Pay and Consultants (Public Sector)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I want to press on and hopefully finish by ten minutes past 10.

As I was saying, I could give a lot more examples about Government Departments, but I think that the point is made and I hope that it is a point that the Minister, when she responds to the debate, will say the Government are taking very seriously. I hope that takes seriously not only the issues about the levels of remuneration and taxation problems but whether the public sector is getting good value for money for the number and type of consultants that are hired.

I will give just one other little anecdote about consultants and again it is an anecdote from my own backyard. My local authority has got rid of 1,800 staff in the last five years—I think that is the figure—and that is a substantial proportion of its work force. A lot of that is related to cuts and a lot of it has proved unwise. However, the local authority has now cut so many staff that it is now “taking on”—to use the authority’s own words, which it uses to defend the number of consultants that it employs—agency staff and consultants, simply because it has got rid of so many PAYE staff. That cannot be the right way to run a public sector organisation.

Let me give another example of what I think we all know as IR35. Let me talk about a particular case in Hammersmith and Fulham. It has received some media attention, but I am not sure that the full horror of it has been expounded. It relates to a particular gentleman. I am sorry to have to talk about individuals, but obviously this issue is about individuals who have these consultancy contracts. That gentleman is called Nick Johnson. He used to be the chief executive of the London borough of Bexley, on a salary in excess of £200,000. His partner—his common-law wife, if that phrase is still in use—is a woman called Kate Davies, who is the chief executive of Notting Hill housing trust, and she is also on a salary of about £200,000. They jointly set up a personal service company, or PSC, called DaviesJohnson, to tender for work. I should point out that Ms Davies is still the chief executive of the Notting Hill housing trust, but Mr Johnson is no longer the chief executive of Bexley.

Rather than explaining their situation in my words, I will quote from a letter; although it is quite long, reading from it will save time. It was written by Councillor Stephen Cowan, who is the leader of the opposition in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 16 December 2010, which is some time ago. As far as I am aware, Mr Cowan is still awaiting a response to that letter. Mr Cowan wrote:

“I was interested to read your view that ‘Councils could cut chief executive’s pay’ as a means of saving money in these difficult times. You will no doubt have seen this article in the Mail on Sunday when it appeared on the 31st October 2010.”

The letter goes on to talk about the contents of that article. It continues:

“I believe that the issue it raises warrants investigation by your Department and the loopholes that have allowed this to occur need to be tightened. Such measures are likely to result in significant savings to the public purse. The Mail on Sunday reveals how Nick Johnson ‘receives a total of £310,000 a year, making him what is believed to be the highest paid council-funded official in Britain.’ However, this money is a combination of Dr Johnson’s ability to draw an alleged £50,000 local government pension as well as invoicing H&F Homes”—

that is, Hammersmith and Fulham Homes, which is the council’s ALMO, or arm’s length management organisation—

“over £260,000 a year. He is able to claim both these amounts because the ALMO’s money is paid to his private limited company (Davies Johnson Ltd) rather than directly to him. On the 24th of June 2010, Nick Johnson gave evidence to the Borough’s Housing Health and Audit Social Care Select Committee to say that he worked ‘full time’ for H&F Homes and now also LBHF”—

that is, the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Mr Cowan went on:

“Nick Johnson worked as Bexley council’s chief executive. But he retired earlier than normal pensionable age on 4th November 2007. This happened after he was deemed to be ‘permanently unfit to discharge his duties or any comparable duties as defined by the Local Government Pension Scheme regulations.’ In a note to Bexley Councillors, the current Chief Executive of that authority explained that an ‘Independent Occupational Health Consultant’ reached the conclusion about Dr. Johnson’s health and the decision to retire him was made by ‘the Acting Chief Executive’…However, Dr. Johnson started work in Hammersmith and Fulham on 11th February 2008—fourteen weeks and one day after he retired. Since then he has billed Hammersmith and Fulham around £700,000…Bexley councillors have questioned why they are paying a pension to an individual who appears to still be working full time… Many people have raised concerns about this.”

Mr Cowan goes on to quote newspaper articles and adds that Conservative colleagues argue that Nick Johnson is good value for money. I think that £260,000-plus is a lot of money to pay a local government official. I question whether such payments have been correctly monitored. Only recently, the chief executive officer wrote to inform me that Mr Johnson’s company is paid £950 a day, which equates to an annual salary of approximately £160,000.

Mr Cowan then goes on to request action by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has not been forthcoming.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what people find so shocking is not just the huge sums that are being paid out to these individuals, but the fact that many of the organisations in question do not even pay their lowest paid employees the London living wage, and the discrepancy between the pay at the bottom and the pay at the top is absolutely huge these days?

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is right. If I have time, I will comment on the wider trend towards the involvement of such private sector companies in the public sector, which seems to be something that the Government intend to encourage.

I have calculated, from documents supplied to me, the sum that Mr Johnson has been paid so far since 2007. As a consultant—as a PSC—to the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and its daughter organisations, he has been paid £957,481, just shy of £1 million. That was for a series of contracts, but principally for being chief executive of the arm’s length management organisation running the council’s public housing in the borough, and subsequently as the council’s director of housing and regeneration. To my mind, that is a post of employment, not a post as a consultant.

Following that letter 15 months ago in December 2010, the matter was not allowed to rest there, despite the fact that the local authority wished that it would. Eventually, audit reports were commissioned to look not only at Mr Johnson and DaviesJohnson, but at the wider trend for Hammersmith and Fulham council to employ consultants. I want to put on record the shocking findings about how that local authority conducted itself. If this practice is common in other local authorities, I urge the Minister to consider that this needs to be looked at as surely as Government Departments are.

Following the complaints made by the leader of the opposition, a report from Deloitte was commissioned to undertake an internal audit of the use of personal service companies across the council and in Hammersmith and Fulham Homes, and in particular the contracts between DaviesJohnson and Hammersmith and Fulham Homes and the council. In summary, the findings were:

“There is currently no corporate policy covering the use of consultants appointed to interim positions or as temporary staff, regardless if they are self employed consultants or operating as Personal Service Companies (PSCs);

We were unable to obtain evidence of any formal, documented selection and recruitment process being followed for the appointment of any of the PSCs within our sample;

For the seven appointments examined that were procured by the Council, we were only able to obtain one agreement;

For the four PSC appointments within H&F Homes we identified a number of issues including agreements not being available for the entire period of engagement; the absence of signed original agreements; an agreement with a dissolved company and an agreement between the ALMO and the individual rather than the company;

PSC invoices tested were found to be authorised in all instances tested;

Departments are required to submit returns detailing all consultancies appointed; however this does not include individuals covering posts as interims. Therefore there is no complete, centralised listing of all PSCs currently in use by the Council; and

We were unable to obtain evidence of formal performance monitoring of PSCs.

2.2 These findings have led to a ‘nil assurance’ in this area and seven recommendations have been made that are currently being implemented. All the recommendations have been accepted by the council. Timeframes for implementation are given in the report and range through to September 2011 for all recommendations to have been implemented.

2.3 The internal audit identified three individuals in particular where the auditors thought that professional advice on tax status should be sought, including the contracts in relation to Davies Johnson Ltd that the Audit and Pensions Committee had asked to be reviewed.”

It separately looked at the issue of DaviesJohnson. Although the view of Deloitte is not necessarily that Mr Johnson was an employee, in words that may come back to haunt the local authority, it states:

“the application of the tax and NIC regulations in such situations is not clear cut and HMRC may form a different view. Therefore, to this end, we would strongly recommend that, if not done so already, H&F Homes Ltd documents the services provided by Davies Johnson Ltd during this period, which will support the tax/NIC application by H&F Homes Ltd and help counter any potential challenge from HMRC should it consider there might be a case to form a view that NJ was an officer holder and an element of the payments made were solely linked to that of NJ holding the office of Chief Executive.”

He held that post for more than three years on a remuneration of approximately £1,000 a day.

My next point deals with where the investigations are going now. I urge the Minister to consider how unlikely it is that organisations such as Hammersmith and Fulham will put their house in order. I am sorry to single out Hammersmith and Fulham, because it is my local authority. I am sure that the same malpractices occur elsewhere. I pay tribute to local media—the Hammersmith & Fulham Chronicle, the Shepherd’s Bush blog and the Hammersmith Today website—which have highlighted these issues constantly and have been the driving force, along with the opposition on the council, in getting any movement on the issues. The council remains stubbornly of the view that it will not investigate these matters. It has now instructed PricewaterhouseCoopers, following the Deloitte report, to look at whether it is or is not complying with the law—in other words, whether it has or has not broken tax law.

Deloitte has revealed that, on June 30 last year, there were 69 consultants working at Hammersmith and Fulham council, 17 of them working via personal service limited liability companies. It found that Hammersmith and Fulham council had broken all its own rules for hiring consultants. There was no evidence of a formal documented selection recruitment process and no evidence of formal performance monitoring. The council had potentially wasted up to £12 million in this way, potentially operating outside UK tax laws with a possible £15 million in back taxes, fines and other sanctions that could hit the borough’s finances. That was the reason for bringing in PricewaterhouseCoopers at the end of last year, but—this is an important “but”— PricewaterhouseCoopers’ remit is simply to look at the future. It is to look at whether— this is in the response from the director of finance to a member of the audit committee—contracts in Hammersmith and Fulham will comply with tax legislation in future. What it should be looking at is whether it has done that in the past. If it will not do that, HMRC should.

