Finance (No. 2) Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not make the case for that in his own speech, when he barely touched on this issue. The point I was trying to make was that introducing that tax reduction would be a huge benefit to London hotels, which have high occupancy rates at a very high nightly rate, but then that money would have to be raised elsewhere in the country.

One of the advantages of Brexit—the hon. Gentleman might not like this—is we are now able to do differential tax rates by region. Therefore, if we wanted a tax rate targeted at boosting tourism, we could do it on a regional basis, looking at which have the lowest occupancy rates and the lowest employment rates. It would cost far less, and the reduction could be much smaller. We could boost investment where it is needed rather than where it is not. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that looking at that would be more sensible than his proposal.

The hon. Gentleman is also criticising the lack of a starter rate. When we had a starter rate of income tax, from 1998 to 2008, it was for very low incomes. It was a 10p rate and it was charged on top of national insurance, which was also over 10% at that point. What we actually have now is income tax and national insurance starting at a much higher point. It is a 0% starter rate, which is a far better idea than introducing a new one, so I certainly will not be voting for the reasoned amendment, as it would be completely against the country’s interests.

The Minister mentioned the high-income child benefit charge. Strangely, the Bill increases the thresholds and promises a radical change at the start of the tax year after the next one, but it does not tell us what the Government are trying to achieve by that. We have rightly upped the starting point, but if we really want to go to a household calculation, either we should be very generous and have it start at £120,000, tapering up to £160,000—the equivalent of two incomes—or we risk making the situation worse by having a very big disincentive for second earners. If the new threshold were £100,000, rather than £80,000, a household with a second earner earning only £20,000 would be brought into the charge despite not being affected by it in the current financial year. I would not want to go down that line.

There is a very real risk that what sounds like a generous idea could have a very negative impact by discouraging second earners, whom I think we want to be encouraging with our childcare and other reforms. Before the Government publish the consultation, I urge them to think carefully about where they are pitching this. Surely there must come a point at which household incomes are pitched so high that almost no one will be paying the charge. What would be the point of all the complexity, uncertainty and cost of collecting it if it does not raise any money? We might be better off putting the 45p rate of income tax up by 0.5p, which would raise the same amount of money while losing all this complexity.

I think it would be better if, in Committee, the Minister introduced an automatic increase by inflation each year. It was a terrible mistake to keep the thresholds where they were. By far the simplest change would be to inflate the thresholds each year, so that we do not drag more people into the charge. Everyone would understand their position, which would be easier than trying to work out what on earth a “household” is for the purpose of this charge.

If we asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, he would tell us that the formation and definition of households is one of the biggest areas of welfare fraud—people are pretending not to be a household to get extra benefits. It can be extremely hard to define a household and to enforce it. How much will it cost to work out who is or is not in a household? I suspect it will be so complicated to try to reintroduce a household definition within the tax regime that it never actually happens. If it does, it will probably cost more than it raises. I question whether it is sensible to retain this charge.

Turning to what is in the Bill, and given that we now have a large range of earnings, what is the Minister’s advice to people who are not sure whether they will earn more than £80,000 because they do not know what bonus they will receive in this financial year? Should they stick with the simple route, as many people have, of disclaiming child benefit so that they do not get caught by this tax at the end of the financial year, for which they need to save in case they have to pay it—it is a bit of shock when they get there—or should they go back to claiming child benefit on the off chance? Should they put the money in the bank and see whether they are entitled to it and, if it turns out that they have not earned more than £80,000, get to keep and spend some of it? We seem to have a position in which many households will not know until very late in the financial year whether they are caught by this. If they disclaim it, they will lose a benefit to which they are probably entitled; and if they do not disclaim it, they might receive a bill that they do not have the money to pay. We need some certainty on that position.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. I am also concerned about families who have stopped claiming child benefit and are no longer on the system, but who find, because of the new rules, that they are actually entitled. How can they make sure that they get the full amount of benefit to which they are entitled?

Stoke-Leek Line: Reopening

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Members are very welcome and are of course aware that the social distancing rules no longer apply. They are no longer in operation. Members attending physically should clean their spaces when they arrive and when they leave. I think that is all I have to announce. It gives me great pleasure to call Karen Bradley to move the motion.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reopening the Stoke-Leek line.

Or, as I like to call it, the Leek-Stoke line.

This is a first for me. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I know you are an impeccable Chair and your timing is even more impeccable, so I am delighted to serve under you. I am not sure whether you have visited the Staffordshire Moorlands. It is very much like the constituency that you represent—a beautiful rural area. It has amazing scenery, lots of great dairy farms, which you will understand, and some great tourist attractions, although, unlike the Giant’s Causeway, we have Alton Towers.

Many people come to visit the Staffordshire Moorlands. They come to see our amazing scenery. The Roaches, for example, is a place that people travel to from all over the world to do rock climbing and just to observe the views; from there it is possible to see lots of different counties—I think I once counted 16 of them—and all the way to Snowdonia. We cannot quite see the Isle of Man or Northern Ireland, but we can see into Wales.

We have the Manifold Valley, the beautiful Thor’s Cave, and a bit of Dovedale, which is also one of the great tourist attractions. As well as Alton Towers, we have the Peak Wildlife Park and Biddulph Grange Garden—beautiful places that people come to visit. We have amazing hospitality venues such as the Lazy Trout in Meerbrook, the Yew Tree at Cauldon, the Stafford Arms at Bagnall, and the Auctioneers—a community-run pub in Caverswall that I helped the community to buy and is a fantastic place to visit. We have wonderful independent shops in all our towns and villages, but in Leek we are very proud of our “Totally Locally” campaign and our local markets. We have a heritage railway in the Churnet Valley railway. We have so much to offer.

The question one might ask when looking at the map and seeing those wonderful attractions is, “How on earth can I get there?” I am afraid to say that unless someone has a car it is a struggle. Last summer—we are seeing it again at the moment—the villages of the Staffordshire Moorlands were totally overwhelmed with traffic; we got to the point where emergency vehicles could not get through. Villagers felt like prisoners in their own homes because of the cars that were parked, and there is simply no other way to visit the Moorlands than by car.

