Oral Answers to Questions

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly think that, if we put our credibility at risk, there would be considerable concern about, for example, the currency. The response to that would be higher interest rates, which would do nothing for the growth of the economy.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

We are already spending £120 million a day on debt interest. What figure does the Minister think would be reached if we had not increased VAT?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We should be focusing on inflation. I call the Minister to answer, very briefly.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that German and French banks have a greater exposure to the Greek sovereign debt than the UK banks do. The French exposure is, I think, four times that of the UK, while the German banking sector’s exposure is about five times ours. That is why it is important that, as we go through the process of stress testing European banks, we look very carefully at the level of capital that our banks hold to ensure that they are in a position to withstand shocks and thus to support and sustain the economy.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) attacks this Government’s VAT policy and, by implication, the deficit reduction policy. Does not what is happening in the eurozone absolutely serve as a timely reminder that we have to attack the deficit because that is how this country will maintain low interest rates?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was clear in the reaction to last week’s statement by the shadow Chancellor that everyone thought his plan lacked sense and would have undermined the recovery in this country by putting interest rates at risk and forcing up the interest costs of businesses and families. We have taken the tough decisions to get the economy right; the markets have demonstrated through the rates at which firms and businesses can borrow that they have confidence in our plans.

Amendment of the Law

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

In a moment.

I am proud to say that we are able to set aside £3 billion to support councils with a freeze on spending, and that is despite the mess that the Labour Government made of our nation’s finances. It sounds as though some on the Opposition Benches would like to wash away the past few years and drown out their bitter legacy: record national debt; unsustainable public spending; and a crushing burden on ordinary families.

The Opposition do not like to admit that their Labour Government planned spending cuts of £44 billion by 2015. Labour’s cuts were to be front-loaded cuts, with £14 billion of cuts falling this April, and Labour’s spending plans would have made bigger cuts to housing, regeneration and local government.

On Saturday, the Leader of the Opposition should have told the crowds the extent of Labour’s cuts. That would have been much more convincing, as hon. Friends have said, than comparing himself to Martin Luther King or, more bizarrely, to Emily Pankhurst.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Pickles]

In a moment. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to hear this point.

Perhaps that omission prompted the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to say today on “The Daily Politics” that a Labour Government would have employed fewer people in the public sector. I have obtained a transcript of the interview, and the interviewer said:

“Some of the people on that march, some of those people listening to Ed Miliband, would have lost their jobs under a Labour Government. Yes or no?”

The right hon. and learned Lady was wise enough not to give a yes or no answer, and said:

“Well, I think that basically we would see, err yes, fewer people employed in the public sector.”

[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes. I think “err yes” neatly covers the point.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Does my right hon. Friend not think it bizarre that the Leader of the Opposition chose to compare his party’s struggle to that of apartheid?

[Mr Pickles]

Well, I suppose there comes an occasion, you turn up, there’s a lot of people there—and you just start to talk. These things happen, and we should be in a forgiving mood. I mean, anybody can compare themselves to Martin Luther King.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

For goodness’ sake. I have always put on record my pride in what the Labour Government did to ensure that this country recovered from 18 years of Tory rule. Whatever my disagreements with them, I will never take that away from any of our leaders of the past 13 years.

This Budget has offered more of the same. The Government claimed that it was a Budget for growth, but we got nothing of the sort. Only a few weeks ago, the Chancellor told us that it would be an “unashamedly pro-growth Budget”, as though economic growth was something that he would normally be embarrassed about. What the Government should really be embarrassed about is that as a direct result of their policies, the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecast not once but twice. Now we know that growth was down last year and will be down this year and next year. The only things that are growing at the moment are the prices in the shops and the number of people out of work.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Let’s try again. Does the right hon. Lady think that, in the court of public opinion, people blame Labour for the economic mess that we are in?

[Caroline Flint]

I think we are doing quite well in by-elections, but I do not take the public for granted, and I know that they believe the deficit should be tackled. That is quite right, and I absolutely agree. However, as every day goes past and people see the choices that the Government are making, they say that they are going too far and too fast. That was expressed on Saturday, and it will be expressed on 5 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

rose—

[Caroline Flint]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so I am going to make some progress.

