% that Labour had when previously in office, but he never chose to do it. I wish he were here today. If he were, I would ask him, “Why not?” I think his answer to Labour groups around the country is, reportedly, that had he raised it above 40%, he would have raised less money in taxation rather than more. Naturally he wanted to get more out of the rich—on that I agree with him entirely—but the way to do that was to keep the rate at a sensible level.
The Opposition should study the figures for tax receipts. If they look in the new Red Book, they will see that self-assessment income tax is plunging this year. That is exactly the problem that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to tackle. Under Labour, self-assessment taxation at 40%—the then rate—brought in £22.5 billion at its best, before it made a mess of the economy. The forecast for 2010-11 out-turn is £22 billion, and the forecast for the 2011-12 out-turn—soon to be seen—is only £20 billion. That means that the Treasury now expects a 10% reduction in self-assessment income tax receipts, which is where many of the high earners congregate with their complicated tax affairs. Those, then, who think that a 50p rate raises a lot more money have a lot of explaining to do given that we are in the middle of this collapse.
Mr Redwood
I am sorry but I will not get any more time, so I am afraid I cannot.
If the Opposition study the Red Book, they will also see that when the 45p rate is firmly up and running, there will be a surge in revenues compared with the current bitter experience with 50p. Self-assessment income tax is scheduled to rise to £28.5 billion by the last year of this Parliament, showing that, according to the Treasury’s own model, growth is expected. However, I think we will see a much disrupted experience of tax collection now, because if we give advance warning of a new lower rate, we might have a problem in the year before, but we will have to see—we will watch with great interest.
Overall, however, the House should note that there are difficulties with getting the massive increase in taxation from the country which everyone wants. According to the current receipts table, there has been slippage every year in the current receipts forecast under national accounts taxes compared with the autumn statement. Some of that, of course, is the result of the policy change on lower tax designed to help people—we welcome that very much—but we have to understand that it is very difficult to get as much tax out of the economy as many MPs would seem to like.
The Government are right to want a Budget for aspiration; they are right to want a Budget that allows us to earn our way out of this situation; and they are right that we need to make it more worthwhile to work. I hope that they will reinforce that message in future Budgets. Since the 1970s, in which time we have had Labour Governments as well as Conservative and coalition Governments, no Government have ever been able to raise more than 38% of the total national income from taxes. I am sure that Labour would like to try it, but actually the record shows that Conservatives have taxed a bit more as a percentage of national income than Labour—normally because they have had to clear up the mess, the debts and the deficits that they have inherited.
There is a natural ceiling on how much we can get out of people in a free economy. When we have a footloose international economy, it is all too easy for the people with talent and money—Labour might not like them—to go somewhere else, spend their money somewhere else and invest in jobs somewhere else. We desperately need every job that we can get, and we desperately need the good will of those with money, talent, entrepreneurial flare and ability. We also need the money of some of those who do not have any of the above—we still want them here and to ensure that they spend their money here.
The Budget therefore has to concentrate on the crucial issues of how we reward aspiration and generate true prosperity. A much greater man than I, I think, said, “You cannot tax a country into prosperity.” This country is not short of taxes. Governments have been incredibly inventive in finding all sorts of ways of taking money off people. They are taxed again and again and again—on income, on spending, on savings, on capital gain. There are endless taxes. We are not short of taxes. We do not need new taxes. We need a growing economy and to persuade people to pay the taxes that we have put in place trying to pay for the public services.
We want great public services but we need to understand the language of priorities. I think those priorities are shared across the House. Both Labour and Conservative Members would choose to make health and education their top priorities for public spending. The last Government certainly did that with large sums of money, and this Government are doing it with what money they can find. However, I also hope we would agree—this is more difficult when Labour are in opposition—that we need reform of those public services so that every pound we spend is a pound well spent. We need to increase productivity and quality, and get more for our money, because everyone has to accept that times are hard and the amount of money available will be limited.