We have a fantastic mainline station only a few miles away in Stoke-on-Trent; the same line runs on to Macclesfield, of course. The train from Euston to Stoke takes one hour and 24 minutes when we are not on a reduced timetable as we are at the moment. If I can make a plea to Avanti rail: we need two trains an hour to Stoke-on-Trent as soon as possible, because it really is not working at the moment with only one an hour.

We have some buses, but I am afraid they are an endangered species. They are very difficult to find. If someone does find a bus, they might be able to travel into the Moorlands, but it is not easy. If someone gets to Stoke train station with a view to visiting Alton Towers, which puts on special buses, or the Roaches, the Manifold Valley or any of the other great attractions, they find that the only way to get public transport is to walk about a mile and a half to Hanley where the bus station is—because, of course, the bus station is not in the same place as the train station in Stoke-on-Trent. That person would then have to wait for a bus that is usually hourly. Perhaps they might be lucky and the buses might be every half hour, but it is not easy and it takes a significant amount of time to get to the Staffordshire Moorlands.

Even if someone can get to Stoke-on-Trent station by taking a taxi or finding a very amenable friend to give them a lift, to get from the station to Leek—which is where I live: the centre of the constituency—they could drive along the main Leek road, which is the A52, the A5009 and the A53. To do so means travelling through the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) before reaching the Staffordshire Moorlands.

This route passes through some amazing parts of the city: Joiners Square, Abbey Hulton, Milton, then entering Stockton Brook and then on through Endon, Longsdon, and finally into Leek. The problem is that it is a single-lane carriageway. Actually, there is not a dual carriageway anywhere in the Staffordshire Moorlands constituency. One cannot legally go faster than 60 miles an hour, even though some motorcyclists believe otherwise. It is a genuinely beautiful route, which runs along a disused railway line. It is absolutely stunning, but it is a very slow road.

Alternatively, there is the A520, taking a route through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and then on to the Moorlands. That goes through Fenton and Longton, Weston Coyney and Meir, to Cellarhead, Wetley Rocks, Cheddleton, Leekbrook and then into Leek. All of these places are beautiful, ancient villages; they do not have capacity to make the road any wider. On visiting Wetley Rocks, one discovers it really is rocks, driving along the edge of the cliff, so there is nowhere to go to extend that road.

So I ask: what can we do? If you are lucky, Mr Paisley, you might find you could get off the train at Stoke and I would be waiting for you with my car, because I would be delighted to give you a lift to Leek—obviously socially distanced with appropriate facemasks and so on. If we were lucky, it could take about 30 minutes. However, I must say that I have driven from Stoke-on-Trent station back to my home in Leek, and it has taken over an hour and a half. During rush hour, those two A roads that are the main roads into Leek from the city are absolutely full. They happen, at the moment, to have an enormous number of roadworks on them as well, which does not help, but in normal times they are still absolutely full. There are some very difficult junctions on them, particularly the junction at Endon going up to Clay Lake and Brown Edge and on the A520. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and I both know about the issues around the Advanced Proteins site and the fact that we have an awful lot of very heavy vehicles travelling along that road and turning into the plant, causing congestion.

It really is not an easy journey, and it is getting harder. Given the volume of traffic and the demand for journeys between the Moorlands and the city, I do not see that it is going to improve any time soon, and the fact is that the Moorlands is missing out on the advantages of being only a few miles from the west coast main line. It is missing out on the opportunities that the Government’s investment in Stoke-on-Trent as part of the levelling-up agenda is bringing to the area, because people simply cannot rely on being able to work or live in the Moorlands and commute to the city given that the commute is so unreliable. We really do need an alternative.

There are two alternatives, and the debate title gives us a clue about what one of them is. There is another one, however, and it is that we could use the canals. We have a fantastic canal system built by James Brindley for the purposes of Wedgwood, to bring the raw materials from the Moorlands into the city where the potteries were founded in Burslem—the mother of the potteries in my hon. Friend for Stoke-on-Trent North’s constituency —but also around the whole city.

There are still fantastic potteries in the city, but it was the canals that made that possible. I love being on the canal—it is a really wonderful day out—but I think we would agree that it is probably not a good alternative for commuting into the city, given the speed at which one could travel. That then leaves us with one remaining alternative: to reopen the railway line between Leek and Stoke-on-Trent that closed as a victim of the Beeching cuts. When it closed it was probably not very well used, but I know now that the demand is there, and that people want to get back to being able to commute into the city from the Staffordshire Moorlands. Not only do we not have a dual carriageway, but we do not have a mainline train line running through the constituency. It would be wonderful to bring these things back.

This could be a fantastic clean, green alternative to roads. Residents live very close to the road, with houses along the whole way. My hon. Friends from the city will describe the experiences of their constituents who live alongside those roads, and the pollution and noise they suffer. We have this alternative; the line is there. Only a couple of weeks ago, the four of us here—myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central, for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Stoke-on-Trent South—together with the leader of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, Councillor Sybil Ralphs MBE, visited where the line travels between the Moorlands and the city at Stockton Brook. The line and track bed are there and we stood on them. There is quite a lot of weed but the line is there; it can be reopened. We were pleased to be there and see for ourselves that that could be done.

A bid has gone in to the Restoring Your Railways Fund. The bid is led by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and Councillor Sybil Ralphs, and is supported by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and its leader Councillor Abi Brown. We have the support of the local enterprise partnership, Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Chambers of Commerce, the Peak District national park, local businesses and the key partner, the Churnet Valley railway. As I mentioned earlier, we have this wonderful heritage railway in the Moorlands, which has kept the track going for pleasure visits around the Moorlands on its steam trains. That heritage railway, with its use of the line, is a really important part of the bid.

I know the Minister is stepping in for my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who has sent his apologies. It is wonderful, though, to see the Minister in her place. I am hoping she will say that she will put personal endeavour into pushing this bid through. The bid has been submitted and we want to ensure that we get the funding we need, so that we can explore the possibilities.

We can see what could be achieved. We can see what the opportunities are for passenger services. That might be light rail; it might be different from what was envisaged when people closed the line—what it looked like then and what it might look like today. We want to see what the possibilities are for freight on the line, but we need to have that time and the expertise of officials at the Department for Transport to work with, to explore what is possible.

