Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who already outshines his predecessor in his integrity and sincerity, if not in his fame.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, to you and the House for the fact that unfortunately, owing to a constituency commitment, I will not be able to be here for the closing speeches. That is a great shame, because we have had a very stimulating debate across both sides of the House, with the opening speeches by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). The hon. Gentleman is standing in for the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who became sick at a TUC conference. I think that this is the first time that a Labour Front Bencher has issued a health warning on their union paymasters. Let us hope that those health warnings will continue.

I will be going back to the great towns of Bedford and Kempston, whose people know that these are tough times but wanted to have a Budget that rewarded work, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has delivered precisely that. The single most valuable part of this Budget for the people of my constituency is the raising of the personal allowance by over £1,000 so that the first £9,000 of a person’s income will not be liable for tax. That is a fantastic encouragement for people who are finding that their budgets are very tight.

Members on both sides of the House have expressed concerns about fuel duty, and I echo those concerns, because the duty does have a significant impact on personal budgets and on business. I would have liked the Government to do more, but I understand that they were unable to do so. I draw my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary’s attention to the campaign by my local newspaper, the Times and Citizen, which echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said about how petrol prices can vary significantly between different regions. The Times and Citizen found that in Bedford and Kempston, our fuel prices were 4p to 5p per litre higher than in other areas. If we cannot do anything about fuel duty, will my hon. Friend consider ways in which the Government can ensure that we do not face monopolistic positions on fuel duty in very localised situations? The Times and Citizen’s campaign has shown that the people of Bedford and Kempston care very much about that, and it can, in itself, have as much impact as a cut in fuel duty overall.

I should like to spend a couple of minutes on the deficit crisis, inter-generational debt and competitiveness. On the deficit crisis, it is excellent that the Government are looking for fiscal neutrality, but that is different from considering the overall level of public expenditure and public debt. Public expenditure is still going up, in cash terms and in real terms, and tax receipts are going up—from 35.8% of GDP in 2010-11 to 36.4% of GDP in 2014-15. We continue to be a high-public-spending, high-tax economy. I hope that the Government and the Chancellor will look at ways in which the overall balance can be brought down so that resources can be moved from the Government sector to the more productive private sector.

May I also urge caution on Ministers in the use of quantitative easing? Quantitative easing is a policy to overcome a credit-driven recession. It should not be a policy to support excessive public expenditure or the long-term erosion of the value of savings. It is pertinent to look at the “Debt and reserves management report 2011-12”, which shows that the Bank of England’s asset purchase facility holds more than 18% of Government gilts. That holding has, at some point, to be unwound, which will have inflationary consequences.

[Mike Gapes]

Can I take it that the hon. Gentleman is calling for an increase in interest rates?

[Richard Fuller]

No, I am not calling for an increase in interest rates. I am calling for the Government to be clear, which I think they are, about the use of the quantitative easing policy. The results of that policy will, in a few years, have to be unwound. The level of their own gilts that the Government hold will have to be reduced. When that happens, interest rates will go up. We need to caution the Government to be aware, in setting the level of public expenditure, of what that level will mean. People will need an increase in pay owing to the increase in the Government’s cost of borrowing. Foreign holdings have also increased, and are now at 31%. We now have the highest spread between five-year and 30-year gilts in terms of the risk premium. All those points should caution us about our deficit.

Those facts come on the back of a significant level of debt in our economy. Opposition Members fail to realise that ours is the most indebted major economy in the world. That is the legacy of the previous Government and the previous Chancellor. Those who were here yesterday would have seen the shadow Chancellor give an uncharacteristically short speech. He sat down and people were surprised, because there was more that he could have said. However, I think that his speech could have been shorter. It could have gone thus: “I am sorry. I am really sorry. I am sorry for my hubris in thinking that I could end boom and bust. I know now that that was achievable only by leveraging up the entire British economy and dumping the debts on our children and grandchildren.” That is the speech that the shadow Chancellor could have given yesterday. He could then have sat down, because that sums up what he left us to sort out.

The shadow Chancellor did not give that speech yesterday, so perhaps I can give him some advice. The next time he goes to a school, instead of looking for a photo opportunity of him playing football, he could go up to one of the schoolchildren and say, “Hey, I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I shackled your potential with the debts that my monumentally short-sighted economic strategy created.” That is the truth of what he left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She said that the Government are “single-minded”, but it is difficult to judge whether that is the case. I have been looking around and listening for contributions from the Liberal Democrats, but clearly they would rather not be here to explain to the ghosts of Beveridge and Keynes the reactionary, failing austerity policies that they are signed up to.

In my constituency, we have had a very significant increase in unemployment in the past year. The number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants went up to 4,119 in February; that is 297 more than a year ago and a 7.8% increase in one year. According to the House of Commons Library, 7.6% of my constituents are unemployed, and the number of those claiming JSA for more than 12 months is up by 395, from 480 to 875—a huge increase. That is not unique in this country, but it is important that people understand the situation. I represent a London—an outer-London—constituency where 11.6 people are chasing every single job. Many of my constituents commute into central London to work, as they always have done, but the number of jobs available to them there is going down, whether they are public sector jobs or jobs in the financial services industry in sectors such as banking and insurance, which have not been taking people on.

We have particular problems that affect constituencies in London, and those problems should not be ignored by those who are suffering in a similar way in other parts of the country. Yes, there are a lot of millionaires in London. There are lots of people with £2 million, £3 million or £5 million houses, but there are also many poor people living in bed and breakfast accommodation or short-term rented accommodation. One of the real tragedies in London is that tens of thousands of people are in housing need. There was nothing in this Budget about helping to get people into work so as to get the economy moving again and deal with the chronic homelessness and housing problems that we experience in London and in other cities.

Only 56.3% of my constituents are in employment. That reflects demographic and other issues; for example, a large number of people are in education. Nevertheless, the figure is very low compared with other areas that have 70% or 75% employment. We need targeted measures to deal with those whose first language is not English, or women who have not previously been in the work force, in order to try to change the situation. Nothing in this Budget will deal with those problems; all we have instead is a policy of imposed austerity.

I came to the House today, as I always do, by public transport. I travelled from Ilford to Stratford on a very overcrowded train, on which it was impossible to get a seat. That is the normal routine for tens of thousands of my constituents every morning. When we get Crossrail in five, six or seven years’ time, it will make a huge difference. I welcome this Government’s commitment to carry on with the Crossrail project, which was started by the previous Government. As the chairman of the all-party Crossrail group, I have been involved in the campaign for many years. I believe that Crossrail is vital for the future not just of London, but of the whole country. I hope that the Government will take action to ensure that the Crossrail trains are built in this country, unlike the recent disaster over the Thameslink trains. I also support High Speed 2, which is vital for the prosperity of the whole country.

It is time for the Government to get off the fence— I made an intervention about this—on extra airport capacity for our capital city; otherwise we will lose out to other countries in Europe on the transit opportunities of people flying across the Atlantic or flying in from Asia or the southern hemisphere. We need that capacity soon, and not through some fantasy island that will lead to the destruction of habitats and the killing of bird life. In my opinion, the additional capacity needs to be at Heathrow and possibly at other existing airports, rather than at the Mayor of London’s fantasy island.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I am grateful that I was able to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, in this Hopperesque corner of the Chamber. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Budget and the economy.