There was a council meeting on 29 February. The motion put by the opposition stated:

“This council is committed to full cost transparency wherever possible to enable tax payers to hold us to account. This council notes that it has employed 540 agency workers over the past year—20% of the directly employed workforce.

This council has also employed sixty-nine consultants, with almost twenty of those employees working via service limited companies. The Local Government Pension Scheme forbids retired local government employees from being re-employed in local government. However, a personal service limited company allows this rule to be side-stepped.

However, there are clear rules laid down by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about what defines a consultant and there is a likelihood that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham may have breached those rules in directly employing people to work in its management structure as “consultants” via personal service companies.

This Council therefore resolves:

1. To inform HMRC of all cases where it has employed individuals via personal service companies and ensure its tax obligations are met and up to date

2. To report to Cabinet and the Audit and Pensions Committee full details of any back-taxes and fines issues by HMRC on IR35

3. To review its use of agency workers looking for more cost effective means of employing individuals and to publish all details of agency workers employed by LBHF and/or its subsidiaries and details the salaries of all of those over £100,000 per year.”

That was proposed by the opposition and voted down by the administration.

The final and perhaps the most shocking matter is this. I have dealt in some detail with the DaviesJohnson contract, as it is such a significant contract—more than £1 million was paid to a private company—and because it opened the door to the other abuses occurring in the authority. However, when an opposition member of the audit committee asked whether the council should report the DaviesJohnson contract to HMRC, the director of finance said that

“given the high profile of the situation in the media, HMRC would be aware of the situation, and had not approached the Council. If the Council approached them directly, a further inquiry would take place, with further impact on officer time and resources. Given the PWC findings, she did not propose to refer the matter to HMRC.”

The opposition councillor

“then proposed that the decision to refer or not to refer the matter to HMRC be put to the vote. The vote having been tied 2-2, it was agreed, on the Chairman’s casting vote, that the committee should not refer the matter to HMRC.”

Financial Services Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The key thing is to empower the regulators both to exercise judgment and then to be able to do something about it. One reason for locating both the macro-prudential role and, when it comes to individual firms, the micro-prudential role in the central bank is the culture in central banks—not just in the Bank of England, but in central banks generally—of exercising judgment and acting on it. I very much want to encourage that. My hon. Friend is right: there was no shortage of regulation, in that sense, in 2006-07. RBS complied with every bit of regulation in its decision to try to take over ABN AMRO; it is just that no one felt empowered to say, “Is this the right thing, for this firm and for the financial system, at a point when the financial markets have already frozen up?”

Rather than wait for this Bill to pass through Parliament, we have gone ahead and created the Financial Policy Committee on an interim and non-statutory basis. It is already meeting regularly to assess risks across the financial system, such as the need for banks to provide for adequate capital before determining the distribution of profits, as well as drawing attention to specific products, such as exchange-traded funds, whose excessive use may be a cause for concern. It has already produced two impressive financial stability reports.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

At the time of the collapse of Barings, I was working at Abbey National Treasury, which was involved in a joint venture trading derivatives with Barings. I was one of those brought in to clear up the mess, for which—I hasten to add—I was not responsible.

It was clear from what happened at Barings that there was a huge gulf between what the traders understood about their trading activities and what the management understood, and an even bigger gulf between the management and the regulators at the Bank of England. The Chancellor has said that the new committee will look at exotic and complex financial instruments, but how can he guarantee that its members will really understand what is happening on the trading floor?

[Mr Osborne]

That is the task that we are giving them. They must ensure that they have the necessary expertise and resources. The interim committee is looking across the piece—I will deal later with the role of regulating individual firms—but it is interesting that its two financial stability reports highlighted a specific financial instrument, the exchange-traded fund, and expressed concern about its rapid growth. I am not aware that the regulatory system that existed in 2006-07 spotted, for example, the rapid increase in the use of collateralised debt obligations. It did not warn about specific instruments and the growth in their use. The financial stability reports of the committee that we have already set up demonstrate an attention to particular complex market instruments and their potential systemic risks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. In November, the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published a consultation paper on exactly those lines, and I very much look forward to the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) will introduce tomorrow, which makes that proposal. We should all agree that we should do everything that we can to make tax and spending as transparent to the public as possible.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T8. The Public Accounts Committee has“serious concerns that large companies are treated more favourably than other taxpayers”by HMRC.That once again gives the lie to the Government’s claims that we are all in this together. What action will the Chancellor or the Minister take to ensure greater transparency and accountability in HMRC, and to assure ordinary taxpayers who are struggling to pay their bills this month that companies will also pay their full share?

[Mr Gauke]

The Government will respond in detail to the PAC report shortly, but it is only fair to point out that, in recent years, HMRC’s yield from large companies has increased substantially. Indeed, we have provided, as part of the spending review settlement for HMRC, additional resources to get more out of large businesses, so that we ensure that they pay their fair share.

Jobs and Growth

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it was to work with the shadow Chancellor and the rest of the shadow Treasury team over the past year? Although I have moved on to pastures new, I am very happy to speak in support of their motion today.

As we have heard, in the past nine months, the UK economy has not grown at all. Forecasts have had to be revised downwards, and the future prospects for growth are bleak, given the scale of Government cuts and the Chancellor’s failure to acknowledge that in fragile economic times a slash-and-burn policy, far from stimulating growth and bringing down the deficit, will cause growth to flatline. It will actually cost us more as a result of decreasing tax receipts, increasing benefit payments, people having less money to spend, and the Government having to borrow £46 billion more than they thought they would.

As the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, warned that slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt the recovery and worsen job prospects, yet the Chancellor is failing to heed the warning signs. Economic indicators such as today’s unemployment figures, which are devastating for people in areas such as my constituency, tell the Chancellor that not only is he going too fast, but he is on completely the wrong road. We do need to reduce the deficit, but at a pace that does not harm economic growth. Labour’s plan for growth involves bringing forward long-term investment projects for schools, roads and transport, building 25,000 more affordable homes, and creating 100,000 jobs for young people, funded by a £2-billion tax on bankers’ bonuses. That is what my constituents want a Government to do.

In my constituency, I see the impact of Government policies mounting up in a multitude of individually small but cumulatively large ways. For example, there is the public sector worker who has had a pay freeze, is paying 2.5% more VAT, has had their child care tax credits cut from 80% to 70%, and will soon have to contribute 3% more to their pension. That is not to mention the rise in inflation, how much more it costs to fill a tank with petrol, ever-rising fuel bills, or the extra pounds that the weekly food shopping costs. There are also the local services that people now have to pay for, and that used not to come at a cost.

This week, we have heard a stark warning from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about the impact that the Government’s policies are having on child poverty. I was there, in the previous Parliament, when all the party leaders and MPs from all parties rushed to sign up to the child poverty pledge to commit to abolishing child poverty within a generation. There was a cosy air of cross-party consensus. As one of the MPs who had been working closely with the End Child Poverty coalition, I did not want to say or do anything to derail that, but I was quietly highly sceptical. There were warm words and MPs posing with marker pens as they signed the pledge as part of a photo opportunity, so that they would appear in their local papers.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, I do not have time. I was highly sceptical that the pledges would translate into real action if the Conservative party got into Government. Sadly, my scepticism has proved well founded. The IFS warned yesterday that the Government’s tax and benefit changes will push 400,000 children into relative poverty by 2015. The number of children in absolute poverty will rise by 500,000 to 3 million. Instead of us eradicating child poverty by 2020, the Government’s policies mean that 3.3 million children—one in four children in the UK—will be in relative poverty. Labour when in government lifted nearly 1 million children out of poverty; this Government will put another generation of children right back there. It is little wonder that the chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group described it as a “devastating report”. She said:

“Ministers seem to be in denial that, under current policies, their legacy threatens to be the worst poverty record of any government for a generation.”

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on top of the benefit changes, one of the big things that will cause increased child poverty is the increased level of women’s unemployment, particularly because of the huge cuts in the public sector, which will affect women and then affect their children and plunge them into poverty?

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is another sign of the devastating impact of the Government’s policies. As I said, everything mounts up together; taken individually, it might not seem that they are doing much harm, but people are beginning to feel the pain and beginning to realise how much more pain is round the corner, not just for them, but for their children.

In the limited time available to me, I shall talk about unemployment, which in my constituency has risen by almost a quarter in the past year. Bristol was fortunate to be chosen as the site for one of the Government’s new enterprise zones. Unlike the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), I can just about remember what they are called. The council says that that has the potential to create 17,000 new jobs, which is good, but that is over a 25-year period. We need jobs now.

A report by the Work Foundation concluded that

“evidence suggests that Enterprise Zones…are likely to be ineffective at stimulating sustainable economic growth in depressed areas.”

A Centre for Cities report found that the cost of each new job created in enterprise zones over 10 years would be £26,000, which compares with £6,500 to creating a job for a young person under the future jobs fund and just £3,500 for the new deal for young people.