I turn to some of the measures announced in the Government’s plan for growth. I think we would all agree that the planning system shapes the places where people live and gives character to our communities. It helps us to protect our natural and historic environment, and it should ensure that everyone has access to green space and unspoiled countryside. It is crucial for growth, because it supports economic development, helps to create jobs and contributes to our prosperity as a nation. I have never shied away from the fact that we as a country need to build more homes, and that our planning system has to support that. When the Government were elected, they promised bold, radical reform of the planning system that would speed it up, reduce bureaucracy and support growth. Let us look at what has happened.

Following the Government’s chaotic and botched reforms to the planning system, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of planning permissions for new homes, which are now at a near-record low. The figure for the third quarter of 2010 was the second lowest seen in the past 19 quarters, and in the last quarter of 2010, new planning permissions were down 22% on the previous year. It is no good the Government blaming the previous one, because things have got worse and not better since they came to power. The biggest drop of all came just after the last general election. In the first quarter of 2010, before the election, more than 40,000 planning permissions were granted to developers for new homes, but by the third quarter, after the election, that had fallen to just 30,000.

The Chancellor sought to address that last week, but I am afraid that in doing so, he sounded the death knell of localism. I offer my condolences to the Communities and Local Government Secretary for the demise of localism, because after months of the Government pledging power to the people—neighbourhood plans, communities in the driving seat and so on—the Chancellor blew localism out of the water in a single sentence. He said that

“from today, we will expect all bodies involved in planning…to prioritise growth and jobs, and we will introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is yes.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 956.]

I cannot recall cheers from Government Members when that was said. While the Secretary of State trumpets devolving power to local people and promises to give them a real say in the development of their area, the Chancellor wants to make it easier for developers to bypass the planning system altogether. They cannot both be right, which reinforces the confusion that has paralysed the planning system in the past 10 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

As a nation, we borrow almost £150 billion a year. That is £12.5 billion a month, £410 million a day or an incredible £4,745 every second. By the time I sit down, we will have borrowed another £1.7 million. That is the economic reality that we face, and the reason why balancing the books and business growth are so vital to our country. As an entrepreneur and business man I feel that I have some knowledge of what will damage and what will encourage growth in business, and I am delighted to say that the plans set out in the Budget are most certainly of the latter variety.

I ask Members to imagine, if they will, that we are a group of men and women who are considering setting up or expanding a business. Times are tough, but there are now a number of incentives that can help us make up our mind. One of our earliest decisions is where to site our business. In the early stages, we want to make our capital and that of our investors go as far as possible, so we settle on an enterprise zone, where we get up to a 100% discount on business rates, new, superfast broadband and, as a manufacturing firm, access to enhanced capital allowances, giving us relief on investment in plant and machinery.

At the beginning, like many businesses, our budgets are tight and banks are unwilling to lend, so we look to angel investors for support. The enterprise investment scheme offers tax relief to those investors, and thanks to the Budget the income tax relief on an investment has been increased from 20% to 30%, and the amount that an individual can invest in our business has been increased by 400%. Those changes will make investing in our business, which is an obviously excellent proposition, even more attractive.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that businesses in my constituency will grow because of the reductions in corporation tax in the Budget?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to the effect of corporation tax in a moment.

As a result of the measures in the Budget that I described, our business has raised early stage finance and begun an expansion programme. As a small company, our R and D tax credit will increase from 175% to 200% this April, and to 225% this time next year. That will allow us to invest in products for the future, helping us to carve out a real niche in the market and to sell our products to the rest of the world. That is crucial. In the real world, that helped me and my business, as we evolved YouGov and invested in its future.

Often the smallest things such as changes in regulation, red tape, and complicated tax and health and safety rules greatly affect businesses.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend also welcome the Budget because it represents a vast crackdown on regulation? That will help businesses in Dover and Deal as much as those in his constituency?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what the Budget would do for our imaginary business. Three hundred and fifty million pounds’ worth of regulation will be scrapped, the dual discrimination rules in the Equality Act 2010 will be ended, Lord Young’s recommendations on health and safety will be enacted, and new business regulations for the smallest business will be stopped. That is a great starter for 10 from the Chancellor.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) rightly pointed out, our corporation tax has been reduced by 2% this year, and by 2014 we will be paying the lowest corporation tax in the G7—16% lower than in the US. Many say that that is just a tax cut to line the pockets of business owners, but I disagree. Business owners know that every extra £1 paid in corporation tax is £1 less to reinvest in their business to support growth and job creation, which the Labour party seems never to have understood.