During the general election, I made a speech on the economy in which I said that if three MPs were asked the same question on the economy, they would give three different answers. I should confess that I added that if one of the three was a Lib Dem, there might be four different answers. Of course, we are now in coalition, so that joke is probably politically incorrect.

It is day three of the Budget debate and we are beginning to understand the detail of the statement and the impact that the component policy changes will have. Labour is starting to cherry-pick aspects of the Budget, probably to create a distraction from its contribution to the state of the nation’s economy and the inheritance that we received. I can retort by praising the tax breaks for the digital economy, which will help Bournemouth especially because it is thriving in that area; the funds for the Dorset local enterprise partnership; and the raising of the personal tax allowance, which will remove many low-paid workers in Bournemouth from the tax system altogether.

As important as those points are, we should not lose sight of the implication in the Office for Budget Responsibility report that the shadow of the recession that Labour took us into still looms. The eurozone crisis is not over. Oil prices remain high, and could climb higher. Although it has been about four years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the run on Northern Rock, we are certainly not out of the woods. We must not forget the scale of the financial mess that we inherited.

Labour’s approach for a decade was to borrow money that the Government did not have. It allowed the banks to do the same by over-leveraging and lending to people who could not afford it. It is all very well for Labour to blame the rest of the world and the state of the global economy, citing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but there were issues here in the UK for which the Labour Government were responsible. Bradford and Bingley was offering 150% mortgages. That was a UK responsibility. It was happening over here. We cannot blame that on the Americans or on the state of the global economy. Even with the knowledge that the recession was under way and was likely to get worse, Labour kept on spending.

[Mike Gapes]

Is it not the case that, in opposition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was too much regulation by the last Labour Government?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with that statement at all. It happened under the Labour Government’s watch, and they were responsible. Their Chancellor, who later became the Prime Minister, inherited a stable economy. Indeed, in the first three years of the Labour Government, they actually balanced the books. Then in 2002, they overspent by £19 billion. By 2008 they had overspent by £68 billion, and by the following year they had ratcheted up a £152 billion deficit. That was after Lehman Brothers and Northern Rock. In their final year, they were still spending like there was no tomorrow, ratcheting up a decifit of £145 billion, taking us to an overall debt of close to £1 trillion. That is not good Government responsibility for the economy.

Not until we had a general election and an emergency Budget from our Chancellor, back in June 2010, was there some slowing down in Government spending. He introduced measures to protect the economy and set out a comprehensive strategy, including measures to control public finances and stimulate growth and tax reforms to increase our global competitiveness. Those measures were lacking under Labour, and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) should ponder them.

I do not have time to go into the detail, but it would be helpful to break the Budget measures down into fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy means the Government expenditure and taxation measures that have a direct effect on the distribution of income, demand and the level of economic activity. Two prime examples are the corporation tax cut, which will make us far more competitive, and the reduction in the top rate of tax to 45p so that Britain no longer has the highest rate in the G20.

By contrast, Labour introduced the 50p rate just before it left office, and it failed to raise the predicted revenues and undermined our competitiveness. Looking back in history, Labour seems to have had a love affair with high income tax rates over the past four decades. It was Wilson who put the top rate up to 83%, and Margaret Thatcher then reduced it to 60% in 1979 and 40% in 1989. What did Labour do when it came into office? It did not put the rate back up again; it kept it as it was. It recognised—certainly Tony Blair recognised—that to remain competitive, we had to have sensible tax rates.

I do not have time to dwell on monetary policy—the supply of money, the cost of money, the rate at which it is controlled, the price that the Government pay to borrow it and the total supply of money into the economy—but it has an impact on matters such as controlling our triple A rating and the price of borrowing. The Government have kept interest rates low and used selective quantitative easing, and that sound monetary policy is moving Britain forward.

This is a radical and reforming Budget that will help Britain earn its way in the world in continuing difficult times. Labour gave us a disastrous economic legacy, for which it is only now, sheepishly, apologising. It led to record debts and a halving of our manufacturing base, resulting in our coming within a whisker of losing our important triple A rating. The Government are at last balancing the books, reforming our tax system, supporting British business and staying on a course towards economic recovery. The OBR has revised upwards its growth forecast for this year. It is low, but nevertheless improving, and the OBR predicts that it will reach 2% in 2013. Labour has proved that we cannot borrow our way out of trouble. This Government are proving that we have to earn our way out.

Eurozone Crisis

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I absolutely agree that there is a very important role for the EU27 to strengthen and deepen the single market and to promote free trade—the EU has just concluded a free trade agreement with South Korea that benefits the British economy directly. Also, the EU will have an important role in things such as financial services regulation, and it is important that that is discussed at the level of the 27, because we are such an important player in the financial services industry worldwide. So I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Britain has been absolutely clear in recent months that issues affecting the 27 should be discussed by the 27, not at the level of the 17 euro members. It has been partly through our insistence, with others, that there have been two European Councils and an ECOFIN this week to ensure that proper procedures are followed.

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

The Chancellor said that British interests should be properly protected when the eurozone countries move towards giving up national sovereignty and towards greater fiscal integration. Will he clarify how that will happen?

[Mr Osborne]

This is the argument that we have to make over the coming months and as the discussions start on whether there is going to be a future treaty change—although what is being talked about is a treaty change of a limited nature. We have to look for ways of securing Britain’s influence and voice, and the influence and voice of the other nine EU member states that are not in the eurozone. That is absolutely top of our negotiating agenda. However, we also want to secure a rebalancing of the responsibilities between the EU and its member states, which will be another important part of the argument that we make.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We can see from the reaction of the Labour party in opposition that it has not learnt at all from its mistakes in government. If we had not taken tough action, we would have seen high market rates of interest, which would have increased costs for families and businesses across the country. We are now seeing the benefits of the tough decisions that we took in last year’s emergency Budget.

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

Given that the tough, sado-monetarist programme imposed on the Greeks a year ago has not worked, how many more sado-monetarist programmes will work?

[Mr Hoban]

When the Greek Government agreed last year’s debt bail-out package, it was assumed that they would be able to re-enter the markets in the spring of next year. That is clearly not the case, given current market pressures, which is why the Greek Government had to seek a second round of refinancing. However, they still need to take action to improve Greece’s competitiveness, reduce the size of the state sector through further privatisation and improve taxation, to get the economy back on track.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and his eloquent description of the problems facing us as a country. I rise to speak to clause 72 and amendment 9 because this debate is about the bank levy and whether it is being applied in the right way and to the correct extent.

I support the amendment, because it seeks to address the challenges of any new legislation and answer the question of how we as a Parliament ensure that the legislation that we pass is effective at doing what we want it to do. The amendment would meet the challenge of asking whether bankers pay their fair share of the cost of dealing with the global financial crisis, just as we as taxpayers have paid more than our fair share, some might say, in trying to support them. That goes to the heart of today’s debate about clause 72 and what the Bill will do for the financial future of this country, so I support the amendment because it highlights the need to address the adequacy of the bank levy.