I left school in the 1980s and nearly all my friends spent years on the dole, their prospects of employment bleak, with long spells of unemployment interspersed with the occasional futile training scheme that did nothing to land them a job at the end of it. They thought they would never work, never own their own homes, never be able to afford to have a family. This Government seem intent on recreating that Thatcherite nightmare, with nearly 1 million young people now unemployed. We cannot consign another generation to the scrapheap. Labour’s plans to create 100,000 jobs for young people are what is needed now. That is why I support the motion.

Road Fuel Duties

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this debate. I am aware that the number of signatures on the e-petition that is doing the rounds calling for a debate on fuel duty is rapidly approaching 100,000. Since joining the shadow Treasury team, I have spent much of my time debating fuel duty with the Economic Secretary. It is indicative of just how strongly Members of Parliament feel about the matter, and of how much their constituents are affected by high fuel prices, that we have returned to the issue. It also suggests that the Government’s limited action so far—the 1p cut in fuel duty—has not done enough to satisfy people’s concern and its impact on their lives. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire referred to the impact on a nurse in his constituency.

The small increases in the cost of living and the small cuts add up. The cost of parking at a hospital may have doubled, and travel to work may cost an extra £100 a month. Such increases make the difference between people being able to get by on a modest income and being unable to make ends meet. Sometimes they must make the tough decision to give up work, because they simply cannot afford it. I want to allow plenty of time for the Economic Secretary to reply, so I will not elaborate further, but people are being hit across the board. Fuel duty rises and the cost of petrol are obviously a significant element in that.

Before the Budget in March, we called on the Chancellor to review the duty increase, and we welcomed his decision following the example of previous Labour Governments, who had cancelled or postponed rises in duty when circumstances suggested that would be a good idea because fuel prices were putting too harsh a burden on people. We welcomed the 1p cut in duty, but the savings lasted only a short time, and prices at the pump remained high. According to figures published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change this morning, the price of one litre of petrol has increased over the past seven days by 0.38p to 135p and diesel by 0.44p to 139.4p. That makes prices 20p and 22p respectively more expensive than in the equivalent week last year. I am sure that some hon. Members in rural constituencies will say that those average prices do not reflect the real prices in areas that are ill-served by petrol stations.

Clearly, the 1p cut has not been sufficient for motorists feeling the squeeze. That is partly because the Government added another 3p to the price of a litre of petrol by hiking up VAT in January 2011. Motorists are also facing the prospect of a 3p increase in January 2012, and a further increase in August 2012. That comes at a time when the Institute for Fiscal Studies is warning that the coalition’s tax rises and spending cuts will squeeze household budgets for the next 10 years, with families over the past year having suffered the largest fall in living standards for 30 years. Median net household income is down 3.5%, the consumer prices index stands at 4.4%, and the retail prices index stands at 5%, which is more than double the rate at which earnings are growing. The Office for National Statistics has highlighted that fuel costs are one of the most significant contributors to the CPI and are adding indirectly to the cost of our weekly food shopping, because distribution costs rise with fuel prices.

I need not remind hon. Members that fuel prices affect not only affect households, but are having a serious impact on businesses, which are already struggling in a flatlining economy. Only this month, the Freight Transport Association reported that the high cost of fuel remains the biggest cause for concern among haulage operators. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that its members were most concerned about the fuel tax rise in January. It warned that small and medium-sized enterprises would be severely affected.

I shall move on to what the Government have said they will do about the problem. Before the election, great play was made of the fair fuel stabiliser. David Cameron said that he would introduce a mechanism to ensure that when oil prices went up, prices at the pump would go down and vice versa. That was widely seen to be unworkable, and has been proven by the fact that since coming to power the Government have not acted on it. The stabiliser in the form suggested by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor has not materialised. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility said that it would make fuel prices less stable rather than more stable.

The Treasury then moved to funding the 1p fuel duty cut with the windfall tax on the oil companies, which the Scottish First Minister described as cack-handed. It was introduced almost at the last minute, and the oil companies that it affected were not consulted. The reduced duty is funded by a rise in the supplementary charge on oil companies from 20% to 32%. The Government were then hit by evidence that that would lead to fewer new fields being developed, and greater reliance on foreign imports, which are, of course, more expensive. Under pressure, the Treasury announced in the summer that it would allow companies to offset some start-up costs against tax, but that only served to show the Government’s muddle on the fuel duty regime. They float various ideas, but when those ideas are subject to any scrutiny they do not stand up to cross-examination, and the Government have to make policy on the hoof.

That is partly why we tried to amend the Finance Bill to require the Chancellor to assess the impact of tax on ring-fenced profits. As I argued at the time, that seemed to be in line with the Government’s professed commitment to more consultation and greater transparency in tax policy, instead of coming up with measures without consulting industry and then having to make U-turns..

Another measure that the Chief Secretary announced and which seems to be running out of steam is the pilot scheme for the rural fuel duty rebate, which he announced last October. He was keen on that when he was in opposition, but it seems to be more complicated than the Treasury expected. The rebate would allow a discount of up to 5p a litre on petrol in the inner and outer Hebrides—

[Mr MacNeil]

There is talk in London of the scheme being complicated, but it need not be. It is happening in many places throughout Europe. The only complication seems to be the length of time it is taking to put it in place.

[Kerry McCarthy]

At the moment, it is suggested that the scheme will apply to the inner and outer Hebrides, the northern isles and the Isles of Scilly. The Minister will have to explain, but perhaps the delay is due to the fact that there is considerable pressure from other areas where fuel prices are very high. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is no longer in her place, but she made the case for her constituency in the south-west having a similar scheme.

People in the Scottish Highlands, where large distances need to be travelled and the scarcity of retail petrol stations adds to the cost of petrol, think that they, too, should be included in the scheme. Do the Government think that the scheme should be restricted only to the islands, or should it be extended? If the islands are a particular case, perhaps the Minister will clarify what that is. It is not clear whether the island populations would feel any benefit or how the discount could be delivered, and there have been warnings that such a scheme would risk putting petrol stations out of business.

Under the original idea, upfront costs would fall on retailers who might have to wait two months to be reimbursed by the Treasury. For many small retailers that is simply not viable, and if petrol stations in remote areas are forced to close, motorists will have to travel even further to fill up their tanks. I would appreciate a response from the Minister about how that could be avoided if the pilot schemes for rural islands are introduced.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Lady has referred to the original consultation proposals, which the Government quickly changed because of feedback from retailers and the cash-flow problem that would have occurred. That feature is no longer in the revised proposals, so the issue has been solved.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It seems that the briefings from people lobbying on the issue are slightly out of date.

In conclusion, the Government’s efforts to reduce the burden of high fuel bills on households and businesses seem to have run out of steam, rather like a car running out of petrol. Ministers continually try to ignore the fact that their VAT rise has had the greatest impact on petrol and diesel prices by adding almost 3p to the price of a litre of petrol and £450 to the average family’s annual bills. As we know, VAT has a disproportionate impact on those who can least afford it, and evidence shows that that is harming the economy. The Treasury is happy to ask the EU for a derogation on fuel duty for the remote Scottish islands but, as we have heard today, people’s budgets all over Scotland and around the UK are being put under pressure by the cost of petrol and diesel, and the Government refuse to listen.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend recall that after the 1997 election, the first thing the Labour Government did was cut VAT on fuel? That helped fuel poverty.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I recall that, and there are various other examples. Hon. Members are keen for the Minister to respond so I will not elaborate on that point, but the fact is that the Government have not even tried to get a derogation from the EU on fuel prices. Opposition Members argue that the rise in VAT earlier this year is having a seriously damaging impact on the economy and, at least in the short term until the economy recovers and economic growth returns, that it should be reversed.

I have posed a number of questions to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing not only a recognition that fuel prices are impacting on families and warm words about how the Government appreciate that people are being hit by the cost of fuel, particularly in rural or remote areas, but something clear about what the Government intend to do. The 1p cut in duty is incredibly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and the Government must act because people and businesses are suffering. It is time for action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anas Sarwar]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I would like to make some progress and talk about fuel, because that is clearly the point of the debate. However, I am happy to have a debate on the economy, because many people in Britain recognise exactly whose fault it is that the economy is in the state that it is in today—it is the fault of the Labour party.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘3 years’.

Government manuscript amendment B.

Amendment 7, page 6, line 8, leave out ‘7 years’ and insert ‘5 years’.

Amendment 8, page 6, line 8, at end add—

‘(6) The Trustees shall also review the percentage for the time being specified in Step 1 of section 6(1) as soon as practicable if, over the financial year immediately preceding the base year, the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate increased by more than the trend rate of GDP growth.

(7) In subsection (6), “the trend rate of GDP growth” means the estimate of the trend rate of GDP growth most recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility which is applicable to that year.

(8) Subsections (2) to (4) shall also apply to a review carried out under subsection (6).’.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I wish to speak briefly to amendment 8. This would introduce a check on potential future rises in income from the Crown Estate. At a time when Departments and the public generally are having to take very difficult decisions to make their limited budgets cover the essentials, we should at least apply careful analysis to what sort of income the 15% figure would bring in for the royal household over future years. I would appreciate any information Ministers have on forecasts for the sovereign grant over the coming years, particularly regarding this spending review period.