The Front-Bench team need to do all they said in the Budget to promote growth; they need to do more to sort out the banks because until we have properly functioning and competitive banks—super-charged to lend against good projects—we will not go as quickly as we would like; and they need to ensure that every pound they spend in the public service is well spent. That is the way to earn our way out of the crisis and into prosperity. We cannot tax our way into prosperity but we can earn our way there.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
All Budgets are packages, and all of them are balancing acts, and that is particularly true of a Budget presented by a Chancellor in a coalition Government. It is fairly clear for all to see, in bold primary colours, which are the yellow and which are the blue packages in this particular Budget. What is also clear is the string that binds together this Budget and this coalition Government: reducing our deficit from the position that we inherited, where £1 in every four was being borrowed; restoring our economy to balanced and sustainable growth; restoring and maintaining confidence in the international markets; and bringing about a fair tax system that rewards work and enterprise, and taxes wealth. Labour borrowed us all into the mess that we inherited in 2010, but under the coalition Government, Britain will earn its way back to prosperity.
As Liberal Democrats in the coalition, we wanted three tax changes in this Budget. First, we wanted a fair income tax system that would lift the low-paid out of tax and bring about a tax break for middle earners. Secondly, we wanted a system that would tax accumulated and unearned wealth fairly and effectively. Thirdly, we wanted action to tackle the abuse of the tax system that was taking place through aggressive tax avoidance schemes. All three of those objectives have been met by the Chancellor’s Budget.
Two years ago, we were all about to go out on to the streets to start the general election campaign. The Liberal Democrats’ No. 1 priority at the time was to achieve in this Parliament tax-free pay for all our fellow citizens earning less than £10,000. That objective is in the coalition agreement, and significant progress has already been made towards achieving it.
Dame Joan Ruddock
The hon. Gentleman is part of a Government who have voted to reduce the income of the average family with children by £530 from the beginning of next month. There is no measure in the Budget that will make up for that, and frankly, people in my constituency will see it as an insult to their intelligence.
Stephen Williams
The right hon. Lady will hear as I make progress through my speech that working families up and down the country, with or without children, will benefit significantly from the tax changes that the Government are making.
In the current tax year, we have raised the allowance from £6,475 to £7,475, lifting 800,000 people out of the income tax net altogether and providing a £200 tax cut for every basic rate taxpayer.
Financial Services (South-east London)
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) on securing the debate. With the Minister’s indulgence, I am to be allowed to say a few words on behalf of my constituents. I want to give the last word to Stella, who wrote to me on her own behalf and on behalf of the 140-plus customers of the Lewisham branch of Nationwide who have signed her petition. She says:
“I am particularly concerned at the proposed closure of the branch in Lewisham High Street where I have been a customer for 33 years. The argument that the Nationwide gave me when I complained was that it was not a profitable branch and that they had to consider the needs of the millions of other members of the society. I don’t know how many of the 265,000 residents of Lewisham are members of the Nationwide but I can guess that several thousand of us have our mortgages and savings with them and there has been no consultation with us. Even more troubling is that the staff who work in the branches did not know that this was being proposed until the day before the letters announcing it arrived on members’ doormats.”
Stella goes on to talk about the advertisements for the Nationwide that encouraged people to “apply in branch”. She asks:
“How? When the nearest branches are a couple of bus rides away and I know that some disabled customers whom I met at the branch will find that a very real inconvenience. It does not seem to make business sense to close all the branches in the area as many local people will then close their accounts and transfer to other banks. When I suggested that they could have combined the three Lewisham branches into one larger branch the area manager replied that they could not find premises. They can’t have been looking very far as I was easily able to identify two eminently suitable premises at a short distance from their existing, well-used branch in Lewisham High Street. Previously I have been proud to say that I banked with the Nationwide as it combined efficiency with a strong ethical sense, safeguarding the principles of mutualism, but now it seems to have forgotten its roots and seems to be behaving as badly as the other banks and targeting people in poorer areas with an even poorer service.”
As my right hon. Friend has said, we have put all these points to the Nationwide, but we could not get a satisfactory answer. I wrote a letter to the chairman, whose reply demonstrated complete contempt for the Nationwide members in our area. The public have long been sickened by the behaviour of the bosses of the major banks in this country, but it is a very sad day indeed when our largest mutual shows the same disregard for its loyal customers.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
This is a Treasury-led issue, but it will self-evidently have an impact on businesses. I would have expected the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) to use his Business Secretary responsibilities to bat very hard to ensure that the measure has an impact on London, the south-east and the east. Amendments that we will talk to later focus on those areas and show key issues that will be highlighted by the annual report, even if the Bill does not include London, the south-east and east regions.