I also pose a wider question about how the clause will work to ensure that all those who have benefited and, indeed, continue to benefit from the financial crisis that this country has endured pay their fair share in helping the economy out of recession and back into growth, not least because I am deeply concerned, as many Members know, about this Government’s policy of reducing the national debt by increasing private household debt, and about what that might mean for many of our constituents.

I spoke at length on Second Reading last week about the impact of that policy on families throughout the country, and I do not propose to repeat the measures that I put forward, but, on the adequacy of the bank levy, the clause makes an omission that I hope the amendment will address. High-cost lenders are benefiting disproportionately from the impact of the Budget on our people, and from the fact that mainstream lenders are not lending because of banks paying out more in bonuses than they do to the people of this country, who need that money. Indeed, perhaps the omission calls for a new clause to deal with that issue and, therefore, to make sure that that money benefits our economy.

The industry has certainly benefited greatly from this Government and from the events of the last year alone. Of the £216 billion of unsecured lending in this country, £8.5 billion comes from that market, which has increased by £1 billion in the past year, and £8.5 billion is the same amount of money that it would cost to repair all the schools in England—a cause dear to many Opposition Members. It is also the entire budget of the Department for International Development; we are talking about a substantial amount. The market is growing not least because of the lack of regulation—the lack of Government action to deal with the high-cost credit industry—and the amendment could deal with that omission.

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

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), whose eye for forensic detail and lucidity in these matters are second to none. He could not be described as brief, and on this occasion I intend to be a bit briefer. The amendment seeks a review of this proposal because, at its heart, this is about equity and fairness. You, Dr McCrea, understand better than anyone what fairness and equity mean.

There has been much talk about small business men. A small business man came to see me a month ago about the lack of finance from Barclays bank. It is true to say that even though we all have stories of small businesses that are unable to get loans, many constituents come and ask Members specifically not to contact their banks, because they are scared, frankly, that they will be cut loose and that the intervention of a Member of Parliament could make things worse. The fact that across the Chamber no party is suggesting that we have got back to a situation in which there is access to loans indicates that industry and small businesses in this country are in a very serious way.

That brings me to the other deceit, or conceit, that lies at the heart of what has been suggested. Much has been made of the manufacturing sector. Yes, it is hugely important, but it employs 4 million people or thereabouts, whereas 23 million are employed by the service sector, which is a depressed sector. That is perhaps why, alongside the public sector cuts we are now seeing, unemployment in Tottenham is the highest in London. The levy, set at the right amount and consistently reviewed, could have done something to ameliorate that.

It is about fairness and equity, and it is also about what the Government’s story on growth really is. Some of what we are hearing on how they see the levy and the box into which they want to put it, with the constraints of £2.5 billion only, can only mitigate the growth that we want to see in our constituencies.

The single mums who came to see me a few weeks ago because the after-school activity club is being cut for their young children and they are wondering how they are going to get back from work by half-past 3 to pick them up need to feel that bankers, too, are making a contribution. The elderly suffering from Alzheimer’s in one of my local residential homes, against a backdrop of three being closed because the local authority is being squeezed, need to feel and want to believe, because of the age they have reached and the contribution they have made to this country, having paid into the system, that the banking sector is also making a contribution that is fair. The many public sector workers who received their payslip for the last time just a few days ago also want to believe that bankers are making their contribution.

These people cannot understand why, despite the fact that growth in our economy is so sluggish, at barely 2% over the most recent period, City workers are taking home an increase of 7% on average. Why have 231 workers at Barclays bank managed to receive bonuses of £554 million between them? How is that possible, when the dividend for those who have shares in that bank was just over £600 million? That is a bonus culture that has not been checked, that has not been sorted out, and that feels brutally unfair.

When I was canvassing in Slough at the most recent general election, a 90-year-old said to me, “Love, you know what it is? The poorer you are, the more you give in this country.” That is how it feels at this point, when we have to come back to a subject on which really we ought to agree. We know that the banking sector led to this depressed economy, so why should it be let off the hook at this time?

When my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked, “Where did we get this £20 billion from?”, I asked the Minister to begin his contribution with the answer. Where did that £20 billion allowance come from? It is a staggering amount of money to slot in at the last minute so that the figure drops beneath the £3.9 billion mark which the industry itself originally predicted. Where did that money come from, and how did we secure the millions in tax relief for that sector? We owe a bigger contribution from the banking sector to the young people of this country, one in five of whom is currently unemployed.

This Government have led us to a situation in which the new arrangements for funding higher education are between the student solely and the university. They have taken the state entirely out of the picture, cutting teaching funding by 80% and abandoning arts and the humanities and any contribution to them. Effectively, with a proper banking levy they could have said that the state could stay involved. Industry, the other sector that benefits, could have made a contribution, too, but the banking sector is certainly somewhere where we could have started. The Government, however, turned their face against that, saying, “No, we’ll land the debt on our young people and let the very people who have led to their unemployment off the hook.”

I want to understand why the Minister has made that decision, and how we will get back to growth, given that young people are to be dealt with in that way.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend asks why. Is it not clear why? This is a Government of millionaires and toffs, and they are in the pocket of the banksters. That is what it is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally—this comes back to the earlier intervention—let us look at what the Government have brought forward in what they call their growth zones. Enterprise zones? I mean, come on! As for the idea that they are an appropriate growth strategy, we need only look back at the experience of previous enterprise zones to know that creating jobs under such a regime is prohibitively expensive. The national insurance holiday is another centrepiece of what the Government said they wanted to do. However, although they will not release any concrete figures, it was already clear from an article in the Financial Times in January that, far from 400,000 businesses being helped over the four or five years of the policy, at that time only 1,500 had been helped.

[Mike Gapes]

My hon. Friend mentions the national insurance holiday for new businesses, but it discriminates against London and Londoners. Some of the poorest people in the poorest communities in the poorest boroughs in this country are in London, as are some of the areas with the highest unemployment, yet the national insurance holiday does not cover London, which he, as a London Member, knows as well as I do.

[Mr Love]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is correct. When that legislation was passed, we argued that many parts of London had suffered tremendously from the credit crunch and were as deserving as—if not more deserving than—other parts of the country. However, that argument was not listened to. Perhaps the policy would be a little more successful if the Government had included London, along with all the other parts of the country.

The policy has clearly not been a success. The Government’s growth strategy is not producing growth. I would therefore like to suggest an alternative growth strategy, the merit of which is that it was beginning to bear fruit at the time of the general election.

I will pick out just a few areas at which the Government need to look carefully, while searching their conscience and trying to construct a positive growth strategy and address these concerns. First, youth unemployment is just about topping 1 million. One in five of our young people aged 16 to 24 are unemployed, and to focus on getting young people back into work, as we were trying to do before the general election, would pay dividends. We shall lose a whole generation if we do not address the youth unemployment problem, and that should be a priority for the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

What happened over a number of years—I am afraid that our Government were not immune from this—was that, rather than planning roads to encourage economic growth and development, we planned them to accommodate congestion. That was not always the best thing to do from an economic perspective. Down that road lies ruin, if you will pardon the pun.