We are very short of time, but I shall press on with the issue of meeting the royal household’s needs. When I met the Economic Secretary yesterday—I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her and the Bill team—we had a discussion about the fact that the civil list has not adequately reflected the needs of the royal family in the past. At one point, it was being paid too much money and amassed significant reserves; then, it was not paid enough to meet its needs and had to draw down on the reserves. I appreciate that the current formula may not be appropriate, but a formula fixed to income on the basis of something like the Crown Estate is not necessarily any more likely to meet royal spending needs.

In 2010-11, the Crown Estate profits were £230.9 million. If the new mechanism were already in use, that would mean a grant in two years’ time of £34.7 million. Instead, the 2012-13 grant has been set at £31 million in recognition that 15% would not be appropriate or proportionate. This is why we are asking the Government to consider a more flexible mechanism in future.

When the Chancellor spoke in the preliminary debate the other week, he said that the grant to the royal family should reflect generally how well the economy is doing. The particular concern we have—it has been touched on already—is that the Crown Estate includes investment in offshore wind, particularly the new wind-power projects that are coming on board. I think the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association said that the carbon capture and storage industry is likely to be very big in the future, probably measured in trillions of dollars. We think that could have an impact on the accounts, too.

We were grateful for the Chancellor’s assurances during the debate on the funding resolution that we will not allow revenues from offshore wind to lead to a disproportionate rise in revenues for the royal household. I would be grateful for any further information about what safeguards could be put in place.

Amendment 8 would help. It would limit disproportionate increases to the royal household. I welcome the fact that the Government have tabled manuscript amendments in response to our amendments which would provide an earlier review period. As the Bill was originally drafted, the first review of the new arrangement would not have taken place for seven years and there would then have been a review every seven years after that. We thought that the first review should take place within three years and that subsequent reviews should take place every five years. We have listened to what the Government had to say about three years being unfortunate in that it would coincide with the next general election. We are happy to accept the Government manuscript amendments that the first review should be four years and subsequent reviews every five years. We do think, however, that there should be another mechanism to address the fact that no cap is in force. There is a cap on the reserves, but there is no cap on the potential increases that the 15% figure, linked to the income of the Crown Estate, could generate.

I shall skim over much of what else I was going to say, but we think it important to have some upward cap. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister or the Chancellor have to say in response.

[Mr George Osborne]

As was acknowledged by the shadow Chancellor, we have taken on board what I consider to be the most significant amendments in tabling our own manuscript amendments. There will now be a review in 2016, and there will be a review every five years after that. If the House accepts our amendments we shall be able to prevent some windfall from offshore renewable energy from not being taken into account before it comes about. We will have a chance to do that in 2016, and that is partly because we have accepted the Opposition’s amendments.

I have already dealt to some extent with the point raised by the shadow Chancellor, and by amendment 8, about whether some other mechanism is needed. A fair number of checks are already in place. If the grant turns out to be more than the royal household needs—and the assessment of need will be checked by the National Audit Office—it will go into a reserve. If the reserve hits 50% of the grant, the trustees will step in and reduce the amount of money coming in. They will turn down the taps. That is a sensible mechanism, and it means that we will not be having an annual debate in the House about royal finances, entertaining though the last few hours have been.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) specifically asked why the figure for 2012-13 was £31 million. In a sense, that question lies at the heart of the issue. I accept that this is a complicated concept. The royal family have been relying on grants from Parliament—either the civil list or the royal travel or royal palaces grant—and supplementing them with a reserve which has been built up, with the use of public money, in the last decade or two. In 2012-13 the royal family will get the £31 million, but they will also expect to draw on the last of the reserve that was built up in the 1990s and 2000s. They will, in effect, receive more than £1 million from public money—money raised through taxation—because they will be using the last of that reserve.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

Supplies of commodities to be used in producing electricity

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 45, line 5, at end insert—

‘(2) The Schedule shall not come into force except as specified in subsection (3) below.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall bring the Schedule into force by order within six months of the passing of this Act.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) shall be accompanied by a report which details—

(a) any effective subsidy provided to, or additional profits accruing to, operators of existing and new nuclear power stations as a result of the provisions in the Schedule;

(b) the immediate impact of the provisions in the Schedule on consumers and on fuel poverty;

(c) the immediate impact of the provisions in the Schedule on energy-using manufacturing industries and on employment in those industries;

(d) the expected effect of the provisions in the Schedule on investment in new renewable power generation and on investment in new nuclear power generation;

(e) the measures that the Chancellor intends to adopt in a future Finance Bill in order to recoup any effective subsidy to or additional profits accruing to the nuclear industry as a result of the Schedule; and

(f) how the monies raised by those measures will be used to mitigate the immediate impact of the Schedule on consumers and on manufacturing industries and to encourage green investment.’.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, page 45, line 5, at end insert—

‘The Schedule shall come into force on a date specified by the Treasury by an order made by Statutory Instrument, which may not be made until an agreed packaged of mitigation measures for energy-intensive industries has been laid before the House of Commons and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons. The dates specified in paragraphs 8(3) and 9(5) of the Schedule shall be replaced by the date specified in the order under this section if it is later.’.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Let me start by confirming that Labour Members support the principle of a carbon floor price. We believe that carbon price support could be an excellent opportunity for the UK in providing a high and stable price for carbon. It could encourage investment in low-carbon power and green technologies, create a new generation of green high-skilled jobs which the UK sorely needs, enable the UK to make radical reductions in its carbon emissions, and contribute to meeting our carbon budgets. Unfortunately, however, we cannot support the way in which the Government have implemented this measure. It will hit those who can least afford it, damage the prospects of developing a UK green industry, and fail to reduce carbon emissions. We have to question whether we can call the carbon price support rate a green tax at all.

First, I shall deal with the impact on consumers. We know that people are struggling to pay their fuel bills. The OECD estimates that, on May’s figures, energy prices are nearly 10% higher than they were a year ago. Scottish Power recently announced electricity bill rises of 10% and gas bill rises of 10%, and other companies are expected to follow suit. The Government are not helping. Rising energy bills and fuel bills are coming on top of higher taxes, cuts to tax credits and cuts to public services. This year the Government have cut the winter fuel payment by £50 for people over 60 and £100 for people over 80, with no mention of that in the Budget statement or the pre-Budget report. That comes after their promise in last year’s Budget to protect key benefits, including winter fuel payments, for older people. They may claim that they inherited this from the previous Government, but we could and would have looked again at that decision in the light of rising energy prices, and so could they; that is the point of having an annual Budget statement.

These are the circumstances in which the Government have proposed a carbon floor price designed in such a way that it will cost working families by raising their energy bills. We understand that in the long term, if the policy is designed in a way that encourages a switch to low-carbon energy production, there should be no significant effect on consumer bills—that is why we support the principle of the carbon floor price—but right now, in the short term, there will be price rises for consumers at a time when they are already finding their fuel bills unmanageable. The Government have not included any counterbalancing measures to help working families to deal with those price rises. If the measure goes ahead in the form that the Government propose, between 30,000 and 60,000 more households will fall into fuel poverty in 2013, rising to between 50,000 and 90,000 more households by 2020. Those are the Government’s own estimates. Earlier this year, Consumer Focus said:

“In its current form there is a real risk that this policy may simply displace detriment.”

In other words, even if it did have a positive impact on green investment, that would be at the cost of more people falling into fuel poverty.

There have recently been somewhat hysterical reports about green taxes, alleging that they are the biggest factor in causing consumer bills to rise. That is not true. Ofgem figures from March show that environmental and social costs make up just 8% of the typical dual fuel consumer bill, and that has risen by just one percentage point since 2008. Climate change deniers cite figures suggesting that hidden green taxes add some £200 to energy bills, but those figures do not stack up. That does not mean, however, that now is the time to add to those costs. The Government have got it wrong. Ordinary working families were clearly the last thing on their mind when they designed this policy. That is why the amendment calls for them to look again at the effect that it will have on people in fuel poverty.

I turn to manufacturing, which several of my colleagues will wish to discuss too. Rising energy prices will affect not only consumers but firms that employ thousands of people across the country. In particular, they will hit energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium and chemicals. There is a danger, particularly in the absence of a credible Government plan for growth, that growth and jobs will be exported to other countries. According to a report by Thomson Reuters Carbon Point earlier this year, the carbon floor price will impose additional costs on businesses amounting to £9.3 billion. We understand that that effect might be mitigated in the long term if there is a switch to greener sources of energy, although that is not certain given the problems that I will come to in a moment. In the medium term, however, UK industry will be at a disadvantage, and jobs and growth will be put at risk. That is why the director general of the CBI and industry bodies such as the Chemical Industries Association have called for an exemption from these extra costs for high energy-using industries.

Concerns have been expressed by firms such as Tata Steel, which employs 1,000 people in Teesside. Its chief executive officer said:

“The introduction of the carbon floor price represents a potentially severe blow to the sustainability of UK steelmaking.”

Rio Tinto Alcan, an aluminium producer in the north-east, may close, shedding 600 jobs, and 1,800 jobs are at risk at INEOS ChlorVinyls in Runcorn. Some of the industries threatened by this measure are not only major employers but among the UK’s biggest export sectors. For example, the chemical industry, which accounts for 12% of total UK manufacturing, exports the bulk of its production, with a trade balance in 2008 of nearly £6 billion.