The line could not only go to Leek, but the line that the heritage railway uses now—to Froghall, through Cheddleton and Consall—could be used. That line goes to the village of Alton, where Alton Towers is. We have one of the largest cement plants in the UK at Cauldon, which is also the line used by the heritage railway. There are real opportunities to get freight off the road and on to the railway line.

In conclusion, I say to the Minister that all we want is a chance to see what is possible. I know she will use her best endeavours to support us on this. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friends, who are all fully behind this bid.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I thank Karen Bradley for moving that motion and painting such a pretty picture postcard and advertisement for the Staffordshire Moorlands. She probably won the record for name-checking every single village in a constituency. If Members wish to remove their jackets, please feel free to do so because it is stifling in this room today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Maggie Throup)]

To begin, I would like to pass on the apologies of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who had planned to attend this debate. He is self-isolating after being pinged by the NHS Test and Trace app and asked me to stand in. I am delighted to have been asked to respond, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) on securing this debate on the proposals for reopening the Stoke-Leek line—or, as she said, the Leek-Stoke line. I thank all Members who contributed. My right hon. Friend is a committed advocate of this scheme, alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who have spoken passionately with one voice in today’s debate. Their collective campaigning to reinstate the Stoke-Leek line is second to none. I am sure the description that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands gave of her constituency will definitely have put it at the top of the tourist map for those who are listening to the debate. I also pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members who have sponsored applications to restore rail lines and stations in their own constituencies. I know just how much these schemes mean for local communities. Those Members are great advocates for the restoration of their railways.

This Government are committed to levelling up the country, and a strong, effective railway is central to that ambition. As part of that levelling-up agenda, in January 2020 the Government pledged £500 million for the Restoring Your Railways programme to deliver on our manifesto commitment to start reopening lines and stations. This investment will reconnect smaller communities, regenerate local economies and improve access to jobs, homes and education. The Beeching report led to the closure of one third of our railway network—2,363 stations and 5,000 miles of track were identified for closure. Many places that lost their railway connection have simply never recovered. For the towns and villages left isolated and forgotten by the Beeching cuts, restoring a railway line or station has the potential to revitalise the community. It breathes new life into our high streets, drives investment in businesses and housing and opens new opportunities for work and education. Ilkeston station, in my constituency, which reopened in 2017 after more than 50 years of closure, is a proven example of this positive impact.

[Karen Bradley]

I am very much enjoying what the Minister has to say. I add my congratulations on the reopening of Ilkeston station, which I remember her predecessor, the great Jessica Lee, campaigned so hard for.

[Maggie Throup]

It was a long-fought battle, like that which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the room are fighting.

More broadly, investing in transport links is essential to levelling up access to opportunities across the whole country, ensuring that our regions are better connected, local economies flourish and more than half a century of isolation is undone. By building back with a real focus on better connections and supporting left-behind communities, we are delivering our promise to level up this country, as set out last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

The Restoring Your Railways Fund has three parts, with part of the £500 million fund allocated to the ideas fund. Aimed at early-stage proposals, the ideas fund is helping communities to develop ideas to restore railway lines and stations across England and Wales. These proposals are led by the affected communities, supported by their local Member or Members of this House, giving them an opportunity to make the case for how the railway can transform their area. The Department is funding 75% of the study costs of successful proposals, up to a maximum of £50,000. Over the first two rounds of the ideas fund, 25 promising schemes across England and Wales have been awarded up to £50,000 in development funding to help them get to the strategic outline business case stage.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands has taken advantage of this opportunity and submitted a proposal to restore rail services between Stoke and Leek—or between Leek and Stoke—to the first round of the ideas fund in spring 2020. While the bid had the potential to deliver benefits, it was not successful at that time, and the rail Minister wrote to the right hon. and hon. Members who sponsored the bid to inform them of the outcome. Feedback on the bid was provided at the same time, setting out why it had not quite made it in that round of funding and what could be done to further strengthen the proposals. I know that the rail Minister was therefore pleased that earlier this year—I think it was on 5 March, the deadline for applications for the third and final round of the fund—one of the more than 85 bids that the Department for Transport received was a revised proposal for the Stoke-Leek line.

As my right hon. Friend explained, the proposal details the many benefits that restoring the Stoke-Leek line would bring to the area—she was so graphic earlier about all the benefits—including providing residents of Leek with direct access to education and employment opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent and the opening up of Staffordshire Moorlands to the tourist trade. The assessment process for those bids is currently under way. The Department expects to announce outcomes over the summer. Decisions on bids are made by an expert panel, which the rail Minister chairs. It is informed by analysis from the Department for Transport, technical advisers and Network Rail. The standard of the applications is, as ever, very high.

In nearby Meir, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, a proposal to reopen the railway station has already been successful in the ideas fund. This scheme used the funding awarded to create a strategic outline business case, which the Department will be considering soon. If delivered, the scheme would reconnect the people of Meir to the rail network for the first time since 1966, giving them access to new educational and economic opportunities, making new housing developments in certain areas viable and levelling up a region that suffers from poor productivity relative to the rest of the UK.

Advance proposals for the second part of the £500 million Restoring Your Railways Fund are being used to accelerate the development of closed lines and stations that are already being considered for restoration and have existing business cases. As a result, certain reopened railways will be connecting commuters again very soon, with regular passenger services set to be restored for the first time in almost 50 years by the end of 2021. The third strand of the Restoring Your Railways funding has been used to provide £32 million for a third round of the new stations fund, which is funding six new stations and providing development funding for a further two stations.

This country has a rich railway history, which puts it on the world stage, with its Victorian pioneers, its commitment to innovation and its engineering achievements. Thanks to record levels of funding, which will help us to build back better as we recover from the pandemic, we will also deliver the biggest modernisation programme to the railways for more than a century.

Of course, new rail lines are not the only way to reconnect our communities. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a £4.2 billion city region sustainable transport fund, which local leaders can spend on projects, such as new tram lines or bike lanes. The west midlands will receive a share of this fund, providing further opportunity for the constituents of my right hon. and hon. Friends to benefit from improved transport infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I have really enjoyed this debate, and it has been good to hear from all the Members who would be affected positively by the reopening of the Stoke-Leek or Leek-Stoke line. I am grateful to the Minister for her words and for the support from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).