The Federation of Small Businesses has asked for a fuel stabiliser. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the federation, but stability in fuel prices is important. The Chief Secretary said of a fuel stabiliser:

“It’s a complicated idea and it’s difficult to see… how we achieve it, but it’s something that we are looking at very carefully to see if we can reduce the burden of fuel duty”.

I wonder whether the concept could be more straightforward. When oil prices increased, the stabiliser—or a stabilising impact effect—would allow the Government to reduce duty to a lower limit; when oil prices fell, the Government would be able to raise duty to a higher limit.

Critics cite the difficulty of knowing whether the fluctuations in the price of oil are temporary or likely to persist beyond the near term, saying that it would be difficult for a fuel duty stabiliser to set fuel duties effectively. To counter the volatility in the price of oil, a fuel duty stabiliser or a stabilising measure would need to be based on an official forecast of the future price of oil, and then adjusted regularly according to the actual oil prices. It will be difficult, given the volatility in how the international oil markets are working at the moment, but we need to try to find some measure to help our small and medium-sized enterprises through this difficult process at this difficult time; otherwise, we are in real danger of seeing fuel become a major blockage to economic growth, not only in particular regions, but across the whole nation.

Would this be bad for the public finances? The Chief Secretary said that we cannot “sacrifice income willy-nilly”. Critics argue that a stabiliser or a stabilising effect would be too expensive to implement during a time of austerity, but that criticism fails to take into account the wider implications of high fuel prices on the UK economy. If set correctly, the measure could be fiscally neutral for the public finances and help to provide much-needed economic stability for the UK economy. My main point in asking for some sort of analysis in a review is that the measure is needed so much more in the regions of England, particularly regions such as the north-east, but the south-west as well.

[Mike Gapes]

The amendment states that the Chancellor should

“publish, within 3 months… an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.”

I will address my remarks to the scope of such an assessment. It is important not to focus solely on the narrow issues surrounding VAT, although they are important, or on the global increase in fuel prices, which is one of the factors causing the revolutions in north Africa and elsewhere in the world as people suffer from rising food prices as a result of rising fuel prices.

There is something very specific about how we in this country choose to tax fuel. Compared with other European Union countries, we choose to have very high taxes on fuel. One consequence is the problems from which our road hauliers have suffered in comparison with some of their competitors in European countries that have road pricing.

It is interesting to note that in the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats proposed to move towards

“a rural fuel discount scheme which would allow a reduced rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas, as is allowed under EU law”,

as well as to prepare for a system of road pricing to be introduced “in a second parliament”. That was the Liberal Democrat position. The Conservatives, of course, had a completely different view, promising a “fair fuel stabiliser”, presumably designed to help people in the rural communities.

I represent an urban area. My constituents suffer high fuel prices in London and, unlike some people in rural areas, they do not have the advantage of having to pay only 11.14p duty on a litre of so-called red diesel, instead of 57.95p duty on a litre of low-sulphur diesel. We know that there is abuse of the red diesel system by certain people who, when driving on main roads, use diesel that should be used only for off-road activities. That opportunity is not open to my constituents. People living in Ilford and elsewhere in Greater London do not have access to red diesel that they can abuse in order to avoid paying tax. However, people who are represented by the Liberal Democrats, who are in favour of giving priority to remote rural areas but not to those of us who live in urban areas, or by Conservative Members who are happy not to enforce adequately the provisions against abuse of the red diesel system, are not concerned about that. I want the review to examine the abuse of the red diesel system. I believe that a lot of money that should be going to the Exchequer is not doing so and that there is discrimination against people who live in urban areas and have no access to red diesel for their motoring purposes.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I take my hon. Friend’s point about the abuse of red diesel, but may I disabuse him of the fact that it is not available in urban areas? When I was chair of trading standards in Newcastle, the abuse of red diesel in urban areas was just as prevalent as it was in some rural areas. The fact is that certain criminal elements in London can gain access to red diesel fairly easily.

[Mike Gapes]

Obviously I am not as accomplished as my hon. Friend at making contact with the criminal elements in London. However, he has raised a serious matter: there are criminal elements who exploit differentials in duty. We have seen that in Northern Ireland, when terrorist organisations financed their activities by smuggling fuel across the border from the south to the north and vice versa, and we have seen it in other contexts.

If we are to have a policy on fuel taxation, we need to ensure that if we introduce measures that discriminate in favour of certain people in remote rural communities, we do not also create loopholes that will be used in a discriminatory way to undermine the sense of justice and fairness that our people want us to exercise. If we have high levels of fuel taxation in this country, which we do, and if that causes problems for our road haulage industry and discrimination between rural and urban areas, when the review is conducted—I hope that the Government will support the amendment, because it is vital that we look at these issues in—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. The amendment is very narrowly drawn. I have listened to the debate very carefully. Can you tell the Committee whether it is in order to discuss the matters that have been raised in it, ranging from the abolition of child benefit to the widening of the A1 and, now, the abuse of red diesel?

[The Chairman]

The Chair will decide that. I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very senior Member of the House, is questioning the judgment of the Chair.

[Mike Gapes]

Red diesel is taxed at a lower level than other diesel. We are discussing the taxation of fuel and the need for a review of fuel taxation. Surely that is extremely pertinent to the terms of the amendment.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The amendment states:

“The Chancellor shall publish, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices.”

I am sure that that includes diesel.

[Mike Gapes]

I entirely agree.

I believe that one of the difficulties in our economy, which affects our haulage industry, arises from our tax levels compared with levels in other European Union countries. We all know that if we drive across to France and fill a tank with diesel, or “gas oil” as they call it, it is possible to pay—depending on where we are—40%, 50% or 60% of the amount that we would pay in the United Kingdom. The haulage industry based on the other side of the channel therefore has a competitive advantage. The great lorries with Polish and other countries’ number plates that we see bringing goods into this country have a competitive advantage over those of our own haulage industry.

We need to look at these matters. I have to say that I think the Liberal Democrats were right. [Interruption.] Yes, occasionally they are right, and I think they were right when they said we need to look at road pricing. Unfortunately, the only person who has done anything serious about road pricing is, of course, the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who introduced the congestion charge, which the Conservatives have now accepted even though they opposed it when it was first introduced.

[The Chairman]

Order. I think we are now beginning to stray a little from the subject under discussion. I am sure we will return to the topic of the fuel levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. I will, as always, take your sagacious advice.

We need to look at the consequences of the way in which our economy is integrated globally, and the knock-on consequences of our competitive position in European markets. We need a review of fuel taxation, taking account of the position of the haulage industry and the discrepancies and disparities between different parts of the UK—I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said about the north-east region. There are difficulties and we need to look at this issue in the round. It is eminently sensible to have a comprehensive review of fuel taxation policy, as called for in the amendment.

Everybody agrees that the current arrangement is not working well. There is a huge amount of public disquiet—all of us receive e-mails and letters on the subject, and the Federation of Small Businesses and others write to us. People are concerned about high fuel prices. There are things we can control, such as not increasing VAT on fuel, and there are things we cannot control, such as the impact of global events, but as long as we have an economy that is dependent on fossil fuels and oil, we will always be vulnerable to such things. The debate embraces wider issues than are dealt with in the terms of the amendment. I will not talk about those issues now Mr Hoyle, but it is important that we address them in a comprehensive review of fuel taxation policy. I therefore support the amendment.