If I look randomly at the figures before me, I can see that the unemployment rate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is 6.8%, compared with the 1.6% unemployment rate in the North Somerset constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence. His constituency will get the benefit of the scheme; my hon. Friend’s will not. The annual report to Parliament will show whether businesses are being drawn to North Somerset at the expense of, for example, the micro-region of Somerset—Bristol and other areas—where there might be even higher levels of unemployment.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
In my constituency, sadly, unemployment is even higher, but I want to make a different point to my right hon. Friend. Is there not a need to provide this assistance where there is the greatest risk of companies failing in their first year? In some of the most deprived areas, people with the fewest resources face the greatest difficulties in setting up businesses, and their business failure rate in the first year is highest. If we are to be fair, we should not be giving so much money to areas where that does not apply, and that is another reason for looking again at the distribution of this measure.
Mr Hanson
My right hon. Friend touches on an important point to which I will return when we discuss the group of amendments on London’s exclusion. She will be interested to know that the number of business deaths in London was 13.7% higher than anywhere else in the country. While business births are higher in London, at 12.6%, the figure for business deaths shows that there is a higher turnover and a greater loss of businesses in London than anywhere else.
London, the south-east and east region is not included in the Bill. However, even with the Bill as currently constituted, an annual report by constituency would clearly show where the business successes are, where new start-ups take place, and how many employees are being employed as result of the scheme—in other words, it would clearly show its success in meeting the Minister’s stated objectives. Without the annual report, I will have to table questions to find out that information. The Minister will need to have the information to monitor the progress of the scheme and look at its take-up and distribution, but it will not be public unless we have an annual report.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to return to the Bill and to some of the arguments that were made many times in Committee, and indeed many times in the speech of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) this afternoon. It is always fascinating to hear Opposition Members talk about the beneficial effect on employment of reducing employers’ national insurance contributions, although to be fair, I should exempt the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) from that comment.
I do not intend at this point to address all the points about regional matters and so on that the right hon. Member for Delyn touched upon, because we will return specifically to them later. I shall address new clause 1, which would require the Treasury, after Royal Assent, to provide to Parliament an annual report on the national insurance contributions holiday for new businesses. The report would be required to contain the total sum of business expenditure saved under the scheme and a breakdown by constituency of
“the number of businesses availing themselves of the secondary contributions holiday…the number of employees designated qualifying employees under the scheme; and…the total expenditure saved by businesses under the scheme.”
I think it would be fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) did, that it is not uncommon for Oppositions to table amendments requiring reports on the implementation and operation of a Bill, and for Governments to resist them. I say to the right hon. Member for Delyn that I do not believe the new clause is necessary, because in Committee I undertook to provide updates to the House and the public on the operation of the scheme after the end of the tax year, including information at regional level. His point that we should provide such information was entirely reasonable, and I can now give a little more detail about what we intend to provide.
We envisage a factual report that will state, regionally and nationally, the number of new businesses applying, the number of applications rejected, the number of qualifying employees for whom a holiday has been claimed and the amount claimed. The main difference between what I am saying we will do and the requirements of the new clause is that the latter would require a constituency-level breakdown, even though the scheme is regional in England and will not cover every English constituent.
The central point, which I made in Committee several times—the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) also touched on it—is that the locations of people’s work and of the businesses for which they work are not necessarily the same as the locations of people’s homes. Many people travel to work, and operating specifically on a constituency basis could result in a somewhat misleading view of the way in which the scheme works. We could identify one constituency that falls within a relevant region, where many businesses that benefit from the scheme are created and have many employees, and where public sector employment or unemployment is not high, and the right hon. Member for Delyn might then say, “This is an example of the scheme not operating as it should. Money is going into a relatively prosperous area and is not well targeted.” However, that ignores the fact that many employees who benefit from the scheme could live in neighbouring constituencies that are heavily dependent on the public sector, or where unemployment is high. I believe that looking at the matter on a constituency basis does not necessarily give a fair indication, and that examining it on a regional basis is better and more accurate. I therefore intend to prepare my reports on not a constituency but a regional basis. None the less, that should be helpful to hon. Members.
Joan Ruddock
The Exchequer Secretary seemed to say that even if an hon. Member tabled a parliamentary question requesting the information on a constituency basis, he would not provide it. That is unacceptable. Often, what happens to one’s constituents is affected by the neighbouring borough or area where a small company sets up. That is of interest to us, and I think that we should know.