Mr Paisley, you suggested that I had mentioned every village in my constituency. This is only an hour-long debate, and therefore I have not been able to mention them all, but they are all very important to me and they could all benefit from the Stoke-Leek line.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) referred to some people who were worried about the reopening. I understand that some people who live along the line are concerned that there will be an adverse impact on them. That is why it is important that the funding is provided so that we can explore the implications and look at what can be done to reassure those people who are concerned, as well as helping those who are really enthusiastic.

I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that many, many people are very enthusiastic. In fact, when we had our photo opportunity in the drizzle in Stockton Brook a few weeks ago, a couple were walking their dog down the side of the canal, where the canal and the railway line up next to one another. They stopped and said, “Wow, are you looking to reopen this? I remember this line when I was a boy. I can’t tell you how exciting it would be to see this line reopen and see trains back along this line.”

It is important to note that the plan is part of a wider project. It is not just another project to be seen in isolation; it is part of all the work being done to transform the whole of north Staffordshire, including the stations at Meir and Etruria, which we all want to reopen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) spoke about day visitors. He is absolutely right: we suffer in that we have an enormous number of visitors, but they are day visitors. They do not come to stay overnight; they drive in and then drive out again. We have some fantastic places for them to stay. I put on the record that only last week, I visited the Tawny Hotel in Consall, a brand-new hotel next to the heritage railway line of Churnet valley. It is another fantastic place for people who want to visit and stay in the Staffordshire Moorlands and north Staffordshire.

The reopening could bring so many opportunities. Around the whole of north Staffordshire, the vision that the reopening of the line would be a part of is tangible, and it would be such an exciting thing to see. The Minister said that this country has a rich railway history. I want it to have a rich railway future, and I want the Stoke-Leek line to be very much part of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reopening the Stoke-Leek line.

0.7% Official Development Assistance Target

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing this urgent debate.

The United Kingdom is a nation of islands. Apart from one well-known land border, we are surrounded by sea. If we are surrounded by sea, we have a choice. We can turn our back to the sea and look inwards; we can look only at the people in our own country, our own town or perhaps even our own village. I think that makes us smaller and poorer. Alternatively, we can turn round and face the sea. We can face the world. We can be part of a global nation. I think that makes us wealthier, it gives us a better quality of life, and it makes us better as a country.

Being an outward-looking global Britain means many things. It means taking our seat and playing a full role in global institutions. It means meeting our commitments on defence, which the Government are proud to have done. It means trading and promoting free and fair trade around the world, and it means doing our bit for the world’s poorest.

I wish to make three points. First, I accept that this is an exceptional time. There is nothing that I like about this pandemic. I do not like how empty the House is. I do not like not seeing my loved ones. I do not like anything about it, and I accept that it is an exceptional time, but there are organisations that need certainty about their funding from the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) talked about the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery. I, too, have spoken to the Global Fund, which has seen an 80% cut in its spending. It will get by, by going to other countries, but if it does not know that we in the United Kingdom will meet our commitments, it will have to close programmes, and that will leave thousands and thousands of children at risk of exploitation.

That brings me to my second point, which is about keeping our promises. I proudly stood on a manifesto that talked about “proudly” keeping to 0.7%. There are some who think that this is a ruse to introduce 0.5% by the back door. I really hope that that is not the case. The Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said that we will revert to 0.7% when the economic situation allows. When will that be? When can we have a vote on this matter? When can we know that we will meet our commitments? The organisations, the programmes and the people who depend on that money need to know that it is coming.

My final point is about how joined-up the world is. If the pandemic has shown us one thing, it is that we cannot isolate ourselves from what happens in the rest of the world. No matter how much we might want to turn our backs on the sea and look inwards, we cannot. Variants that developed in far-flung parts of the world, and a virus that developed in a far-flung part of the world in a city that most people probably had not heard of a year ago, have meant that our way of life has changed fundamentally this year. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world; we have to take an active role.

A small amount of money, relatively speaking today, helps to stop refugees travelling in boats on the channel. It helps to stop victims of slavery producing the goods that we are buying in our supermarkets and retailers, and it means that girls will get that 12 years of education. In the week of the G7 and in the year of COP26, this is the time for the United Kingdom to stand with our head held high, show that we meet our global commitments and lead the world.

Affordable Social Housing (Walsall)

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I look forward to serving under you again.

I formally apologise on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who has been summoned to appear before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government and has not yet worked out the trick of being in two places at once, but I am sure that will come with time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on securing this important debate. He speaks on the issue with great passion, concern and interest, which I assure him is welcomed by Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Housing supply, including affordable housing for both rent and ownership, is a priority for the Government, and it is clear from the hon. Gentleman’s speech that he is concerned about the supply of affordable housing in Walsall. The Government are committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing through a variety of mechanisms. Some 170,000 more affordable homes will be delivered between 2011 and 2015, with combined Government and private sector investment of £19.5 billion. Almost 58,000 affordable homes were delivered in 2011-12, which is a third more than the average delivery in the 10 years between 2000-01 and 2009-10.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned replacement, and under the new right-to-buy scheme one-for-one replacement has been introduced for the first time. When social housing is sold under the right to buy, it will have to be replaced, which I hope he welcomes.

Many of the new homes that are being delivered are in the Homes and Communities Agency’s new affordable homes programme, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The programme, which launched 18 months ago, offers a new delivery model and introduces affordable rents. It is important to stress that affordable rent is a form of social housing. The programme has delivered 63,000 completions in its first 18 months and homes are allocated in the same way as social rent properties. Existing letting arrangements operated by local authorities and registered providers continue to apply. Homes will be made available at a rent level of up to 80% of local market rents, inclusive of service charge.

Allocations for the affordable homes programme for 2011 to 2015 include a total of £31 million of funding for the black country, which of course includes Walsall. The funding will deliver 1,775 affordable homes. Walsall itself received £7.8 million of that funding, which is equivalent to 25.2%. In Walsall that will deliver 370 homes for affordable rent and a further 55 homes for affordable home ownership by 2015. Additionally, Walsall also received an allocation of £100,000 to bring empty homes back into use and almost £950,000 to fund provision of new pitches for Travellers.