[Hugh Bayley]

First, I want to compare the records on fuel taxation of the most recent Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government. My view is that the Labour Government were a great deal kinder to the motorist, and the following figures are provided by the current Government. Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that in 1990, when the Conservatives were in power, 59% of the price paid at the pump by the motorist and road haulier for unleaded petrol was taken by the Government in fuel taxation, and that it rose to 75% during the following seven years of Conservative rule; the Government therefore took more and more and more in taxation. When Labour was in power, however, the proportion of the price of unleaded petrol taken in fuel taxation fell to 65%. The figures for diesel are almost the same. Under the Conservatives, the tax take rose from 57% to 74%, whereas Labour brought it down to 64%.

I would like the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to answer one question in her response, on the following subject. Since the general election, Government policy—not just Conservative policy, but Conservative and Liberal Democrat policy—has been to increase the tax on fuel by about 3p a litre through the increase in VAT and to give back roughly a third of that, 1p a litre, through the reduction in duty. That policy will slightly help road hauliers, because the duty element will reduce. The VAT element increases, but hauliers are able to recover the VAT, or at least pass it on in the VAT they charge their customers. So the effect of the Government’s policy will be to clobber the private motorist to the tune of 2p a litre, because they will have to pay the VAT increase out of their own pockets, while providing slight relief to businesses, particularly hauliers. I say “slight” because the price of fuel has increased as a result of a number of factors, including the increase in the cost of oil and the fall in the value of the pound on the international exchanges. So motorists and hauliers have been clobbered by the market and by the Government, but hauliers are being hit slightly less hard than the private motorist because they are able to recover the VAT increase.

My question to the Economic Secretary is as follows: is it a deliberate act of Government policy to make life slightly easier for businesses but to clobber the private citizen, or is it just an accident that that has happened? This is one of the things that ought to be studied in the review that the Opposition amendment proposes. We should examine the relative merits of taxing fuel for vehicles through VAT as opposed to through fuel duty, and who the gainers and losers are.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made a very powerful speech about the impact that the increase in VAT on fuel has had on family budgets, and the impact that inflation generally, and fuel inflation in particular, is having on families who are having their earnings squeezed. My Front-Bench colleagues’ amendment proposes that the review ought to consider that matter.

I would like such a review also to consider one other issue, because I do not believe that the Government have yet done so—although I would be delighted to be corrected if they have carried out the sort of analysis that I propose. The review should also examine the impact that taxation has on the demand for fuel. The previous Conservative Government, one and a half decades ago, introduced a fuel price escalator. I understand that their reason for doing so was environmental: they wanted to increase the price of fuel to depress the demand for it, and so reduce carbon emissions. That was the policy intention, and it is one of the reasons why Conservative policies cost taxpayers and consumers so much. I mentioned that the fuel tax take rose from 59% to 75% in their last seven years in office. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether that sharp increase in fuel taxation under the previous Conservative Government actually did depress the demand for fuel, because that is an important consideration. If we change the marginal rate of fuel taxation, economics suggest that there should be some elasticity in demand.

The Government say that they want to be the greenest ever, so they ought to consider the carbon emission consequences of changes to fuel duty and VAT on fuel. I hope that Treasury Ministers have taken advice on that from both the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Transport. They ought to have done, if they really are—[Interruption.] Does the Financial Secretary to the Treasury want to intervene? No, he is back in his seat. The Government ought to take advice before they make such proposals, so that they can assess the environmental impact of a fiscal measure. I am waiting to hear from a Minister, but it sounds as though that has not happened. It ought to if the Government are serious about the environmental consequences of their fiscal policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effect on levels of employment of the increase in the standard rate of value added tax.

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

8. What assessment he has made of the effect on levels of employment of the increase in the standard rate of value added tax.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The Government have taken urgent and unavoidable action to tackle the deficit and to put the public finances on a sustainable footing. That is essential for jobs and growth. Raising the standard rate of VAT is an important element of the plan and, in November, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, which took full account of the VAT increase, was for total employment to rise by 1.1 million in 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

The VAT rise of course leads to increased prices in the shops, and that affects everyone in the House.

[Mike Gapes]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury had a meeting—a crisis meeting, according to The Daily Telegraph—with senior retailers a few weeks ago. Was there any discussion of the impact of the VAT rise at that meeting?

[Danny Alexander]

I did indeed meet senior retailers from the British Retail Consortium and we discussed a whole range of issues in a private meeting. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the consortium’s views, he should listen to what its director general said on 20 October, the day of the spending review. He said that delays in public expenditure cuts

“would just store up more pain for later, risking increased borrowing costs, higher taxes and more job losses.”

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The purpose of the Bill, which the Opposition support, is to consider how we give limited help to start-up businesses through a national insurance holiday, so that we can get employment going across the United Kingdom with the exclusion, which we are trying to tackle, of London, the south-east and the east region.

Micro and macro-economic policy will need to be looked at again in many areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned VAT. Hon. Members are concerned about the impact of public spending cuts on job losses. The issue of the economy generally is also extremely important, as are matters such as employment in west Wales. The annual report would clearly show where new businesses are commencing because of the scheme proposed by the Minister in the Bill and whether those new business commencements can be married to areas where there are high levels of public sector job losses, deprivation and unemployment and therefore where there is a necessity for new businesses to commence. If new businesses are starting up in areas where there is already prosperity, wealth and low unemployment, the loss of the £940 million of national insurance revenue that the Minister is proposing in the Bill could have been used elsewhere to meet the objectives of tackling deprivation and unemployment in a much more concerted manner.

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

My right hon. Friend will know that the temporary Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills represents a London constituency. Does he agree that it is deplorable that someone who represents a London constituency has not fought in Government for the interests of people living in London, including people in my constituency, who will be adversely affected by the measures?

[Mr Hanson]

This is a Treasury-led issue, but it will self-evidently have an impact on businesses. I would have expected the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) to use his Business Secretary responsibilities to bat very hard to ensure that the measure has an impact on London, the south-east and the east. Amendments that we will talk to later focus on those areas and show key issues that will be highlighted by the annual report, even if the Bill does not include London, the south-east and east regions.

If I look randomly at the figures before me, I can see that the unemployment rate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is 6.8%, compared with the 1.6% unemployment rate in the North Somerset constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence. His constituency will get the benefit of the scheme; my hon. Friend’s will not. The annual report to Parliament will show whether businesses are being drawn to North Somerset at the expense of, for example, the micro-region of Somerset—Bristol and other areas—where there might be even higher levels of unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I will be brief. This amendment is important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy) said, it has been tabled in the context of the fact that provision for spending on social care is being taken into consideration in the overall budgeting, and there are clearly big problems. There are already concerns about the impact of bed blocking this winter.

I saw a letter yesterday from the chief executive of the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, John Goulston, that was sent to my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge). It was about the closure for periods over this recent winter of the accident and emergency services at the Queen’s hospital and the King George hospital, because of the impact of massive increases in admissions and bed blocking. That is serious, and it shows that we need the commitment to the ongoing level of spending in the NHS that is conveyed in the amendment. Because of the decisions of the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts in December, the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust is about to close the accident and emergency and maternity services of King George hospital in my constituency.