There is also the danger that we will harm our own prospects of building a UK green industry. This sector represents huge opportunities for the UK. For example, the wind energy sector provides over 10,000 jobs, and it expanded by 91% in just two years from 2007 to 2009. The solar energy industry in the UK provides over 10,000 jobs. There is a danger that we may not be able to sustain these sectors in the UK, despite any efforts from the Government, if the necessary materials are not available here. This would be yet another own goal for the “greenest Government ever” after their ill-thought-out change of policy earlier this year on feed-in tariffs, which has put thousands of green jobs at risk. The solar sector is a vital, nascent green industry in the UK. Until the Government’s announcement, the 10,000 jobs that it currently supports was expected to rise to 17,000 this year. The Government’s promised green investment bank was supposed to boost investment in new green industries, but it has been watered down: it will be a fund, and not a real bank, until 2015. That makes a mockery of the Government’s green credentials. Our amendment calls on the Government to look again at the carbon floor price and its effect on high energy-using industries. This is the wrong time to put jobs and green investment at risk without a plan to protect them.

I now move on to the impact on green investment. We accept that a well-designed carbon floor price can deliver reduced emissions and higher green investment, which is why we support the idea in principle. However, we doubt whether the Government’s proposal will deliver those goals. The UK is part of the EU emissions trading scheme, so any carbon permits that are not sold in the UK will simply be sold elsewhere in Europe. The Department of Energy and Climate Change commissioned Redpoint Energy, a consultancy, to examine the options for a carbon floor price. It said in a footnote to its report:

“Under the EU ETS, it would be expected that lower emissions from the GB electricity sector in a given year would be offset by higher emissions elsewhere within the trading scheme.”

A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research agreed that

“this policy would have no direct effect on emissions reaching the atmosphere.”

It went on to say that

“it is important to be clear that the UK would be meeting climate change targets in a way that has zero direct effect on emissions.”

The Treasury’s own consultation document admitted that for power stations covered by the ETS, the carbon price floor will not directly impact on the Government’s ability to meet their carbon budgets.

Consumers and companies facing higher energy bills because of this policy would be right to question whether this is a worthwhile use of their money. Will the Government’s policy encourage more investment in renewable power? The Energy and Climate Change Committee expressed doubt:

“when it comes to low-carbon investment, the effect of the Carbon Price Support will depend on the confidence of investors in the long-term reliability of the Carbon Price Support.”

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

Perhaps I can just tell the hon. Lady that the Institution of Civil Engineers said that the policy will create a “more conducive environment” for investment. Does that allay her fears? If she has concerns about the structure of the policy, it would be helpful for Members to hear the Opposition’s alternatives.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I will go on to explain, there are concerns about future stability, as we have seen with the North sea oil tax, which we discussed yesterday. Investors need stability to plan for the long term, particularly in solar and wind power, which need long-term investment. People need to know what to expect and what impact proposals will have.

As for what the Opposition are saying, I refer the Minister to our amendment, which calls for a review of three main points, which I am discussing in my speech. Those are the impact on fuel poverty, the impact on energy-intensive industries and the fact that this is, in effect, a subsidy for nuclear power, which I will discuss later. It is important for us to look at the consequences of this policy because, as with so many things, the Government have introduced it in haste and without thinking through the consequences. It is not until we look at the impact on these sectors that we will see what the ideal solution might be. It is premature of the hon. Lady to ask us to come up with an alternative before we have done that analysis and reached a consensus with the industry on what the impact will be. As I have said, we agree in principle with the carbon price support, but because of the way it is being implemented, it will not achieve any of the objectives that she presumably wants it to achieve.

[Justine Greening]

As we will no doubt debate later, we carried out an extensive impact assessment on this policy. Indeed, the hon. Lady has quoted a couple of figures from it. I reiterate what I said earlier. If she agrees in principle with the policy, which I very much welcome, it would be helpful to hear how she thinks the delivery of it ought to differ from what the Government are doing.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said, we are calling for a full-scale review. I am not convinced that the Government’s impact assessment examined in sufficient detail the impact on fuel bills, for example. As the Economic Secretary is intervening on me, it is obviously not the time for me to pose questions to her. When she speaks later, perhaps she can enlighten us as to what it was judged that the impact would be on consumers in meeting their fuel bills, on fuel poverty and on energy-intensive industries. What impact does she think that will have on jobs and growth in the areas where energy-intensive industries are based? Perhaps she could also respond to the questions that I will soon pose about whether it is wise to, in effect, create a subsidy for the nuclear industry when there are other competing priorities, on which some people would argue the money would be better spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s remarks on behalf of the Labour party. Can she make it clear for the House whether the Labour party supports a carbon floor? I thought that that was settled policy. If it does support a carbon floor, what is the particular aspect of the announcement that is causing such concern?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not sure where to start in responding to the hon. Gentleman. My opening line was that we support the idea of a carbon floor price in principle. Everything that I have said since has outlined why we have reservations about the way in which it is being implemented. I simply refer him to the speech that I am making.

I appreciate that there are difficulties in getting this policy implemented at an EU level. It would be easier if we could look at the EU emissions trading scheme in the round. Experts have said that measures on carbon pricing should first be considered at EU level, and that a UK-only solution is a second best option. Lord Turner, the Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, has said that, and it was echoed in the Institute for Public Policy Research report. The Government appear to have done nothing to explore the EU option. The coalition agreement says that the Government will

“make efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.”

However, it does not mention any intention to talk to our EU partners about a carbon price floor. Perhaps that is unsurprising, given the Government’s record on dealing with the EU. For example, the Government’s MEPs tabled no proposals to reduce the EU budget, whereas Labour MEPs tabled amendments that could have cut more than €1 billion of waste from EU spending.

[Justine Greening]

Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the main reasons why the UK’s contribution to the EU budget is going up is that the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave away part of the rebate?

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Enough now.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Whip is telling me that we do not have time to reply to that point. It is a bit rich of the Economic Secretary to say that, when she made great play of going to Europe and saying that we would not accept any rise in the EU budget—there was a lot of grandstanding and playing to the crowd on that issue—and then her party’s MEPs tabled no proposals at all to tackle the issue. That is far more relevant to what we are discussing than something that happened many years ago.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I am encouraged by what I think I am hearing about the European Union. My policy would be simply to leave it. Is it now the policy of the Labour party to cut the EU budget? If so, why did it not seek to negotiate a reduction in the EU budget when it was in power?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps we can stick to this debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the answer to his question he can discuss it privately with the hon. Lady outside the Chamber. We should return to the important issue of climate change.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have touched on the fact that there needs to be greater Government engagement in Europe to try to deal with the matter at a pan-European level.

I turn to the nuclear subsidy. As I have said, the carbon price support rate will hurt families and industry in the immediate future, yet it seems likely to fail to reduce carbon emissions. We have to wonder why the Government decided to implement it. The obvious explanation is that they got it wrong, again. It would not be the only tax that they have bungled in this Finance Bill. I have already mentioned the difficulties over the fuel duty stabiliser and the North sea oil tax, which was—[Interruption.] Sorry, I have been thrown off slightly by a sedentary heckle from the Economic Secretary. As I was saying, the Government introduced a last-minute supplementary charge on North sea oil in response to growing public protest about prices at the petrol pump. We have subsequently seen how ill thought out that was, and it has led to the Government having to perform U-turns at a fairly rapid pace.

One explanation of why the Government want to introduce the carbon price support rate is the money that it will raise. Is it perhaps a revenue-raising measure in disguise? The 2011 Budget report reveals that it will raise £740 million in 2013-14, more than £1 billion in 2014-15 and £1.4 billion in 2015-16. If it fails to encourage faster green investment, as some predict, the tax could go on to raise much more as the carbon price approaches £70 a tonne. In fact, the Budget report states explicitly:

“The decisions the Government is taking to strengthen the tax system—including…the introduction of the carbon price floor announced at this Budget—will also help to support the long-term sustainability of the public finances.”

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with having a unilateral carbon price in the UK is not just that it will make international investors such as Tata Steel near Swansea think of moving their investment to Europe, and therefore helping Europe rather than Britain? She may be interested to know that in Port Talbot, near Swansea, a specialist steel is being developed. When wrapped around buildings, it produces its own heat and reduces the carbon footprint. Does she agree that the Government’s measures are undermining global market-changing technology to reduce carbon footprints, as well as destroying jobs in Britain?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is an important point. Although there is concern about the carbon emissions of energy-intensive industries, in cases such as my hon. Friend has outlined they are actively working on measures to reduce carbon emissions. It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and prevent that type of green investment.

The carbon price support rate will actually provide an effective subsidy to the nuclear industry, as the Economic Secretary has confirmed in a written answer. In fact, it will benefit nuclear power twice as much as the renewables sector, with an average value of £50 million a year for nuclear between 2013 and 2030, compared with just £25 million a year for renewables.

We support building new nuclear power stations as part of the UK’s energy mix, but the problem is that the Government explicitly promised voters that they would not grant nuclear power stations a public subsidy. In fact, there is meant to be cross-party agreement that we are against nuclear subsidies. The Conservative party said in its manifesto that it intended

“clearing the way for new nuclear power stations—provided they receive no public subsidy”.