As the hon. Gentleman said, in Walsall social housing is provided by 15 housing associations, including Walsall Housing Group, the council’s housing stock transfer partner, which owns and manages 19,000 properties across the borough. Walsall Housing Group houses 40,000 people, which represents one fifth of Walsall’s population. Walsall Housing Group lets its social housing vacancies through a choice-based letting scheme, which it operates on behalf of the council.

The hon. Gentleman has written specifically on whether Walsall Housing Group, as one of the many providers of social housing in Walsall, would be eligible for the new affordable homes programme, which was, as he knows, over-subscribed. The bidding process was very competitive and the Homes and Communities Agency assessed bids against key criteria, including value for money, deliverability within the programme, time frame and meeting local needs and priorities. Although the programme is now fully committed, I assure him that the agency has quarterly programme reviews with each provider to assess and challenge delivery plans. When a provider is judged not to be able to meet its contracted obligations, the Homes and Communities Agency can move funding to other providers to ensure delivery so that targets can be met. I also assure him that his persistence has been noted by Ministers, and Walsall Housing Group’s requests are, of course, well known to them.

[Mr Winnick]

I do not want other boroughs to suffer as a result of money that was due to them under the allocation going to us. I make that absolutely clear so that there is no misunderstanding. There are two aspects. First, is there not a better commitment so that the decision can be reversed? Secondly, will the hon. Lady take into account the number of people waiting? She mentioned what has been done, but it does not alter the fact that regardless of what has been done or remains to be accomplished, even if the units go ahead and the funding is made available, demand is great. It is even greater as a result of the economic situation. People who might have been able to obtain a mortgage are not in a position to do so because of job losses and so on. What she should have in mind—I hope that the Minister will have it in mind—is the actual demand for such accommodation, which is nowhere being met.

[Karen Bradley]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There is no quick fix to the problems that the Government inherited in terms of the supply of affordable social housing across the country. The Government are taking a variety of measures. I will come to them shortly. However, his points have been noted, and I will ensure that Ministers and others are well aware of his concerns and respond to him. If there are any points that I have not responded to, he will receive a letter.

Affordable rent is one key to increasing the volume of affordable homes, and this Government will provide it through smaller amounts of public sector investment than previously, allowing us to deliver more homes for every pound of Government investment. The average grant rate under the new programme is about £22,000, compared to an average of £60,000 under the former programme. Grant as a percentage of average scheme costs is now about 20%, compared with 45% formerly. That represents better value for money and should enable the Government to get more units of appropriate accommodation for the money invested.

That is just one example of the practical action that the Government are taking. However, as I said, it will inevitably take time to deal with the problem. The UK Statistics Authority has confirmed that 421,000 social rented homes were lost under the last Government. That loss cannot be reversed overnight, and it is seen in all our constituencies. I understand that last year in Walsall, for example, more than 14,000 households were on the housing waiting list, up from fewer than 6,000 in 1997.

Through the Localism Act 2011, we have given councils back the freedom to manage their own waiting lists. They can decide who qualifies for social housing in their area and develop solutions that make the best use of limited social housing stock. Our new statutory social housing allocation guidance gives councils more freedom to innovate. They can use social housing to encourage work and mobility, rather than leaving people stuck in dependency.

I am pleased to see that Walsall council is using those freedoms to good effect. Its social housing allocation scheme provides for priority to be given to working households, those otherwise contributing to the community and seriously injured former service personnel needing adapted social housing. I congratulate the council on taking those steps. It will certainly help Walsall to meet the hon. Gentleman’s request that people have appropriate homes. I sympathise. We want people living in homes that are the right size and appropriate for them and their families.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about section 106 delivery. I do not have the information to hand, but I assure him that the Department will write to him with it shortly.

[Mr Winnick]

I emphasise the need for the section 106 agreement to be looked into, for the reasons I stated. We will probably disagree about rent. I take the view that secure accommodation should be affordable. That is not an argument for today, but it will undoubtedly be debated in other places.

[Karen Bradley]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments. As I said, I do not have the specifics about section 106 with me, but I am sure that the information will be forthcoming and he will have it shortly.

The private rented sector is making a significant contribution to meeting housing need and can offer a number of advantages, including labour mobility. On 6 September, the Government announced plans to expand the private rented sector to give tenants more choice about where they live, following the recommendations in Sir Adrian Montague’s review of the potential for institutional investment in large-scale developments built specifically for long-term rent. The Government are setting up a new £200 million “build to rent” fund for developers in order to encourage construction for rent, and are providing up to £10 billion in debt guarantees covering both private rent and affordable housing for those investing in the long-term rental market.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Lady is being generous and courteous, and I appreciate it. I am sure that she heard my point that in all the years that I have had the privilege of being a Member of Parliament, no one has asked me if they could be rehoused by a private landlord. Has she as a Member of Parliament been asked that? Has she been approached at her surgery by anyone wanting help to find private rented accommodation?

[Karen Bradley]

I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have, actually.

[Mr Winnick]

How many?

[Karen Bradley]

A number. Perhaps that is the difference in the make-up of affordable housing between Staffordshire Moorlands and Walsall.

There is support. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to work with Walsall Housing Group and other social housing providers in Walsall to consider other avenues that can be taken to help his constituents. I understand that when someone comes to a surgery, everybody wants to help and find the best solution for them. Anything that can be done to help is good.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. As housing supply, including affordable housing, is a priority for the Government, I welcome his interest in the issue and I hope that he will have the satisfaction in the near future of seeing an increase in affordable housing in Walsall.

Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Friday 6th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

This is one of the few opportunities when the House has the opportunity to initiate legislation. I take what my right hon. Friend says as a caution that we should take that initiation role seriously. We should take all our activities seriously, but Back Benchers should be especially serious when the onus falls on them to make a change in the nature of our governance.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I should like to make a public service announcement. The Procedure Committee is holding an inquiry into private Members’ Bills, and would welcome all comments from hon. Members in the Chamber.