Also, yesterday I was informed that the chief executive of the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust is about to leave for pastures new—for a job with London regional NHS—after three years in post, during which he has not managed to remove the deficit, which is ongoing in that two-hospital trust. He is to be replaced by the chief executive of Chase Farm. She has presided over getting rid of the accident and emergency services at Chase Farm, and she will presumably get rid of the accident and emergency service at King George hospital, Ilford next.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

She has not done away with it yet, and nor, indeed, has North Central London, but they have been putting up a determined fight to do so, and I entirely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Member of Parliament for his constituency, Joan Ryan, fought very hard over many years, as I was fighting for my hospital with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) and others, and we continue to do so. As a result of a motion carried unanimously, across the parties, by Redbridge council last week, we are calling on the Secretary of State to intervene to save the accident and emergency and maternity services at King George hospital, Ilford.

If the spending is not in place, more and more hospitals and NHS trusts will face such a problem. It is not just about money; it is about management incompetence, NHS bureaucrats and some consultants who have a model of health care that is not in the interests of the community. However, it is about resources. Those responsible hide behind all kinds of arguments, but ultimately this is an extremely important issue that cannot be left to consultants or NHS managers. It requires political accountability and political decision making, because the public provide the money and vote the money, and it is important that we are accountable for how that money is spent—and so should those people in the NHS bureaucracy on massive inflated salaries, earning two, three, four times what Members of Parliament earn, who do not take account of the wishes of the local community, the local councillors or local Members.

[Nick de Bois]

The hon. Gentleman should take some comfort, as we have done since the election, from the fact that the Secretary of State has imposed four very determined tests that will allow for GP support and public support. He can take some encouragement from that.

[Mike Gapes]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have read the tests. They talk about clinical support, but what we have had is a rigged consultation and a group of placemen and women—hand-picked GPs—who are in charge, and there has been no ballot of GPs so there is no means of assessment. Those responsible say that the decision is clinically led, but we are now beyond that because the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts has said there has been clinical support, even though we know there is significant opposition. We now require the Secretary of State to intervene, and to save King George hospital’s accident and emergency and maternity services, which we have had in my constituency since 1926.

[Mr Gauke]

First, may I welcome the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)? It is a great pleasure to debate with him again. My first experience as a Front Bencher was debating with him and, although we now sit on different sides of the House, it is good to do so once again. I am pleased to be sitting on the Government Benches now, rather than on the Opposition side, but I am sure he has ambitions to return to these Benches. There are not many subjects on which I agree with the vast majority of Labour MPs, but one on which I do is the high regard in which they obviously hold the right hon. Gentleman. I am pleased by his popularity and the progress he has made.

Amendment 8 would require the National Audit Office to report on how much would be required from the additional rates in order for the health service allocation to grow in real terms every year. It may be useful to clear up one or two potential misconceptions. The amount that is to be spent on the NHS was confirmed at the spending review, and is unaffected by whether funds come from national insurance contributions or elsewhere. The amount of national insurance contributions allocated to the NHS depends on economic circumstances as well as the proportions specified in legislation. I would like to reassure the House that it is no part of Government policy to cut NHS funding automatically if, for example, global economic conditions lead to a reduction in national insurance contributions allocated. To be fair, that has not been the position of any Government, notwithstanding the fact that there has been an allocation element of national insurance contributions not just from 2003, but from 1948 when the NHS was created.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I certainly would not have abolished the regional development agencies or cut public spending with the speed and to the extent that the Government are doing. I certainly would not have cut the Welsh Assembly Government’s budget in our own areas to the extent that the Government will do over the next two to three years. That would have helped to manage the necessary downturn in public spending that we needed to make to readjust the economy in a way that was proportionate, fair and met our constituents’ needs for public services and for employment.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend refers to 23 of the top 100 constituencies, but if he extends the list to 105 constituencies to include Ilford South—my constituency—all those next five constituencies are also in the relevant regions, so he could refer to 28 of 105, and there is 38% public sector employment in my constituency.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Would I ever try to miss out the good constituency of Ilford South? My purpose was to indicate that the inclusion criterion that the Minister has selected is based on one simple issue: how to compensate for and deal with public sector job losses and provide a mechanism to help to support the creation of new jobs where public sector jobs are lost. On his criterion, 23 of the 100—or 28 of the 105, to take my hon. Friend’s figures—show that those issues are not being dealt with in the way in which the Minister has said.

If I look at the impact of the possible 490,000 public sector job losses, I see that they will hit hardest those constituencies with public sector employees. If I add to that, as I have to do, the benefits of job creation and look at local authorities on the economic deprivation index, I see that no fewer than seven of the top 12 of those economically deprived boroughs fall within areas that are excluded from the scheme. The boroughs of Hackney, Newham, which is represented here today by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), Tower Hamlets, Islington, Barking and Dagenham, Haringey and Lambeth are all in the top 12 economically deprived boroughs, yet they cannot avail themselves of the scheme.

Other constituencies throughout the country—again, I will alight on Tatton, because its is the Chancellor’s constituency and one that I know well—where unemployment is low and there are many business start-ups and great pockets of wealth, will benefit from the scheme and can apply to include businesses in the scheme, while boroughs such as Newham, Tower Hamlets and others that I have mentioned will not be able to do so. If we look at the unemployment rate across the United Kingdom, which is 7.9% on the latest figures, we see that unemployment in London is 9.1%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am strongly in favour of proper targeting, but the RDAs could do that: they could look at their regions, advise on which areas needed the most support and provide assistance in that way. I am in favour of targeting, but if we are to exclude areas, it should not be done regionally, because within regions there are areas that need strong support and other areas that need less support. As I said in earlier debates in the Chamber today, I would use that £1 billion in other ways and target it rather better. We in Luton feel unfairly discriminated against for the reasons that I have set out.

There is also a problem with regional boundaries, which have been mentioned before. In Committee I mentioned a regional boundary that goes right through a small conurbation not far from me, Leighton-Linslade. Linslade is in the south, in Buckinghamshire, and Leighton Buzzard is in Bedfordshire. We therefore have a conurbation that is split by the regional boundary. How will people in that small conurbation feel about one side of the town getting a benefit and the other side not getting it?

I think I have probably made my point, and others wish to speak. The Government have got this wrong. I hope that they will accept the reasonable amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and make this a fair Bill that we can all support.

[Mike Gapes]

Allegedly, we are all in this together. If so, why is it that those of us in east London, along with people in the 21 authorities in the Thames Gateway, which include authorities in Kent, where there is not a single Labour Member of Parliament—they are only Conservatives—and those in Essex, are excluded from the package that we are discussing? We heard earlier today about the Maoist chaos of the Government’s regional policy. That is not the responsibility of the Treasury; it is the responsibility of its close allies and partners, and the Business Secretary. However, as we are all in this together, presumably the Treasury is also involved up to its neck.