Mr Gauke
I do not intend in any way to restrict what hon. Members ask, or the responses to the questions. My point is that it would be better for the Government report that sets out the working of the scheme to consider matters on a regional and national basis. I can understand why individual Members would want to ask about their constituencies. If information is available, it will be provided. I do not dispute that. However, when the Government provide an update on the scheme, it is right to focus regionally and nationally. I understand the right hon. Lady’s concern about her constituents, and the scheme will not apply in her constituency, but a regional or national approach is a more reasonable and reliable way of examining areas where it applies than trying to break it down into individual constituencies.
Joan Ruddock
I am most grateful to the Exchequer Secretary, who must clarify the matter, for giving way again. If an hon. Member tables a question requesting information about his or her constituency, will he be in a position to provide it?
Mr Hanson
The purpose of the amendments is self-evident and clear. We discussed this issue at great length in Committee but it is worth revisiting today to see whether the Minister has reflected over Christmas and the new year on the views that we put forward in Committee. The amendments would do one simple thing: include the regions of London, the south-east and the east in the regional secondary contributions holiday in the Bill. As I have said in relation to earlier amendments and throughout the Bill’s proceedings, we welcome the idea of a payment holiday but we do not believe that its implementation is fair or that it meets the objectives that the Minister has outlined of helping to tackle problems in areas with high public sector employment that will be disadvantaged by the pending public sector cuts, which will impact on both local government and central Government services throughout the country.
I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has said, that the Bill as a whole is not a panacea for tackling long-term unemployment or, indeed, the impact of public spending cuts and further potential unemployment across the board. What it does do, however, with its limited scope, is ensure that we provide an incentive over a short period—the next three years—for new businesses to be established. They will receive a payment holiday for national insurance contributions, which will be a small but a significant help towards the establishment of new businesses.
The Minister’s logic is that the scheme will operate in the selected regions because it should be used to help businesses where there has been a major impact on public sector employment, and he has specifically excluded the whole of the London, south-east and east regions. Let me chide him slightly, because I think he has fallen into the trap of believing that the whole of the London, south-east and east regions are similar in characteristic, have low levels of unemployment, low levels of deprivation and a low level of public sector employment. If the Government did not believe those things, he would have included those three regions in the scheme.
There are certainly high levels of employment and great prosperity in the east and south-east regions and there are certainly constituencies and even sub-regions with low levels of public-sector employment. However, there are also areas, as I am sure my hon. Friends who represent those areas will testify today, with extremely high levels of deprivation, unemployment and dependency on public sector employment that will be excluded from the potential benefits of the secondary benefits holiday because the Minister has excluded those three regions from the scheme.
Joan Ruddock
Perhaps my right hon. Friend is aware that the average level of public sector employment in the UK is 21.7%, but the figure in my constituency is 30%. Does he share my astonishment that my constituency and other parts of London with such a high level of public sector employment—leading, I am sorry to say, in these times, to high public sector unemployment—are being excluded?
Mr Hanson
My right hon. Friend makes that point in relation to Lewisham and her constituency, but as I shall discuss, it is not just her constituency and Lewisham borough that will be excluded and disadvantaged by the scheme. For example, the constituencies of Oxford East; Luton North; Lewisham East; Canterbury; Southampton, Test; Eltham; West Ham; North Thanet; Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Tooting; Islington North; Dulwich and West Norwood; and Brighton, Kemptown all fall, by the Minister’s own criteria, in the top 60 constituencies for public sector employment, but they will not be eligible for the scheme because the Minister is excluding them from it.
If the Minister looks, as he has, at the House of Commons figures that I raised with him in Committee, he will see that 23 of the top 100 constituencies for public sector employment in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland fall within the three regions that are excluded from the scheme. So my right hon. Friend makes a clear and telling point on behalf of her constituents, but 23 of the top 100 constituencies fall into the same category.
Mr Hanson
I am happy to discuss macro and micro-economic issues with the hon. Gentleman. There is a clear divide between the current Government and the previous Government. We had a deficit reduction plan over three years. We would have cut public expenditure and made savings. In the Department in which I was a Minister in the last Government, we had earmarked £1.5 billion of savings over the next three years. We would have done that.