[John McDonnell]

That is a really useful advert—it might be one of the most constructive things said this morning.

I shall be as brief as I possibly can. The message contained in the Bill is that the appointment of the new, powerful post of Governor of the Bank of England should not be left solely to the Executive, and that Parliament, on behalf of the people, should also play a decisive role. The appointment is too important to be left in the hands of a single Minister.

Interest Rate Swap Products

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this important debate. The many case studies that we have heard this afternoon are very familiar to us and I am sure that other colleagues have faced similar situations. I have, which is why I am taking part in this debate.

Before I come on to my constituent’s circumstances, it is probably worth setting out why I think that swap arrangements are not suitable to be sold to unsophisticated small business men. I do not mean that small business men are unsophisticated, but that they do not have an army of lawyers and accountants to advise them. At a basic level, a swap agreement is a gamble. Mr Deputy Speaker, the two of us could enter into a swap agreement this afternoon. I will happily buy you a cup of tea on the condition that you will buy me a cup of tea in three months’ time. I am gambling that a cup of tea will go up in price so that when you buy me the cup of tea, it will cost you more than the cup of tea that I buy you today. However, we could have a glut of tea and the cost could go down significantly. If so, I will have lost in that gamble. That is ultimately what a swap arrangement is.

Swaps can be very useful to businesses. As Wimbledon is coming up, let us take the example of a strawberry grower. The strawberry grower needs sun at the right time and could probably take out an insurance policy that the sun will shine, or they could find someone who thinks the sun will shine and is willing to take out a bet with them that it will. If the sun does not shine, and it rains, that individual would pay the strawberry grower for the rain and the strawberry grower would have money although he would have no strawberries to sell at Wimbledon. Alternatively, if the sun did shine he would have his strawberries to sell and he would pay the bet because the sun had shone. That is what swap arrangements are. Because they are a gamble, it has to be made extremely clear to individuals that that is what they are entering into. What I and colleagues have seen is that it has not been explained to people that they are taking a gamble.

That brings me to the case of my constituent, Mr Doug Wardle. Mr Wardle is a very successful local businessman who runs a number of businesses in my constituency. He has a very successful coach transport business and his name will be very familiar to people in Staffordshire Moorlands who see Wardle Transport vehicles going around. He also has Wardle Property and a number of other businesses. Back in 2006, he understandably wanted to expand his businesses and wanted a loan. He therefore went to his bank and entered into a loan arrangement whereby he borrowed £2.2 million, secured, he thought, against £3.1 million-worth of property. But there was a condition on this loan to expand his business, the travel part of which at one point employed 120 people. The condition was that he would enter into two interest rate swap arrangements—one each against two of his businesses. He was told that this would guarantee him a fixed interest rate and that he would be safe from interest rate fluctuations.

Mr Wardle was told that he would be paying 1.57% over base, which he thought was a very good deal. Even back in July 2006, that seemed like a very good deal. However, circumstances change and the financial climate changed. Unfortunately, by 2010, although his businesses were successful, Mr Wardle was having difficulty negotiating with his bank. He got to the point at which he had repaid his loan down to £1.25 million, so he had significantly reduced it, but the bank was not willing to move on the interest rate swap arrangements. That has caused Mr Wardle an incredible amount of stress and anguish, and he faces losing his home. He told me today that it has cost him £300,000 just to deal with the fees to the bank.

I have here the figures for the interest rate swap arrangements. The cost of buying out the swap arrangement is £180,000. Mr Wardle has been told that he will be paying 3.25% over three-month LIBOR—London interbank offered rate—not the 1.57% over base he thought he had, on a £1.25 million loan. I apologise for all the numbers. The amount he has to pay in interest a year is £111,752 with an additional £71,780 just to service the interest rate swap arrangement. I calculate that to be an interest rate per year of 14.7%. I do not think that when Mr Wardle entered into this arrangement he thought he was going to be paying 14.7% when the base rate is 0.5%. That is the problem. Mr Wardle is a very successful small business man. He has built up a number of highly successful businesses and he employs a lot of people, but how was he expected to understand that under this arrangement he could lose his home, having paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees, all because he was told by his bank, which he trusted, that he would be safe from interest rate fluctuations?

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

I am almost reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady because she is making such an eloquent case and is giving a very useful economics lesson at the same time. I have been contacted by a number of my constituents who have been badly burned by these toxic products. Does she agree that the experience she describes of the small business person in her constituency, Mr Wardle, is being repeated right across the country? Indeed, there will be many cases that we do not know about because many people are loth to speak out against their bank for fear that they will have problems with their business reputation. Does she agree that the issues we are discussing are probably the tip of the iceberg, which makes action even more urgent?

[Karen Bradley]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I called Mr Wardle this morning, before mentioning his name. I was happy to speak about him anonymously, because I understand that he is in a difficult position. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have expressed concerns about their constituents, and I agree that there must be many other cases of small business people who do not want to come forward and might not even realise that they could approach their MP. They do not want to raise the topic, although they are, frankly, being bullied by the banks in such situations.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy. I support the motion and I hope that we shall see some action very soon.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Katy Clark]

I mentioned this in an intervention. At the time of the allowance’s introduction, a number of reasons were given, one of which was pensioners’ higher heating costs. A full explanation was given during those debates of the higher and additional costs that are associated with retirement. Those higher costs of living have a disproportionate impact on pensioners. In the debates on pensions that we have had over the past few months, a great deal has been said about the higher costs that pensioners face, and about the possibility of having a different form of indexation for pensions, given that pensioners tend to have different living costs from the rest of the population.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s point about pensioners’ higher living costs, but does she not accept that allowances such as the winter fuel allowance reflect the Government’s acknowledgement of their different costs? A young mum at home with her baby, who would also need to heat her home, would not get that allowance.

[Katy Clark]

Many pensioners, and many among the general population, are disappointed that the Government have not lived up to their election promises on that allowance.