We have also heard that, apparently, the Government are refocusing regional policy. Well, that regional policy refocus includes, in today’s measures, discrimination against poor people in poor communities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) spoke from the Front Bench about a number of boroughs and constituencies that have high unemployment—higher than the national average—and where, at the moment, there are also high levels of public sector employment. Those areas will take a disproportionate hit because of the measures announced in the comprehensive spending review and the Government’s policy to reduce, for ideological reasons, the size of the public sector so drastically and quickly.

So, we are not all in this together: some of us are in it much deeper than others. I suppose that we are a bit like the residents of Brisbane, Australia. When the tsunami or flood comes in, we hope that it will meet a certain ceiling point before going back down, and that the next day it will go no higher. Some people have a little footbridge or step to get them above the water, but others are pushed down below it. People in the small business sector in my community—in Ilford and Redbridge, which is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat borough—will not benefit from these measures. When it comes to benefits, we are not in this together with those in Tatton or elsewhere. We will lose out.

Other Members represent poorer communities than mine, but I have wards in my constituency with very high unemployment. I also have a very diverse community. One of the interesting features of excluding London from the proposals is that it is not only discriminatory geographically; it could also be discriminatory ethnically. That needs to be taken into consideration, given the way in which the measures disproportionately affect different communities in different parts of the country.

I do not want to delay the House for long. I spoke on Second Reading in November. I hoped at that time that the Government would come forward with some changes to their proposals. I hoped that they would listen to the logic, but they did not. We have already had Committee stage and Report brings us to today.

The Thames Gateway Partnership for London, Kent and South Essex recently wrote to Members, urging us to make representations to the Minister—[Interruption.] He might wish to listen to this. It wanted us to write to him to point out the discriminatory nature of the proposals and to urge the Government, even at this stage—I say again, even at this stage—to see what they can do to help the Thames Gateway authorities. The partnership pointed out that there are 3.5 million residents in the Thames Gateway local authorities area and that it believes that in

“excluding London and the South East from the regional freeze on National Insurance contributions the government is failing to take proper account of local economies, particularly the challenges faced by the Thames Gateway growth corridor.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has already referred to that.

The Bill is damaging to a potential growth sector of our economy. The Thames Gateway is part of the future of London as a global city. It is vital to the prosperity of our nation, yet this short-sighted, quasi-Maoist Government are operating in such a chaotic way that they cannot see the damaging consequences of what they are proposing. Next year, I hope, they will come seriously to regret what they are doing. I urge all local authorities in the Thames Gateway area to look very closely at the Division lists for today and to register which Members from Essex, Kent and London went through the Lobby in favour of such discrimination against London, Kent and Essex and which Members voted against it. Then, hopefully, those local authorities, councillors and communities will hold those Members to account.

[Dr Creasy]

I want to talk about three things in my comments on the amendment, the first of which is the test set by the Opposition about what this policy is designed to achieve. Secondly, I shall explain why the amendment is needed to ensure that the policy achieves what is intended. Thirdly, I shall say a little about the evidence base for the policy, which was a matter of great concern to me in Committee—and the Bill is still found wanting in that respect. I shall show how the amendment addresses some of those challenges.

The test we set for this policy and, indeed, for this Government, given our concerns about their economic approach, relates to jobs. At the heart of what we do as a Parliament must be the concerns of our constituents, and I know that one of the main concerns of my Walthamstow constituents and those of many other Members is jobs. How are people going to keep a roof over their heads, keep their families fed and ensure that their families stay together? Those concerns relate to the jobs people have and the support we can give to them in their jobs. Job creation is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) ably set out, absolutely key to how we judge this policy.

In that context, the symptoms are not good. We know that unemployment is rising and that it has hit 2.5 million—it has been suggested that it is likely to increase further, especially in areas currently excluded from this policy—so job creation is a critical aspect of what the Government can and should be doing. Six people are chasing every vacancy in this country; if there were ever a time when we needed to create more jobs for which people can apply, it is now. We cannot have a jobless recovery; that is not sustainable. Indeed, the cost to the public purse of doing so would be tremendous. It is worth noting that every extra 100,000 people on the unemployment register is half a billion pounds of welfare expenditure that has to be found. There is a great cost to us of not doing something about rising joblessness.

We therefore look at this policy and ask how it will meet the test that the Minister set. In Committee, he said that the purpose of the policy was specifically “the creation of jobs”. It was to

“help the wealth-creation sector in regions currently reliant on the public sector”. ––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 2 December 2010; c. 47, Q167.]

That is the second test that we put: does this policy affect not the regions but the people it is designed to help? If we look at the people test, we see that, as currently constructed, the policy does not meet it; it fails on that basis.

Many Members have named areas in which some of the public sector workers most affected by the Government’s cuts are living. My constituency is already among the top 100 in the unemployment league. Our current unemployment rate is 8.5%, and it is rising as we speak. About 24% of people living in Walthamstow work in the public sector. They are losing colleagues, and they are worried about themselves. My surgeries are full of people asking for help after receiving redundancy notices. I ask the Minister what I should tell those people. What will this policy offer them? The task of Government is supposedly to support people and create jobs in the economy. What can I tell those people in Walthamstow who work in the public sector and risk losing their jobs, or have already received redundancy notices?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Not that I am aware of, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, tax is a matter for the Treasury. I must say that the Thames Gateway would have been hit by a much greater jobs tax if the Labour party were in power.

Both today and in earlier debates, I have understandably been asked about take-up and whether there is a plan, if take-up is lower than expected, to expand the holiday to cover the whole of the UK. Let me reiterate to the House and Opposition Members that this is not just about cost; it is also about the policy rationale for the holiday, which is to target incentives on new businesses in regions with high levels of public sector employment. In their evidence to the Committee, representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce made it clear that the south-east is more resilient than the rest of the UK and that new business formation would not be harmed significantly because the holiday would not be available there. I should also mention to the House, and particularly to the right hon. Member for Delyn that all new and existing businesses in the south-east will benefit from the increase in the employers’ national insurance contributions threshold, which I assume the Labour party will oppose when we bring it forward, and from the reduction in corporation tax rates, as compared with the increase that Labour was going to bring in for small businesses.

[Mike Gapes]

The Minister refers to the FSB. Will he confirm that it wrote before Christmas saying that his proposal is

“a crude assessment as it does not account for areas within these regions that would really benefit from policies that would help bolster employment”?

That remains the position of the FSB.

[Mr Gauke]

That is the same Federation of Small Businesses that said that the Labour party’s policy to increase national insurance contributions would cost about 52,000 jobs just among its own members.

We have touched on the fact that labour markets are much bigger than ward, borough or constituency boundaries. It is not quite clear what the Labour party would do if it were to extend the scheme. Its policy seems to be that it would remove the scheme from some parts of the regions that would currently benefit. It is not quite clear how the Labour party would do that. I do not know—perhaps the right hon. Member for Delyn could explain—whether the plan is that the scheme would be available in Flint but not in Prestatyn. I am not quite sure what the Labour party has in mind. Perhaps it thinks that the scheme should be available in Oldham but not in Saddleworth. I really do not know what the Labour party wants to do with the scheme, but it clearly wants to increase national insurance contributions, not to reduce them, despite what we have heard this afternoon.