Lowering corporation tax is vital in attracting new, overseas business to the UK. Corporation taxes are not the sole attractor, but they and tax certainty are important in attracting overseas investment. The fact that chief executive officers, such as that of WPP, have announced that their companies are coming back to the UK is testament to that, and today’s letter in The Daily Telegraph from the leading private equity houses reiterates the point.

Let us go back to our little business, which is growing, employing more people, and making more and selling more to the world. However, the cost of fuel is hurting us, and we watch our costs and those of our suppliers increase with transport costs. Luckily, the Government are listening. They feel our pain, and decide to deal with the high petrol price. Under the previous Government, our fuel duty would have shot up by 6p in three days’ time. After all, by the end of their 13 years in power, 75% of the cost of fuel was taxation.

For the employees of our company, the 45p per mile allowance is another huge milestone. The allowance has been 40p for so long that most young people in work cannot remember it ever increasing. That amount was out of step with economic reality. This increase not only makes sense, but is vital for those in business who use their own vehicles, and is particularly helpful to the self-employed. It also, by the way, helps voluntary organisations such as Voluntary Action Stratford-on-Avon, whose volunteer drivers provide such an excellent service.

I return to our little business. What happens if we are successful, and if through our hard work and entrepreneurship it grows, and another business wants to buy us, or we want to float our company? Thanks to the Budget, our capital gains tax relief for entrepreneurs has been doubled to £10 million, increasing the reward for our hard work and investment, and encouraging more individuals to invest in their own business. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, our hypothetical company, like millions of real-world start-ups, will have been aided by the announcements in this Budget. It is a Budget for growth, and through it many start-ups and small firms will get a fighting chance to be a great success. I commend the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin]

The alternative is to go much more slowly and much more carefully so that things can be managed out there in the real world. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members just do not understand the difference between double and half. They simply do not understand it, but perhaps that will get through to them over time.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

rose—

[Nic Dakin]

I turn to deal with aspects of regulation and economic reform.

European Summit

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decision taken by the previous Chancellor meant that we became part of the ESFM, and that is why the liability exists today. My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on: we have taken difficult decisions in this country. This Government have decided to tackle the deficit that Labour left behind, and we have a clear plan to do it. The Opposition have no ideas. Under a Labour Government, this country would be running out of steam.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The events last night in Portugal bring into sharp focus why it is important to maintain the confidence of the markets. Is the Minister glad that this Prime Minister did not attend the meeting of the 17 eurozone countries, because the last Prime Minister attended and gave away our rebate?

[Mr Hoban]

Certainly, the previous Government very rarely showed any backbone in dealing with our European partners on the rebate or other matters. This Government stand up for Britain’s interests when it comes to the debate in Europe. We have done that on the rebate, on the budget and on this mechanism.

Banking

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is clearly a great deal of interest. May I gently remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the statement began should not expect to be called? The position on this is very clear and long established, and it must be adhered to.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“If the City is doing well, the country is doing well. When it prospers, we all prosper”.

They are not my words but those of the shadow Chancellor. Did my right hon. Friend take any advice from him?

[Mr Osborne]

No, instead I learned from the example of all the things that went wrong when the shadow Chancellor was City Minister. As one does on these occasions, I came into the Chamber armed with many of his quotes about what a golden legacy he was leaving in the City, how bonuses were at the appropriate level, and how he was going to resist all calls in Parliament to toughen up regulation. It would take a couple of hours to read them all out, but no doubt over the next few years we will have plenty of opportunities to remind him that he is a man with a past.

Bank Bonuses

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Because I am clearing up the mess left to me by the hon. Gentleman’s party. This Government have done more in the last seven months to create a safer, more properly regulated banking system than Labour did in 13 years. As of the beginning of this year, we have a new code of practice that applies to 2,500 firms, compared with the 25 firms that were regulated under the previous Government, and, as I have said, we are seeking this new settlement with the banks that will, I hope, lead to a material increase in the amount of money that they lend to the British economy, and a material decrease in the amount they would otherwise have paid in bonuses.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Is the Chancellor aware that Sir Fred Goodwin took home £15 million under the previous Government?

[Mr Osborne]

The clue is in the question: his title is “Sir”—and he was given that knighthood by the previous Prime Minister.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

The Chancellor suggested that it is at his discretion that he has brought forward this Bill. Is it not the case that the 1932 convention requires him to do so—and does not that, rather than his discretion, explain why this legislation is before the House?