The coalition agreement stated that the Conservative party was

“committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations…provided that they receive no public subsidy.”

The Prime Minister himself said in the House in March:

“What we should not be doing is having unfair subsidies.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 950.]

Then there are Liberal Democrat Members, who were elected on a manifesto that opposed nuclear power entirely. At their party conference last year, a resolution was passed stating that

“any changes in the carbon price”

should not

“result in windfall benefits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations”.

When we delve deeper, it turns out that this is not the only nuclear subsidy by stealth that the Government are trying to sneak past the House. When I say “subsidy by stealth”, I am of course borrowing a phrase from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. Writing about the Government’s wider package of electricity market reforms, he has warned that they

“must not impose a one-size-fits-all reform on all low-carbon generation in order to avoid singling out nuclear for support.”

He said that the Government’s proposed design for feed-in tariffs

“seems to be more about concealing the fact that it is providing financial support for nuclear power than it is about coming up with the best approach.”

Even if the Government do support public subsidy for new nuclear build, they need to explain why they want to subsidise existing nuclear stations—and, for that matter, existing renewable power stations. Calling the carbon price support rate a green tax surely implies that it is intended to provide an incentive for future green behaviour. However, the Economic Secretary said to the Public Bill Committee:

“We are clear that ensuring that a tax is structured to drive positive environmental behaviour is one thing; ensuring that that can happen on the ground, and that people can change their decisions of the future is another.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 242.]

A public subsidy for existing power stations, whether renewable or nuclear, is not behaviour-changing.

We should remind ourselves exactly where the subsidy comes from. The Economic Secretary may argue that it is not a public subsidy per se, because it does not involve taxing and spending. In fact it has a much more direct impact on every electricity bill payer, whether they are working families or manufacturing firms, and it is still a public subsidy in every sense. The hon. Member for South Suffolk says that the Government

“needs to be upfront about its financial support for nuclear energy”,

and I agree with him. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

The Government are using money taken from people and from energy-intensive industries to subsidise nuclear power stations, which they explicitly promised voters they would not do. They are also using that money to subsidise existing power stations, which makes no sense. We have tabled the amendment to give them an opportunity to explain why they have done that. If they are still sticking to their policy that there should not be a subsidy, I want to know how they will put that right.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, because I am just reaching the end of my speech. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to intervene when other Members are speaking.

The hon. Members for Redcar (Ian Swales) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) have tabled amendment 21, which calls for mitigation measures for energy-intensive industries. I hope that they and other Liberal Democrat Members will feel able to support amendment 12. It has 11 signatories, not all from the Labour party, and like them we call for support for energy-intensive industries. In addition, we have called for help for consumers and support for green investment. Our amendment also calls for the nuclear subsidy to be recouped, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) this weekend, according to the Daily Mail.

The Government have confirmed that there will in fact be a windfall for the existing nuclear industry, despite the Liberal Democrats’ party conference decision last year. Fortunately, the coalition agreement allows Liberal Democrat Members to vote against that without its being seen as an issue of confidence in the Government. I hope that they will make use of that ability today.

The Government’s carbon floor price will not do what they said it would do. It is a missed opportunity for the country. We could have seen a new generation of green investment and jobs, but instead we see ordinary people being hit at the time when they can least afford it. We see UK manufacturing being hit when the Government say they want to promote growth, yet we will not see carbon emissions into the atmosphere reduced by a single tonne, and we might not see green investment. The Government have got the policy wrong, and our amendment asks them to go back and think again.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I wish to speak to amendment 21, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

I, too, support the carbon price support mechanism and its objectives, but without mitigation measures its introduction will have the surely unintended consequence of seriously damaging energy-intensive industries through higher electricity prices. Cumulative electricity prices in the region of 20% will make production costs higher in the UK than in European and international competitors. Analysis shows that the profitability of UK-based energy-intensive businesses could fall by up to 150%, or disappear altogether. They are mostly international businesses, and the competition cannot believe their luck that the UK seems determined to make itself much less competitive.

Civil List

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

How on earth do I follow that, Mr Deputy Speaker?

We have had an interesting debate and, as has been said, this is just the start of the process. It is an unusual process, given that we have not yet had sight of the Bill and that this is a preliminary debate. The debate has ranged from yachts, trains and the prospect of the monarch taking out a Boris bike for the day to other important issues that are perhaps slightly off-topic, such as primogeniture, succession and whether first-born females and Catholics will one day be able to take precedence in succeeding to the throne. We heard from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that St James’s palace was once a leper colony that was given to Eton. By the time the Bill goes into Committee—I very much hope that he will be a member of that Committee—I might have worked up a gag about that. I am still working on it at the moment.

As we have heard, the demands on the royal household are vastly different today from when the House last discussed the issue. The financing arrangements are largely unchanged since 1760. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made clear, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the new sovereign support grant, which we feel will be better equipped to meet the royal household’s needs. We will support the Chancellor in reforming the arrangements although, as he would expect, we will ask questions and will want to know in detail how the arrangements will work.

Efforts have already been made to ensure that grant support to the royal household is fair to the taxpayer in the context of wider Government spending and we welcome them, too. Last year, the Chancellor announced in his spending review that support for the royal household would be frozen at £30 million in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before the new arrangements are put in place. That will necessitate a 14% reduction in royal household expenditure in 2012-13.

We have also heard from a number of speakers about the significant efficiency savings made by the royal household in recent years, although the hon. Member for North East Somerset also expressed the view that the monarchy should not go down the Tesco value route, which led my hon. Friends to ask about the Lidl—or Aldi—monarchy. I suspect that that those are not places where the hon. Gentleman often shops.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asked whether the efficiency savings would be a continuing process or whether the end of the road had already been reached, with all the savings being made that could be made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) highlighted some points where further savings could be made and I hope that that will be addressed when the Bill goes to Committee.

As hon. Members have said, the Treasury’s choice of a level of 15% of the revenues of the Crown Estate needs proper scrutiny. The Chancellor said that that figure was chosen to maintain the current level of expenditure, or something in that ballpark, to the end of this Parliament. It has been estimated that 15% of the Crown Estate profits would provide some £37.5 million a year, 25% higher than the total grants that are currently provided. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, we need to consider the appropriate level of expenditure for the royal family. There might be a case for increasing that amount and we must consider carefully how demands on the royal household have changed. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in his opening speech, the pressures on the royal household from issues such as security have increased greatly.

There could also be a case for reducing the royal grant if, for example, there were further efficiency savings. I note that the Chancellor is proposing a cash floor to avoid real-terms cuts to the royal grant in future, which is a significant commitment in the context of wider Government spending cuts, but we should, however, also consider whether there is a potential need for a cap on the amount raised. We should consider the proposed mechanism for uprating the royal grant each year, too.

As has been said, profits from the Crown Estate could rise significantly, particularly because of its links with wind farm developments, which could bring in substantial revenues. The rise is described as exponential in the short term and significant in the longer term, so we need to consider whether a cap might be appropriate.

Parliament must also be certain that any new arrangement will be stable and work in the long term. If the royal grant or reserves fluctuate significantly, that could, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, lead us into the unwelcome situation of an almost annual review of the finances. We will need to strike a balance when building flexibility into the formula, and some might say that seven years is too long a gap to leave between reviews, but we will need such flexibility if Crown Estate revenues rise significantly.

One fact that has come to light, as Members have already said, is that the Crown Estate owns 55% of the foreshore around the United Kingdom and all the seabed up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. Although I do not think that the House will go down the hon. Gentleman’s suggested path and transfer ownership of the foreshore to coastal communities, despite some in the south-west facing high water bills because of the extra costs associated with being on the coast, I think that we need to look at the issue in the context of the UK being the world’s leader in offshore wind power.

Opposition Members and Members in general very much support further investment in renewables, but is it appropriate that increased Government investment in such technologies should directly support the royal household? Indeed, that goes for private and public investment. The Government have made available some £200 million of public funding for investment in renewables, a proportion of which could end up accruing to the royal household via the sovereign grant, so what flexibility can be built into the new grant to deal with such situations?

There is a need to ensure the appropriate parliamentary oversight of the sovereign grant and of royal household expenditure, and we heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), as the current Chair. She described the measures as a sensible act of modernisation, and both Members said that they look forward to getting their teeth into scrutinising the process and making it more transparent.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must start by looking at everything, the total expenditure, including not only, as I said, support from the military, but, for example, the cost of the lord lieutenancy service? If we do not do so, we will not be informed or really understand what the monarchy costs.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I have already said, security is a big element of spending on the royal family, but other elements need to put into the mix, and the Chancellor’s announcement of the merger of the three separate funding pots will help with transparency and with looking at everything in the round.

We very much welcome the agreement that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will audit royal household funding, but as the Bill goes through the House, we will seek clarity on when and how often those audits will be carried out, clarity on what disclosure there will be of the information and evidence used in the process and, indeed, clarity on the Committee’s remit to look at issues such as those that my hon. Friend has just raised.

In conclusion, we support the Chancellor’s initiative, but we will seek clarity on the level at which the new grant is set, on the arrangements for uprating it each year and on whether there will be flexibility on that and on the level of parliamentary oversight. We hope that by the time the Bill reaches its final stages there will be cross-party consensus on the new arrangements.