There is a difference about the scale and depth of the cuts. The hon. Gentleman and I can argue about that, but he needs to recognise that, if he walks through the Lobby to vote against the amendment today, he will be denying new businesses in his constituency the ability to gain access to the scheme, while allowing areas with lower unemployment and lower deprivation, perhaps in parts of the north of England, which are not completely a desert, to benefit from the scheme. He has to wrestle with that issue. Let me advise him that however he deals with it, we have the ability to let the residents of Crawley know what he will do on the issue. He and others need to look at that. There is still time for him to vote with the Government today, but then to speak to the Minister privately, to get his colleagues from Kent, other parts of Sussex, Berkshire and Hampshire together, to get them to talk to the Minister, and to get the Minister to reflect on this in the other place, so that we can make the scheme much wider. Colleagues from London and I would give him credit for doing that.
I put this to the Minister: the unemployment rate in London is higher than in the south-west, in my region and in that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), in Wales. It is higher than in Scotland, the east midlands and the north-west, and it is above the UK average. The unemployment rate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham was 6.8% at the last count. The rate is 7.7% in Tottenham, and 6% in Camberwell and Peckham; in Tatton, Richmond and Derbyshire Dales, it is under 2%.
I have no objection to a scheme being developed to help create employment where employment is lost, but if the logic of the scheme is what the Minister has made it out to be—to deal with public sector employment —I should point out that at the moment 23 of the 100 constituencies with the highest levels of public sector employment are not included. If it is to deal with unemployment, which is higher in the places that I have mentioned than in other parts of the country, the Minister needs to reflect on that in relation to what he has done today.
The Minister does not need to listen to me; John Walker, the national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, has said:
“With small firms in the South East most likely to be working below capacity, this shows how wrong the Government is to not include this vital region, as well as the East and London, in its proposals for a National Insurance holiday…With 600,000 public sector jobs expected to be lost, stimulating private sector job creation…in small firms, will be vital to rebalancing the economy.”
The Thames Gateway London Partnership makes similar points:
“the data clearly shows that…the National Insurance Holiday is unfair as it excludes areas in the Thames Gateway which we believe would otherwise be targeted for government support.”
The partnership has helpfully shown—this backs up what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has said—that there are high levels of public sector employment in the London area, which would benefit from the scheme.
Joan Ruddock
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He may be aware that of the 10 Thames Gateway London boroughs, seven are in the 40 boroughs with the highest levels of multiple deprivation. My borough is at No. 39. Surely we have to be included in the scheme.
Mr Hanson
My right hon. Friend makes an important point supporting my central argument. I am trying to argue on the Minister’s own grounds. He argues that the scheme aims to help where there is loss of public sector employment. If 23 of the 100 constituencies with the highest levels of public sector employment do not benefit, the Minister’s scheme is not meeting the needs that he has set it to meet.
Let us look at public sector employment in the London Thames Gateway region. Some 21% of people employed in Barking and Dagenham work in the public sector. The figure is as high as 31% in Greenwich, 30% in Lewisham, 33.6% in the borough of Newham, 28.4% in Redbridge, and 26.6% in Waltham Forest, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy). The Thames Gateway London partnership has helpfully provided me with information on the subject. Even boroughs represented by two Conservative Members of Parliament, such as Southend-on-Sea, will not benefit from the scheme, although it has 24.66% of people employed in the public sector. Let us look at authorities in Kent, represented not by Labour Members of Parliament, but by Conservatives. In Medway, nearly 24% of people are employed in the public sector. In Gravesham, it is 22.2%, and in Swale it is 19.7%. Those are areas with high public sector employment that will not benefit from the scheme.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for tabling the amendment and for the fact that he has already referred to the Thames Gateway. I want to refer to issues associated with the Thames Gateway area and the borough I represent, Newham, together with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) who is in her place.
It is clear that the Government have simply got this wrong. If we consider the criteria that the Government have said should be applied to choosing where this incentive is available, as my right hon. Friend has said it is in those parts of the country where the proportion of public sector dependence is high that we need to encourage new businesses to start up and take on employees. Of course that is exactly the situation and is what is required in the Thames Gateway area on the east side of London. It is absurd to omit from the scope of this initiative areas that the Government have themselves identified for the promotion of new business growth.