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention. We will hear from the Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Setting aside the technicalities of why we are debating this measure and how long we shall do so, and getting down to the substantive issue of the loan, can the Chancellor share with the House what the fees and the interest to the UK Government will be over the period of the loan if the Irish Government draw down the whole of the loan?

[Mr Osborne]

The second intervention draws me back into the rest of my speech, but in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), I have common-law powers to issue the loan and sign the loan agreement. I then have to seek statutory authority, but that could be done retrospectively. I thought it more appropriate to seek parliamentary approval first, and that was a discretionary choice that I had.

I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) directly a bit later in my remarks, when I get on to the terms of the loan that we are going to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think it has materially changed. I have been quite focused on trying to land it at the 5.9% rate, because that sits between the 6.1% and 5.7% rates of the other international parts of the package. That rate reflects some of the circumstances that relate to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention.

The IMF will charge a floating rate, with a margin above its funding costs, in line with its pre-existing loan terms for an extended fund facility. The European loans, like ours, will charge a fixed rate on each tranche set using a margin above their own cost of funds. We will charge interest every six months and there will be a repayment of the principal at the end of the 7.5-year term of each tranche.

In common with the IMF, we will also charge a commitment fee for making the loan. We will charge half a percentage point on the total amounts that may be drawn on under the loan agreement for the forthcoming 12-month period. If the loan is drawn on, the fee will be waived and effectively replaced with the interest charged on the loan.

There are two conditions, which are set out in terms to which I draw the House’s particular attention. The first is that the IMF, as well as the EU, must be satisfied that Ireland is complying with the agreed restructuring plan. I think that that is a very important safeguard for British taxpayers. The second, crucial, condition is that there must be

“no amendments to the Restructuring Plan that would have a material adverse financial impact on the UK operations of Anglo Irish bank, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland”.

Given the scale of those banks’ operations in the UK, that second condition is significant, and it shows in a practical way why I believe it was right for us to provide the loan. It allows us to have a say in a restructuring plan that could otherwise have had a major impact on the UK and its banking system, and could potentially have cost the British taxpayer considerable sums of money without our voice even being heard. Making the loan has enabled us to set that condition, and to be part of the discussion about the restructuring plan and its impact on the UK subsidiaries of banks which have significant presences in Northern Ireland. I know that there is concern about the potential impact of the plan on jobs and the availability of credit in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, about its potential impact throughout the UK, given that Bank of Ireland owns the Post Office card account.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

What the Chancellor is saying is particularly pertinent, given that the Post Office cash machine in Portcullis House was provided by the Irish banks.

May I ask a quick question?

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Give him a job; it would be easier.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

A quick question to the Chancellor, that is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

No interventions on an intervention, please.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Are we the only lender that is lending in a currency other than the euro?

[Mr Osborne]

Sweden and Denmark are at this moment finalising their loan agreement, and I do not think they have yet made that decision. As I have said, we decided to lend in sterling so that the exchange rate risk would be borne by the Irish rather than the British Government.

The official advice from the Treasury is that the loan agreement represents value for money for the British taxpayer. As I said earlier, it is also in line with the terms offered by both the IMF and the eurozone. I have laid before the House a summary of the key terms of the agreement, and a final written agreement will be forthcoming in the next few days—or, potentially, weeks—once the European and IMF assistance has also been agreed. I will, of course, keep the House informed.

One thing is clear: Ireland is a friend in need, and it is because our economy is currently in a stronger position than Ireland’s that we are able to offer it such reasonable and sensible terms for our bilateral loan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the single currency gives Ireland no mechanism to devalue its currency, and that that causes it a problem. However, there are two extremes to that argument. The first says that the eurozone is unfinished business; what started as a currency harmonisation needs to move to the next stage. I heard the president of the European Central Bank say on the radio last night that the next stage should be political integration. My party does not agree with that; nor I am sure does the hon. Gentleman’s. Further integration is one extreme that we should not go to.

The second extreme says that if Ireland simply withdrew from the euro or the eurozone, its problems would be solved. I do not believe that to be the case. The eurozone has to recognise the problem that its countries cannot devalue and must find a mechanism that ensures that this problem does not keep happening to country after country. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has a view, as do many of his colleagues, on the answer to this ongoing problem. I do not agree with him, but I believe that it is central to stop this happening to other countries, and to stop it being a regular event. The fragility of the recovery, especially in Europe, emphasises the need for decisive action to resolve the underlying difficulties faced by eurozone countries.