The point that I was making is that pensioners need more time to adjust. I welcome the increase in the personal allowance—I believe that there should be higher personal allowances for everyone—but if the Government are going ahead with this particular kind of proposal, they should give people many years’ notice so that they can prepare for the changes. Given the situation that pensions are now in, which I will go into in more detail if I have time, this is the wrong time to be clobbering pensioners in this way.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

The debate on the 50p rate was interesting in that it revealed the differing attitudes of Opposition Members and Government Members to paying taxation. From the way in which some Government Members responded to the debate, one could surmise that they are very comfortable with people finding every possible means, illicit or legal, to avoid tax. [Interruption.] Well, there was a clear implication from some hon. Members in the earlier debate that the boundaries and borders of the envelope can be pushed, as they were. In some respects, that argument was deployed to justify the cutting of the 50p rate, because so much money was, through fair means or foul, pulled forward into 2009 when it should have been taken in 2010.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

If the Labour party is so keen on stopping tax avoidance, will the hon. Gentleman explain why Labour Members voted against an anti-avoidance measure in a Finance Bill last year?

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Lady explain which anti-avoidance measure Labour Members voted against? I tell her very straightforwardly that all Chancellors ought to tackle tax avoidance in all Budgets. The current Chancellor has risked far too much credibility on his belief in his ability to tackle tax avoidance and his belief that he is doing more than previous Governments did so. The facts bear out my claim—the IFS, not the Labour party, has done the analysis—that Labour Chancellors, in seven out of last 10 Labour Budgets, raised more money for the Exchequer through tackling tax avoidance than the current Chancellor will do with this Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

No.

We think that would generate significant revenues, which could be used to create youth jobs to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment in our country and to create new affordable homes. We want the Government to look at that; we want them to get their priorities right; we want them to undo some of the damage they have done in the last two years. That is why we will of course press the amendment to the vote when the appropriate moment comes.

[Karen Bradley]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to the debate on how we should tax our banks. First, it is important to put on the record the fact that I think banks should pay their share towards paying down the deficit. Every day, we are borrowing more money to pay for public services, so it is important for the banks to pay their share so that the deficit can be dealt with as soon as possible. How, then, does one take money or tax? As a tax accountant by training, I know that there are many different ways of extracting revenue from businesses. We can tax them based on their income or their profits or in many other different ways.

One thing about the bank levy introduced by this Government is that it guarantees that the banks will pay some tax. If they are loss making, their losses will not wipe out that tax. The bank levy cannot increase the losses; it is non-tax deductible for corporation tax purposes. We will be ensuring that, each year, the banks pay their fair share towards reducing the deficit.

Reductions in corporation tax are also not taken into account in the levy. It is absolutely the right thing to do to cut corporation tax. We need to cut it for all our businesses, to promote entrepreneurship, so that our businesses have more money left over at the end of every year to invest in new employment, new plant and machinery and shareholder returns. Given that shareholders are often our pension funds, it is extremely important that we ensure that those pension funds get the return that they so desperately need to allow our pensioners to enjoy the living standards they expect. As I say, reducing corporation tax is important, but we need to ensure that the banks do not benefit too much from that reduction—and the bank levy makes that happen.

[Alun Cairns]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that a balance needs to be struck? Banks need to pay their fair share, but we also need a level of taxation that will help us to attract to the UK the best bankers across the globe. We do not want to drive the banks overseas to Hong Kong, Switzerland or elsewhere, which would mean a net loss to the Treasury.

[Karen Bradley]

I entirely agree. Clearly 50% of nothing is not as much as 45% of something, It is important for us to tell the world that the UK is open for business, and to say “Bring your business to the UK”. That applies very much to the financial services sector.

We have already discussed how much money the banks might or might not pay towards reducing the deficit. What we are considering now is just the additional amount that they are paying as a result of the increase in the bank levy. They are, of course, paying an awful lot more to the Exchequer. I believe that the financial services sector contributes about £32 billion to our economy, and I think it important for us to retain and increase that amount of revenue. I firmly believe that we should have taxes that raise the maximum amount of revenue to be spent on our schools, hospitals and police officers, and that ideology should not determine how we set our tax rates.

The main point that I want to make about the bank levy is that it will raise the money irrespective of the amount of bonus paid. I remember when the previous Chancellor announced, in his 2009 pre-Budget report, that the banks would pay

“a special one-off levy of 50 per cent.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 367.]

At that time I was working in a large accounting practice, and was analysing the Budget. The biggest surprise came when the then Chancellor said that the Treasury expected the bonus tax to raise £500 million. Those of us who were in that firm at the time—it was one of the big four—were staggered that the Treasury should think that only £500 million-worth of bonuses would be paid, given that the tax meant that an equal amount would be paid to the Exchequer, and I think we have now seen that that did not happen.

The purpose of the levy was to drive behaviour. The point of it was that the banks would not pay the bonuses. The then Chancellor said that the Treasury expected a reduction in the level of bonuses that would be paid that year, but that simply did not occur: the bonuses were still paid. I personally believe that tax is a very blunt instrument for the purpose of driving behaviour, and that people will behave in the way in which they wish to behave, whether it involves charitable giving, buying pasties or paying bonuses. Tax is something that businesses “manage around”. They do not think of it as a behaviour driver, and it clearly did not drive behaviour in the way that the Treasury expected in that instance.

[Mark Durkan]

Has the hon. Lady not just contradicted what she said a couple of minutes ago? She suggested then that if we entertained this idea, we would ensure that banks became financial refugees in all sorts of other places in the world.

[Karen Bradley]

I do not agree about the contradiction. If it is suggested to the banks that the rate of tax will be at a certain level and that there will be a bonus tax, that will discourage them from remaining in the UK but it will not stop them paying the bonuses, which is what the Treasury wanted the special one-off tax to do.

[Nigel Mills]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the bank payroll tax has morphed from its original role of reducing bonuses to become purely a revenue-raiser in the eyes of those who want it, and that it is not even intended to reduce the amount of bonuses paid?

[Karen Bradley]

I was coming to exactly that point. It is, in fact, a revenue-raiser. We need to return to the question of how money can be raised from the banks, and if that is what we wish to do, I think that the bank levy is a better way of doing it.