I put it to the Minister that he is not being invited to support the policies of the Labour party or, indeed, any other institution; he is being invited to support the policies of the Prime Minister. It is extraordinary that the one area of the country where the Prime Minister has called explicitly for the creation of Silicon Valley-style economic regeneration based on high-tech start-ups is being missed out from the initiative. Let me refer the Minister to the speech that the Prime Minister gave in east London on 4 November—his east end tech city speech—and point out some of the comments he made. The Prime Minister said:
“Only three years ago, there were just fifteen technology start-ups around Old Street and Shoreditch…it’s clear that in East London, we have the potential to create one of the most dynamic working environments in the world. And I believe we can really turn this vision into a reality.”
I agree with the Prime Minister. I am baffled by the fact that in this Bill the Prime Minister’s initiative is being undermined, and I want to find out from the Minister why that is so. I hope he will accept the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn has made and, even at this late stage, accept the amendment.
Joan Ruddock
I think my right hon. Friend is providing the answer to the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). This is not about rebalancing between the south and the north; it is about rebalancing within London and the south-east where people are put out of public sector jobs and we hope that they might go into new businesses.
Stephen Timms
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also agree with the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) about the importance of high-speed broadband for bringing about this kind of change. Of course, at the moment we do not know which Department in Government is responsible for broadband—we were attempting to clarify that earlier.
In his speech on 4 November, the Prime Minister went on to spell out how his vision could be achieved. He said that experience
“teaches government some simple things. Go with the grain of what is already there. Don’t interfere so much that you smother. But do help out wherever you can. Help to create the right framework, so it’s easier for new companies to start up, for venture capital firms to invest, for innovations to flourish, for businesses to grow.”
That is what the Prime Minister has said he wants to happen in the east end tech city initiative.
Mr Gauke
In this group of amendments, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has returned to a matter that was debated extensively on Second Reading and in the Public Bill Committee. I commend him on his persistence, but I expect that he will not be surprised with my response, given the Government’s position, which I have set out in the earlier debates.
The amendments relate to the regional nature of the national insurance contributions holiday, a matter that was raised during all the earlier stages of our consideration of this Bill. Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, if taken together, would make the holiday a UK-wide scheme. The NICs holiday is aimed at helping the formation of new businesses employing staff in those countries and regions most reliant on public sector employment. The reason why the Greater London, east and south-eastern regions are excluded is that the proportion of the population in public sector employment is lower in those regions as a whole than in any other part of the UK. We also estimate that a national scheme would increase the costs by about 70%.
Joan Ruddock
Before the Minister goes into more detail—I warn him that I might seek to intervene again then—can he tell us whether any assessment was made of the impact of this on ethnic minority communities? The real observation has been made that the proportion of ethnic minority people who are great entrepreneurs and who wish to set up a business may well be greater in London and parts of the south-east than in some other regions.
Mr Gauke
Of course the Treasury examined all these matters in respect of its policies as a whole, its budget announcements and so on. I must point out that although the excluded region as a whole is diverse, the areas that will be included are equally so. I am not strongly persuaded by the arguments that have been made about this being discriminatory. When listening to these arguments, I was struck by the fact that it is worth reminding the House of what we are seeking to do. We are seeking to reduce the amount of NICs that will be collected, because we believe that in the way that we are doing so, we will be able to help to encourage business—
Comprehensive Spending Review
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief contribution, which I shall limit to my constituency, and to housing benefit in particular. Lewisham is a relatively poor borough, where wages are around £26,500 per annum on average and where the mean house price in sales last year was £240,000. In common with most London boroughs, we are an area of extreme housing stress, brought about primarily by population growth and the fragmentation of households. Changes in housing benefit will have a devastating effect on people who seek to be decently housed in Lewisham.
Ministers have sought to present their cuts and their new proposals in the light of a few absolutely extortionate rents. They have spoken continuously about the cap and the fact that people should not be able to claim benefits to live in what they deem to be luxury accommodation. That is not something that affects the majority of housing benefit claimants in this country. When he sums up, will the Minister, who is not paying attention—[Interruption] I am glad to see that he now is paying attention. Will he tell us what proportion of all housing benefit claimants in the UK are affected by the cap? In Lewisham, fewer than one in 1,000 people will be affected. Our people are not living in luxury, but let me tell him that this change will be a tragedy for the biggest families, living in the biggest properties—often in quite squalid conditions—and they will be evicted.
The fact is that a conservative estimate made by my local authority finds that 9,050 households are affected by the generality of changes that are proposed by this Government. I further tell the Minister, to nail another myth perpetrated by this Government, that 5,000 of those are people in work.