The situation in Ireland is a huge embarrassment for the Chancellor, exposing as it does his poor judgment and rich hyperbole. At the time of the comprehensive spending review, he claimed that our country was on the brink of bankruptcy. He now proposes a loan of an amount that is well over half the cumulative debt interest savings that he claimed he would make over the spending review period. There is also the paradox of his support for Ireland’s banks, but his opposition to the previous Government’s successful measures to protect British banks.

Finally, there is the Chancellor’s frequently expressed belief that Britain should look to Ireland for inspiration, which he expressed both before the banking crisis, when he urged us to emulate the “Irish miracle”, and since the crisis, with his desire to copy some of Ireland’s painful austerity measures. His gloriously misjudged 2006 article in The Times is now well known:

“Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking”.

He is in good company. I shall quote from the Prime Minister in the Belfast Telegraph on 26 October 2006.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

Financial Assistance (Ireland)

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I would say to those students, and, indeed, to the hon. Gentleman, who represents them, that their prospects of getting a job later in their lives depend on a stable UK economy that is growing and a stable Irish economy that is not having contagion effects on the UK or anywhere else. That is why we are taking action domestically to put our own house in order. Even his students, I am sure, would recognise that, in the end, we cannot live beyond our means and we cannot sustain an economy on debt alone. I am also sure that if his students asked themselves what connections they had to Ireland, they would find quite a lot of connections in their family, in the businesses that they know about and the like. Our two economies are interconnected.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

People at home will be listening to this statement, or they will read it tomorrow, and wonder whether we can borrow a few more billion and spend a few more billion. Does the Chancellor agree that market concerns over sovereign debt remain, and that the priority for the coalition Government must be to keep the UK out of the financial danger zone?

[Mr Osborne]

The sovereign debt concerns are very heightened at the moment—that is a statement of the obvious—and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who represents the country with the largest budget deficit in the G20, and the largest budget deficit in the EU until Ireland started to overtake us, must make moving Britain out of the financial danger zone their immediate priority, which is what this Government have done.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I shall speak very briefly in support of all three amendments in this group—those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), and even the one that I have tabled.

As drafted, the Bill leaves practically everything to the discretion of the Treasury, which I find objectionable. I remind the Committee of what Winston Churchill said about people at the Treasury—that they were

“like inverted Micawbers, waiting for something to turn down”.

The chance of their coming to any generous conclusion for people who suffered in the Equitable Life scandal is very small. The courts have held that bodies given discretion are not allowed to fetter their own discretion. It is therefore necessary for the House to fetter the discretion of the Treasury.

I strongly support the view that we should not allow a situation in which the most elderly people will be excluded from compensation. In view of the fact that everyone places so much weight on the ombudsman’s contribution, I strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, which suggests that we should give her a further look at what is being proposed. It will be preposterous if, in trying to do what the ombudsman wants, we end up doing something that she thinks is unsatisfactory and inadequate. The reasoning behind the amendment in my name is the same.

I do not wish to say any more, but the House should do its proper job of telling the Treasury what the rules should be when it considers the matter. I am not getting at Ministers; I am getting at the Treasury as an organisation. It does not have a good record, and ethics and decency are not major considerations for it. They never have been, and perhaps they should not be its major considerations, but we should bear them in mind, so that we can bear down upon the Treasury.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) made an impassioned and moral argument for amendment 1, to which I shall return later.

I have taken a very keen interest in this issue. It has affected a significant number of people in Stratford-on-Avon, to the extent that I have had hundreds of letters and e-mails about it. Like many other Members, I signed the EMAG pledge before the election, and I believe that backing the Government to get the Bill through is delivering on that pledge.

It is probably worth our spending just a few moments thinking about the economic landscape in which we are operating. We are borrowing about £500 million a day. Every time we go to sleep and wake up in the morning, we notch up another £500 million. To service the debt costs about £120 million a day—that is not to pay it down, but just to stand still. It is against that background that we must try to resolve the tragedy of Equitable Life.

Let me spend a couple of minutes on the timelines of the events. In 1988, Equitable Life stopped selling its guaranteed annuity rate policies and, in 1990, those policies became too expensive to honour because of the falls in interest rates and in inflation. In 1999, after the 1997 election, Equitable cut its bonus paid to 90,000 GAR policyholders. In July 2000, the House of Lords ruled that Equitable Life must meet its obligations to its GAR policyholders, thus leaving it with a £1.5 billion liability.