Finance Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

We have kept the promise to have substantial increases in cash spending. It is now very important that we get the maximum for it. We are in danger of wandering too far from the new clause, but I point out that as we are about to enter a period of wage freezes, a substantial increase in cash funding will obviously buy more health care, because the main cost is wages. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. The Government’s clear priority was to expand cancer treatments and other drugs, and to ensure that we have more high-quality care. I welcome that very much.

The second thing to understand about the new clause is that it is not a help-the-rich new clause. Opposition Members should understand that the rich are not going to be attracted by an offset on 20% tax, because they are either non-doms paying very little tax or they are paying 50% tax. They are people who self-insure, so they are not going to take out insurance policies such as we are discussing. We are not dealing with the rich, because the rich have always been able to buy the health care that they want under any type of Government. That would not change as a result of the new clause.

We are talking about a specific group of people who are coming up to retirement. Some of them will have had the benefit of company scheme insurance, and some will not have had the benefit of insurance at all. At 65, they often have an important decision to take, because several things happen. First, they lose their company health insurance, if they were receiving it. Secondly, their insurance premiums go up a lot, because they are suddenly thought to be higher risk. Thirdly, they enter the age group when they will need a lot more health care than they did in their healthy, earning years when they were executives or whatever. We are talking about whether that group of people should be able to carry on their insurance, and whether such an incentive would make any difference.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of what proportion of the population he is talking about, and what sort of income scale they are on, including retirement income?

[Mr Redwood]

I will give as much precision as the Leader of the Opposition and say that they are the squeezed middle. They are exactly the people in whom the Opposition are meant to be interested but whom they clearly now wish to attack in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

If the hon. Gentleman proposed a motion suggesting that all those things should not have happened, I would vote for it. I am a socialist. I did not like the Labour Government overpaying people and changing their hours in such a way that my constituents got less of a service. It seems that even some Conservatives realise that paying people huge amounts of money and asking them to work fewer hours in this elitist organisation—I am very critical of the consultancy-led health service in our country—is something we should be looking at seriously. Our constituents need value for money, which many of the schemes the hon. Gentleman mentioned did not provide. However, it is interesting that this Government have done nothing to change the tax laws, despite 23% of PFIs now being owned by foreign companies that are still getting the tax breaks in this country. Part of the idea of PFIs was that they would bring in tax money, yet 23% of the companies are abroad and put nothing into this country’s economy.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I can confirm that the Opposition oppose new clause 1. The Prime Minister spent the years in the run-up to the general election and the year since trying to convince us that he valued the NHS, that it was “safe in his hands”. Sadly, however, given the current shambles over the health Bill, which has yet again returned to Committee, it is safe to say that he and his Health Secretary have spectacularly failed. On current evidence, it seems that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to persuade his Back Benchers—it seems that they now want to reinstate a policy introduced by Baroness Thatcher’s Government.

As we have heard, new clauses 1 to 4 would introduce a tax relief on medical insurance for over-65s. The hon. Members who tabled the new clauses stood on a manifesto that proclaimed we “believe in the NHS”. It turns out that they believe so much in the state that they think even private sector provision should receive state funding.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that this proposal has not appeared in a Conservative party manifesto since 2001? The fact that it was dropped in 2005 and 2010 shows clearly that it is not a vote winner.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe that I will come to the point that he raises in a moment.

New clause 1 would reinstate a benefit that was withdrawn by the Labour Government in 1997 because, quite simply, it had failed. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, it was not picked up by the Conservative party during the recent general election. As noted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who was in government at the time—I congratulate him on his excellent speech—the measure had little impact. One of the problems with the previous Conservative Government's tax relief was that they did not do their homework on what impact it would have. I would be interested to hear what research the hon. Members who tabled the new clause have done. I note that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) pleaded numerical dyslexia when asked about the statistics. I think he should have got someone to do his maths homework for him before proposing a spending commitment. The first thing hon. Members should have done was to see whether it would have the desired effect in spending that money.

The Justice Secretary, the then Chancellor, claimed when originally introducing the relief that it would provide an incentive to older people to buy private insurance and reduce the pressure on the NHS. That has been echoed by many Government Members today. However, the tax relief did not reduce the burden on the NHS or help those patients who relied on it. It simply subsidised health insurance for those who could already afford it and had chosen to buy it. When originally announced in 1989, it was estimated that the relief would cost £40 million. A telling warning for Government Members who want to reintroduce the expenditure at a time of such fiscal restraint is that by 1997 the cost had multiplied to £140 million, because there was no limit on the state’s generosity to private providers. It would be wholly irresponsible to reinstate a policy whose costs could spiral to such an extent.

As NHS patients knew to their cost in the 1980s and early 1990s, the then Government were far more comfortable limiting expenditure on the NHS and letting waiting lists rise for the majority of pensioners and others who could never contemplate private insurance, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, was primarily a way of financing queue jumping for those who could afford it. For just a 10% increase in the number of people covered by insurance qualifying for relief, there was a 100% increase in costs in just the first three years. Over the lifetime of that Government’s policy, the number of people covered rose from 500,000 to 600,000; so, for a 20% increase in the number of people covered, the costs shot up by 350%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has confirmed that those on the Labour Front Bench will oppose this measure. She is setting out the right arguments for why we should do so. Did more people not take up NHS care and treatment under the 13 years of Labour Government because of the improvements in NHS care and treatment that were achieved over the lifetime of the Labour Government?

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point as always. That is the crucial thing. Under the Conservative Government, the increased take-up in medical insurance from 500,000 to 600,000 did not necessarily have anything to do with the tax relief that was introduced; it happened because the NHS was in absolute crisis. Waiting lists were going through the roof under the last Conservative Government. People were terribly scared and did not feel confident that the NHS would look after them in their ill health. There were significant improvements under the Labour Government, which meant that fewer people felt the need to take out private health care.

Let me turn to the fairness argument. It remains to be seen how much the Health Secretary’s experiment through the measures in the Health and Social Care Bill—driven once again by a preoccupation with private sector involvement in health care—will eventually take from health care budgets. We know that £850 million will be spent on redundancies alone, and the estimates are that £2 billion of PCTs’ budgets are earmarked for what can only be described as—in those infamous words of the coalition agreement—a “top-down reorganisation”. Despite the Prime Minister’s promise of real-terms increases, NHS expenditure is falling in real terms. The King’s Fund has calculated that the NHS will have £910 million less to spend over the spending review period. Patients and staff know all too well that front-line services are being affected, but tax relief for private patients will not help them.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Do I take it from the hon. Lady’s comments on health spending that she is condemning her colleagues in Wales, who are cutting health spending by £1 billion over the next three years?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sorry, I did not quite catch the end of that because a colleague was talking to me. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to make that intervention again.

[Alun Cairns]

I will happily repeat the point. Do I take it from the hon. Lady’s earlier comments about growth in health spending that she condemns her colleagues in Wales, which is the only place where Labour is in power? They are cutting health spending by £1 billion over the next three years.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Government are here to answer for the activities for which they are responsible in the English health service—it is one of those things that goes with devolution. We have heard from Government Members in this debate that the Government are increasing spending on the NHS. They have trumpeted that over and over again—it was meant to be a platform on which the Conservatives sought election—but the truth is that there is not a real-terms increase in spending on the NHS. When inflation is taken into account, there is actually a cut in NHS spending, and it is time that the Government owned up to that.

I am under pressure to finish my speech and allow those on the Government Front Bench to come in. [Interruption.] As hon. Members can see from the fact that not one but two Opposition Whips are sitting behind me, shouting at me to hurry up, I am indeed under pressure.

How can Conservative MPs tell the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed up to the “Save our NHS” campaign that a spending commitment priority for this Government should be subsidies for private medical insurance? The coalition has tried to deny that it is creating a market in the NHS, but now Conservative MPs do not even want it to be a fair one, by creating incentives for the private sector. If the Treasury thinks it wise to spend such considerable sums, I hope that it is clear by now that they could be much more wisely and fairly spent on the NHS for the benefit of everyone, not the few who need it least. Why not invest in the NHS as a universal service of which we should all be proud, rather than sending the clear message to patients and enormously dedicated NHS staff that private health care is better? Is the coalition planning to run down the NHS to such an extent that people will need to resort to private insurance?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) knew when the relief was withdrawn in 1997, not only could those funds be of great value to the NHS, but ending the relief could fund a reduction in the VAT charged on domestic energy supplies to 5%—a rate that the Conservative Government had increased to 8%, and which they would have increased still further to 17.5%, had they not been defeated by Opposition MPs. The Labour Government at the time made clear their priorities. Rather than giving a tax break to older people who could already afford health insurance, they chose a tax cut that benefited everyone, but made the most significant difference to older people on low incomes who were struggling to heat their homes.

It is worth reminding the House that the Conservatives wanted to reverse that policy and reinstate the relief in 2001. Now, 10 years later, they still have the wrong priorities —priorities that will quite simply be incomprehensible to the average person feeling the effects of this Government’s reckless spending cuts. It is estimated that 4.5 million families in the UK are living in fuel poverty, while people are facing 10% increases in their electricity bills, which are likely to increase still further as a result of the coalition’s poorly thought out plans for a carbon floor price, which we will debate perhaps in the early hours of tomorrow morning or next week. Moreover, this Government have decided to cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners.