Joan Ruddock
I am advised not to allow interventions, as it will take up other Members’ time.
The loss for a one-bedroom property is about £11 a week; for a three-bedroom property, £34 a week; and for a four-bedroom property, £57 a week. People cannot make up this difference from their low wages—very low in Lewisham, as I have said—and they could not make it up if they were in receipt of benefit because of unemployment. There is no way these people can make it up, so they will be evicted. What will happen then? There are 17,000 people waiting for council housing in Lewisham; there are 50 families already in bed and breakfast; there are 1,000 households in temporary accommodation. There are no alternatives for the people I am concerned about. They will not be able to rent and they will not be able to find cheaper accommodation because of the huge pressure on housing—pressure that will come from richer boroughs that try to put people out of their own area and into areas like Lewisham.
The Government argue that rents will fall. They will not. We have so many young professionals who cannot purchase property because of the prices and because they cannot get loans—and they are taking up any slack. The Government argue that this is an incentive to work—a terrible insult to those who are unemployed. When Labour were in government, unemployment fell by 50% in my constituency. We halved unemployment and the fact is that it has risen only because of the recession. People want to work and people will work.
I am absolutely sickened when I hear the Government speak about fairness. There is nothing fair about these measures—nothing fair whatever—and they are going to hurt the most vulnerable most. They are absolutely sickening. They will not drive people into work; they will not lower the prices; there is nothing fair about the housing benefit changes and nothing more punitive. This is a catastrophe in the making—a catastrophe for my people in Lewisham, for London as a whole and for this great capital city. I remember when people slept in cardboard boxes on the South Bank. This Government are planning to bring back those conditions.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend brings a life experience to bear on this debate. The two biggest settlements have been for health and education. In education, we have particularly prioritised disadvantaged children, primarily those on free school meals. At the heart of the coalition agreement was the commitment to a £2.5 billion pupil premium. We have found that money on top of the flat cash settlement per pupil, even when pupil numbers are rising. It leads to a real increase in resource in schools—over four years, rather than the two years that the Labour party was offering at the general election. We are also offering for the first time 15 hours of free education for all disadvantaged two-year-olds, which will of course include those on free school meals. That offers a real chance to ensure that other people on free school meals have as successful a career as my hon. Friend.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Chancellor said that he will replace the education maintenance allowance with more targeted support. Can he tell me and the thousands of families in Lewisham who will be affected what could be more targeted than £30 into the pocket of a family who are bearing the extra burden of keeping a teenager at school?
Mr Osborne
We looked very carefully at this programme, and it has a very high dead weight. We are raising the compulsory participation age to 18 and funding that—one of the policy’s original stated purposes was to get people to stay on after 16—and we will introduce a more targeted scheme, so there will be help. I have to say that we conducted a public consultation over the summer, and we received 100,000 responses, many from parents and children in receipt of EMA. It was one of the most prominent issues raised, and the overwhelming view of the responses was that it was not a well-targeted support. That has certainly been my experience from those in some of the schools that I have visited. We are looking for a more targeted payment that actually helps those whom this financial incentive would really encourage to stay on in education.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Joan Ruddock Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband
I am coming to them in a minute. That has been the case historically, but the difference this time is that the Liberal Democrats are faced with a choice. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—someone I respect; a person of good conscience who came into politics to make our country fairer—has a big decision to make. He is not going to fall for the stuff we have heard from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, trying to explain away the Budget.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark knows an unfair Budget when he sees one, so he has a decision to make in the coming days. He has an honourable path to take. He can say, “Up with this I will not put.” That is what Liberal Democrats throughout the country will expect him to do. Maybe he will defeat the Budget, maybe he will get the Government to rethink parts of it, but he could lead a movement, not just of Liberal Democrats in the House but of Liberal Democrats outside the House who will join him. He did not come into politics to put up VAT or to freeze child benefit. He campaigned against the freeze in child benefit in the 1980s under Mrs Thatcher. He did not come into politics to abolish the health in pregnancy grant. He did not come into politics to do those things, and he is not in office. He does not face the choice of resignation: he faces the choice of how to vote. In all candour I say to him that he wanted a Lib-Lab alliance after the last general election because he knew what would happen otherwise. He saw it in the runes. He saw where things would go, and he was proved right. But now he faces the ultimate choice in politics, which is between principle and expediency—and he should follow principle.