The NICs holiday is targeted at regions and countries with the highest proportion of public sector dependence, to encourage new businesses to start up and take on employees. Expanding the holiday to the whole economy would undermine the policy rationale. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Delyn to withdraw the amendment.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Is the Minister aware that the proposals in the Bill discriminate against many areas—in London, in particular—with above-average unemployment? Will he explain to people in my constituency, where according to the Library there is already 6.6% unemployment, why on earth the national insurance contribution holiday does not apply to them?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman brings me on to the second part, to do with the national insurance holiday, which applies on a regional basis. If I can develop my arguments, I will turn in some detail to the precise point that he has set out.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I wish to concentrate on the situation facing my constituents and many others in London. The House of Commons Library has published a note that is of great help to all who take an interest in the subject of today’s debate, and it says that, on the basis of International Labour Organisation measures of unemployment, the highest rates are in London, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber, where the figure is 9%. However, although the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber are to benefit from the measures in question, London is entirely excluded.

As has already been made clear, a number of boroughs and constituencies in London have very high levels of deprivation and unemployment. My borough, the London borough of Redbridge, does not feature as one of the most deprived boroughs overall, but there are wards within it, including three in my constituency, that are in the lowest decile for deprivation and need. Therefore, the impact of any changes that discriminate against Londoners, against small businesses in London and against ethnic minority businesses in London—the population distribution in this country means that London has a much greater concentration of people from all ethnic minorities—has to be borne in mind. These proposals are inherently discriminatory; they are discriminatory in their own terms and they therefore need to be seriously questioned.

The Federation of Small Businesses has sent me some information about this matter. It points out how more than half the firms in London, 64% of small businesses in the south-east and 58% of firms in the east of England are likely to operating under capacity. It states that the regional discrimination involved in these proposals is based on

“a crude assessment as it does not account for areas within these regions that would really benefit from policies that would help bolster employment.”

If the FSB opposes the proposals, why on earth are the Government not listening to it, given that they claim always to be listening to small businesses? As I speak, the Essex FSB is having a meeting, which I am obviously not able to attend, and one of the issues it will discuss is precisely this discrimination against the east of England, the south of England and, in particular, London.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

The point needs to be made that the Minister has explained that a significant extra cost would be involved in making this a national programme. As the Member of Parliament for Watford, an area that faces significant unemployment problems, I would say that it would be very nice to have this programme, but the Minister has explained that the cost involved would be more £660 million. I am pleased to see this principle being used, because I believe that selective regional policy can be used in the future. I hope that the Government’s localisation agenda will mean that holidays and similar tax benefits for rates will be extended to specific areas. But for the moment, because of the mess that the Labour Government left us with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Interventions are supposed to be brief.

[Mike Gapes]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps make his own speech, rather than intervene on mine.

The FSB makes clear its concern about not only the regional variation, but the fact that the proposals do not deal with existing firms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) also made that point from the Front Bench. The FSB says that

“surveys have found that 57% of small businesses without employees would like to employ in the future, which could create…800,000 new jobs”.

It also points out that many small businesses do not survive for more than two or three years, so by discriminating against existing small businesses that have just been established the proposals are another difficulty for that sector. The FSB claims that, on average, its 213,000 members each employ seven members of staff and that most employ five or fewer. It points out that if they were able to get the support that is being made available only to certain businesses in certain regions, there would be the potential for much greater assistance. Therefore, the essence of the proposals is that if the Government are going down this route, they are doing so in a way that discriminates against certain regions and certain communities in the country, and that discriminates between different businesses.

The essence of the proposal, we are told, is that we are all in this together but, sadly, it is yet another example of where we are not. We are all in it together, but we are not all getting the assistance to deal with the problems that the Government will create when they slash the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have had an interesting debate and I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions, especially that of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who provided the most entertaining canter through an explanatory memorandum I have listened to in years.

At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary explained that the Bill contains two important measures: an increase in national insurance contributions and a regional employer national insurance contributions holiday for new businesses. Both are part of the Government’s plan to reduce the burden of labour taxation, reducing obstacles for those who want to recruit and retain staff. It is worth stressing that the clauses are part of a much wider package of reforms to help businesses and ensure that Britain is again open for business. The reforms are designed to reverse the most damaging aspects of Labour’s ill-conceived jobs tax. I listened with care to the contributions from Labour Members, but members of the public listening will have found it easy to forget that the Labour party left office with unemployment higher than when it entered.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the debate has led to so many Opposition Members—and, indeed, Government Members—recognising that the best way to kick-start new business, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) put it, is to ensure that businesses are not over-taxed. In fact, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) was extolling the virtues of low tax on businesses. That is why the Bill is so important. Were the coalition Government not in power, rather than corporation tax on businesses going down, it would have gone up, and rather than the national insurance burden, particularly on small businesses, being held down, it would have risen remorselessly.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talked about a split personality, but it is probably fairer to level that charge at the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who, on the one hand, wanted to raise national insurance for all employers, but, on the other hand, complained that the tax break we wanted to introduce to reduce national insurance was not fair because it did not apply to all regions. He cannot have it both ways.

[Mike Gapes]

I am glad that the hon. Lady was listening so carefully to what I said. She refers to unemployment, but will she confirm that 3 million more people were in work when the last Government left office than when they entered?

[Justine Greening]

A lot of people would debate who those jobs were taken by. In reality, unemployment was higher—every Labour Government leaves office with unemployment higher than when they entered.

I want to talk about some of the most important aspects of the Bill. Employers will be £150 better off each year for each employee earning above the threshold. There will be an increase of 650,000 in the number of employees in respect of whom employers pay no national insurance contributions. Compared to this year, employers will pay less national insurance contribution in respect of those employees earning under £20,000. In fact, low-earning employees will also be better off, because the point at which they start to pay national insurance contributions is also going up—by about £23 per week. By reversing the planned employer national insurance increases, this package will help to maintain the UK’s attraction as a place to do business. In doing so, it will support the Government’s aim of creating a fairer and more competitive tax system. The national insurance holiday will help with the transition to a more sustainable model of economic growth, encourage private sector enterprise and investment where it is most needed, create jobs in some of our poorest regions, and encourage people to become business people, entrepreneurs and wealth creators—the very people who will lead the recovery.

Those points were made eloquently by my hon. Friend Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) and later by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who also talked about the burden of red tape, which is another matter that the Government are keen to reduce for businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) talked about the need to support business, and to create new jobs and the positive culture that we need to engender throughout the country. That is absolutely what the Government want to do.

The Bill should be seen in the context of wider measures. The Government have taken several steps to support business. In the emergency budget we announced measures to reduce corporation tax, not raise it on large companies year on year. We announced measures to reduce the small companies rate of corporation tax. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about what we can do to help small companies and new companies. He was right, and that is precisely why, instead of increasing corporation tax on those companies, we preferred to try to ensure that they can enjoy a rate decrease.

We have gone further. The regional growth fund will benefit all communities in our country. The capital infrastructure plan was announced as part of the spending review, and more capital will go into supporting our country’s infrastructure than would have happened under the previous Government. We have published the local growth White Paper.