In preparation for the debate, I rang various former colleagues and others involved in the financial services sector. I could not find anyone who would express the view that the bank levy was a terribly bad thing. They all accepted that the tax needed to be paid, and they thought that this was a reasonable way in which to pay it.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am trying to follow the hon. Lady’s argument. What impact does she think the bank levy has had on the level of bonuses given to bankers?

[Karen Bradley]

My point is that it is not the Government’s job to try to drive the level of bonuses. The last Government wanted to do that, and failed miserably. It must be accepted that the bank bonus tax is a revenue-raiser and not a behaviour-driver, and that it will not determine the way in which bonuses are paid. The actions taken by the present Government to limit the level of cash bonuses that can be paid, and other such measures, are far more effective in ensuring that the bonuses that are paid reflect the performance that contributes to the building and growth of a financial services business. That is what we want in our economy. We want businesses to grow, because if they do, they will pay more corporation tax. They will also pay more payroll tax, because a 13.8% national insurance charge is levied on all employers for the sums they pay their employees. Therefore, if the banks make more money, they will pay more in payroll tax, which is a good thing.

[Nigel Mills]

Does my hon. Friend agree that targeting a payroll tax at one industry is not a particularly coherent way of running a tax system? If those who propose doing that were truly concerned about inappropriate bonuses and high pay, they would want to impose a tax on other areas, too, such as high pay in the City—and, perhaps, on footballers or on energy businesses—rather than targeting it on just one industry that they do not happen to like at the moment.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Financial services are an incredibly important part of our economy. The 2002 pre-Budget report revealed a drop in revenue, and the explanation it gave for that was that the expected City bonuses had not been paid, and as a result those bonuses were not contributing as much tax as forecast—and we all accept that we need to raise tax in order to pay for our schools, hospitals, police officers and all our public services.

The bank levy is the right way to tax the banks. It is not unpopular with the industry, so far as I can ascertain from the experts to whom I have spoken. They accept that they have to pay their share, and that that is the way they will do it.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

This debate has clearly demonstrated that Members have very different views on how to tackle the current economic situation. I was very struck by one commentator’s observation that the Government were leaving economic recovery to business—that they were expecting business to spring up and solve our problems. That is what we heard almost two years ago, in the so-called emergency Budget—which did not, in fact, do anything terribly urgent. We were told then that very shortly the shoots of private enterprise would spring to life, particularly if we cut the public sector. Almost two years later, we are still waiting for that, however; it simply has not happened. It is not good enough for us simply to sit back and say, “Somehow, this is going to sort itself out.” It is right to want to stimulate the economy, and to create jobs and work.

Construction and affordable housing are essential. I live in a city with an acute shortage of affordable housing. There are many planning permissions and consents in place for new house building, which would have had at least an element of affordable housing, so the problem is not the planning system. Nothing is happening, however. The ground lies idle, and the building firms have paid off their workers and are waiting for the upturn, hoping that the land values will carry them through.

What is so wrong with wanting to raise some extra revenue and stimulate the economy in that way? If building workers are back in employment and private building firms are flourishing, then those workers will have income with which to stimulate the economy.

There has been a huge downturn in retail over the past few months. I read today that there has recently been a slight upturn because of the good weather in March, but, certainly where I come from, that has now been followed by three weeks of pretty rubbish weather, so presumably that upturn will now have been reversed. There has been a downturn in retail because people feel they do not have money to go out and spend. The whole local economy is affected by that. The knock-on effects on the local economy of investment in affordable housing are huge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that unemployment is a heavy burden for any individual or any family. We inherited from Labour the largest budget deficit this country has ever seen. It was incumbent on this coalition Government when we came into office to take the action necessary, otherwise we would have found ourselves in a position that many other European countries face, which would have been a great deal worse for the very people the right hon. Gentleman claims to be concerned about.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

One of the key weapons in tackling youth unemployment is the use of apprenticeships, so will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that in Staffordshire Moorlands the number of apprentices has gone up from 480 in 2009-10 to 760 last year—an increase of 60%?

[Danny Alexander]

I certainly join the hon. Lady in welcoming that. It will provide significant new opportunities for young people in her constituency. Of course it is part of the increase of 250,000 apprenticeships that this Government have put in place.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The first thing I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we believe strongly, as do the major employers in this country and the people internationally who look at this economy, that dealing with the deficit is essential for sustainable growth. That is what this is all about: putting the British economy and our public finances on a sustainable footing so that we can create jobs in the future and so that the economy can grow.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about taxes on the top 1%. We introduced an increase in capital gains tax, and the truth is that not everyone in my party was particularly happy about it, but Labour had 13 years and all those Budgets in which to do that. The shadow Chancellor now rather lamely says that Labour supports the capital gains tax increase, but I would love to know, when the Cabinet minutes are published in 20 or 30 years’ time, whether he ever raised this matter in Cabinet. We took a decision to increase capital gains tax to the higher rate, and last week I published proposals for increasing tax on the very highest pension contributions. That is a £4 billion tax; it was not an easy thing to do, but we have done it. We have also accepted and lived with the previous Government’s decision to increase tax to 50%—of course, they introduced that in the last month they were in office. Again, that was not an easy decision. I am not instinctively in favour of higher marginal tax rates, but it is necessary at a time like this. I am determined that all parts of the income distribution should make a contribution, but that the people at the top of the income distribution should make the most.

Finally, on the disposal of the banks, at the moment we are not in a position to do that, but of course we monitor the situation the whole time and, as and when we can dispose of them, we will. I am very keen to create a more competitive banking sector at the end of this process, which is one of the reasons why we set up the independent commission.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Areas such as Staffordshire Moorlands were neglected by the previous Government. Will the Chancellor tell the House how areas that have been let down by policies such as regionalisation will be helped by the measures announced by this Government?

[Mr Osborne]

We have much more focused local area partnerships that are going to help areas such as Staffordshire Moorlands, which I suspect were rather neglected by the regional development agency. I assume that such areas were not where the action was in the west midlands, and that the emphasis would have been on the big metropolitan centres. Her town of Leek and the surrounding countryside would, I suspect, have been ignored by the RDA. One of the advantages of local enterprise partnerships—and, indeed, the regional growth fund—is that we can focus on particular areas where we want to get more private sector involvement and create jobs.