Faced with individuals and families who will struggle to heat their homes this winter, are the Government taking positive, responsible action to help them? No; instead, they have already hiked up the VAT bills of a couple with children by £450, and those of a pensioner couple by £275, and their Back Benchers think that it is more important to reverse a decision taken to help with fuel costs and instead give tax relief to the minority who can already afford the luxury of private health insurance.

The Labour Government lifted 1.1 million pensioners out of poverty, but there is a continuing need to support those on the lowest incomes. I fear that these proposals betray how some Conservative Members neglect the needs of the poorest pensioners. With the new clauses, they want to add insult to injury by giving tax breaks to the richest to buy private medical insurance, while poorer pensioners have no option but to rely on the NHS—a service that the coalition seems determined to decimate. New clause 1 explains that the relief would apply to people over 65 but, as we all know, the coalition is planning rapidly to increase the state pension age, which will affect the associated support for older people. Does the hon. Member for Mole Valley therefore envisage the age limit increasing with the state pension age, or does he disagree with the Government’s timetable?

In 2006, 10.6% of the population were covered by private medical insurance, and only 3% by personal private medical insurance. The latest figures that I have seen indicate that just 7% of people over 65 have private medical insurance, so the clear motivation behind new clause 1 is the choice to prioritise a very small percentage of the population at a time when the country and the NHS cannot afford it. Inflation is running at more than double the target rate thanks to the Chancellor’s decision to increase VAT, growth is flat-lining, the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count is increasing and more than 80 claimants are applying for each vacancy in some areas. That all means that the Government will have borrow £46 billion more than they planned last autumn, so how on earth can this measure be a priority?

I urge the Government to reject these new clauses, to consider how the money could be much better spent and to secure the future of the NHS as a high-quality service that everyone can access and trust. Instead of an unfair income tax cut for the few, we need a temporary emergency VAT cut that will benefit everyone, particularly those on low and middle incomes, and that will give a much-needed boost to the economy to reduce the deficit over the long term in a fair and balanced way. I conclude by asking the hon. Members who tabled the new clause what their priority is. Is it a tax cut for the minority who can afford private health insurance, which would undermine and undervalue the NHS, or a tax cut that would help everyone at a time when the economy needs it most?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

New clauses 1 to 4 seek to provide for tax relief on medical insurance premiums for individuals above the age of 65. I understand that the argument for introducing such relief is that it would encourage individuals above that age to take up private medical insurance and therefore reduce pressure on NHS resources, and that this would result in a net saving for the Exchequer in the medium to long term.

The Government introduce new tax reliefs only when there is a compelling case that to do so would represent a good use of public money. Turning first to cost, we estimate that this relief would have a direct and immediate cost to the Exchequer of at least £135 million pounds a year—a significant amount, especially given the fiscal climate in which we are now operating. That would reflect the cost of restricting relief to the basic rate of tax.

Private Finance Initiative

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing the debate. It has been a very interesting two-and-a-half hours so far, and I am sure that it will have been a very interesting three hours by the end of the debate. There has been an unusually high turnout for a Thursday afternoon debate, for which we are normally on a one-line Whip. During the afternoon, I gather that we have moved from a one-line Whip to a three-line Whip and back again to a one-line Whip, so hon. Members are free to go at 5.30 pm, if they really want to.

The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire is right—or he at least makes a valid point for discussion—about a number of issues. He is right in saying that there has not been enough debate and scrutiny about the PFI issue in that past. That is partly because, as the debate has reflected, it often comes down to the devil being in the detail of individual contracts. It is hard to extrapolate from that general point whether the PFI is a bad thing or a good thing, or whether there are particular flaws in some of the contractual processes. I will come on to that in a moment, because it is a valid issue to thrash out.

The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that not enough data are available on PFI schemes. I shall touch on some of the difficulties with the PFI. As I have said—I do not think he used this phrase—the devil is in the detail. We have heard some micro-detail about issues such as car parking, and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) discussed a hockey pitch that was slightly too short and the difficulty in rectifying that situation. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) touched on some local issues. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and others mentioned the naivety of the civil servants who negotiated the deals and that perhaps a lack of commercial nous meant that they did not realise the private sector would seek to maximise profits over the contractual term. Other hon. Members then developed that point, and the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) talked about multiple procurement failures.

There was then a bit of a debate between the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk, who made an intervention, about specifications in contracts. I am talking about this as someone who was once involved in negotiating PFI contracts when I worked for a City law firm at a very junior level—although I was pretty much photocopying the documents and proofreading, rather than doing the heavy duty negotiations. There is an issue about whether the process should be about over-specifying everything in advance—crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s—so that those involved do not get into complicated negotiations throughout the term of the contract. That is a laborious process. Perhaps there is some way of creating a PFI contract that is flexible enough not to get into such situations.

Let me give an example of a school in my constituency. An issue arose when new keys were needed for the room where the sports equipment was kept. Because that was not in the contract, the school was not allowed to get its own keys copied and had to get the contractor to copy the keys. It became a huge thing with huge costs attached, which is obviously ridiculous. However, it would also be ridiculous to have a contract—having photocopied them, I know how huge they are—that specified who was to get the keys copied, if another bunch of keys were needed. Those are certainly valid points, and I do not have the answers on how we can resolve that.

The wider point is whether such a situation is specific to the negotiation of PFI contracts or whether it is an issue with public procurement contracts generally. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) mentioned the asymmetry in negotiating skills between civil servants in the public sector or people in local government and hard-headed business people. That is an issue, but it also occurs in other public procurement realms as well as in relation to PFI schemes. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) developed that into a philosophical discussion on the role of the private sector. Whether the conversation that we are having this afternoon is going down slightly too anti-capitalist a route for him is something that we could explore at greater length on another day.

In the limited time that I have left, I want to focus on a few questions for the Minister, who will respond in a moment. The Government have confirmed that they remain committed to the PFI model that was used by the Labour party. In their technical update last year, they said that they remain committed to public-private partnerships, including those delivered by the PFI, and that such arrangements will continue to play an important part in delivering Britain’s infrastructure.

As we have heard, PFI schemes are still expanding at a significant rate. In March, 61 new PFIs were procured with a total capital value of £6.9 billion, which represents an expansion of more than 10% in the total capital currently committed under PFI. The Government’s support is somewhat surprising given the criticisms that have been aired. Liberal Democrat Members were scathing about the PFI model before the general election. The Deputy Prime Minister described it as

“a bit of dodgy accounting—a way in which the Government can pretend they’re not borrowing when they are, and we’ll all be picking up the tab in 30 years.”

The Liberal Democrats called for a UK infrastructure bank that would reduce the cost of long-term funding compared with the PFI.

Before the election, the then shadow Chancellor said:

“The government’s use of PFI has become totally discredited…Labour’s PFI model is flawed and must be replaced.”

In 2009, he said that

“we are working on reforms to the discredited PFI model that are transparently accounted for and genuinely shift risk to the private sector.”

As I have said, a significant number of PFI projects are in the pipeline, so the work is still continuing. Will the Minister explain where the Government are on reviewing the PFI model? Have any changes been made to the PFI model since the Government were elected last year? Are further issues under consideration? Have the Government managed to save any money from the PFI?

In a document published in January, the Treasury said:

“Value for money is a cornerstone of PFI and the key rationale for its use.”

But the Financial Times reported earlier this year that the Government are struggling to find PFI savings. I appreciate that the pilot project involving the Queen’s hospital, Romford was launched in February to identify where savings could be made. Will the Minister tell us what savings have been found to date? I gather that that hospital was chosen because it is representative of a typical PFI project, so should we presume that the savings that are identified by the Romford project could be used as an example to make similar savings from other projects?

The Government must also decide whether the PFI is right in every case. Much has been said about Labour’s use of the PFI when it was in government, but, unfortunately, I do not have time to go into that. Although the PFI played a major role in delivering the Building Schools for the Future programme, it is a good example of where Labour used the PFI where it would deliver savings to the taxpayer, but used conventional procurement where appropriate. Of the BSF capital allocated up to 2011, 41% was provided through the PFI, with the rest coming from conventional public funding. In the NHS, 118 new hospitals would not have been built without the PFI—88 were provided through the PFI, and 30 were provided through conventional procurement. What principles are the Government working to in assessing the viability of PFI projects? In how many cases have the Government decided to use a non-PFI approach, because the PFI is not seen as value for money?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) pointed out in the Public Accounts Committee today, 33 deals, which generated £38 million in profit last year, paid only £100,000 in tax. Treasury officials have confirmed that the tax consequence of the deal was part of the initial assessment of the contract, but subsequent changes, such as moving offshore, were not. Will the Minister confirm that she is looking into that issue? What steps will be taken in future PFI deals to prevent tax avoidance?

Finally, the PFI model allowed enormous investment to take place under the previous Government. It simply would not have been possible on that scale without the PFI, but we accept that the PFI should only be used responsibly and where it delivers the best value for money for the taxpayer. I accept that the issue deserves greater scrutiny, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government can take that forward.