In February 2001, the Halifax agreed to pay £1 billion for the assets. In July, with-profits policyholders saw the value of their savings slashed by 16%—by almost one fifth. In August, Lord Penrose announced his investigation. In October, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the Treasury Committee that the previous Labour Government might consider compensation for some victims if a grave injustice had occurred.

In January 2002, policyholders backed a compromise package. In March 2004, the Penrose report blamed Equitable Life’s management for the whole affair. Following the report’s publication, the Government ruled out compensation and were accused in this House of abandoning policyholders. In April, the parliamentary ombudsman announced that she would reopen her investigation.

In 2007, the European Parliament called on the UK Government to compensate policyholders. In January 2008, Equitable agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to 407 with-profits annuitants who launched proceedings in 2004. The ombudsman’s report was published in 2008. The previous Government said that they would respond by the autumn. When the deadline was missed, the then Prime Minister said that they would respond before Christmas. However, they did not respond until the new year.

In August 2009, Sir John Chadwick published his first interim report, and in March 2010—more than a year after his appointment—he published his third and final interim report with a promise of a final report in May 2010. That date was subsequently extended to July.

I go through these events in chronological order to demonstrate the pain that the victims of Equitable Life have had to go through. This is a true human tragedy. The hon. Member for Leeds North East talked about the e-mails and letters that he has received from his constituents, and the same is happening in all our constituencies.

The Government’s offer is a very good one. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) said that, at best, he expected them to offer up to £1 billion. Many colleagues and I voiced our concerns the last time we debated this matter in the Chamber. When one makes a pledge, one must try to honour it.

[Richard Fuller]

Like many of us, my hon. Friend is wrestling with this question of fairness and with the political obligation to find a fair payment scheme that was mentioned in the Public Administration Committee and that many of us have signed up to. Hon. Members from both sides of the Committee are caught between wanting to praise the Minister for the swiftness of his recommendations—we praise him for that—and finding, in these difficult times, £1.5 billion. We often talk about that figure in comparison with the Chadwick number. However, does my hon. Friend not accept that we should view the figure with respect to what the Government themselves have said about policyholders’ relative loss, which Towers Watson estimated at, I think, £4.3 billion? Does £1.5 billion represent meeting our obligation of fairness if it is set against the relative figure of £4.3 billion that the Government themselves have accepted?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is quite right: the figure is £4.3 billion. I, too, have wrestled with the problem. In the current economic climate, offering £1.5 billion to the victims is fair and it delivers on the promise that many of us have signed up to. I hope that many colleagues will support the Government to expedite the process and finally get money flowing to the victims, something that we hope will happen by the middle of next year. The figure of £1.5 billion is about four times higher than the £340 million that victims would have received if the coalition Government had accepted the Chadwick report, which is what we feared would happen. I am very comfortable with the sum being offered.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I accept my hon. Friend’s premise that the amount is considerably higher than the previous Government proposed. I also accept that we are in a desperate situation in which we are paying £120 million a day to service a debt. That is outrageous and clearly we must focus on that. However, a way around the challenge is the one that I have presented to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which is to urge the Treasury to revisit the matter in five years’ time for the second tranche of the £500 million. By then, the economy will be transformed and we will be in a stronger position. Does my hon. Friend not agree that while the £1.5 billion seems a very generous sum at the minute, a little flexibility from the Treasury means that the further £500 million could be revisited in five years’ time?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

rose—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I remind Members that interventions should be short and that this is not a Second or Third Reading debate? We are speaking to the amendments that are before us and if we focus on them, we will make quicker progress.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, having listed that extraordinary chronology of debacles, it is clear that there could be a problem if we left things open and said, “We might be able to revisit them at some other stage.” We would be opening up other doors, and that may cause further delay. I come from a world of business rather than of politics and I believe that, if we try to put a line under a terrible situation and compensate people, we should do it quickly and completely.

Mr Evans, I take on board your remarks. All I will say is that the Minister should be applauded. There will be no means-testing and the dependants of the deceased policyholders should be included in any compensation. I have had a number of heartrending letters in which relatives have written, saying, “It is too late for us because our loved ones have passed away.”

I understand the passion that the hon. Member for Leeds North East has shown through amendment 1. The problem with the amendment was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who said that it was very difficult to put a quantum on what that number should be. In the current economic climate, I would find it hard to support it if we said, “Oh well, maybe it is £100 million extra from reserves; maybe it’s £100 million that we can bring in from future years.” None the less, the hon. Gentleman made a strong point about the annuitants from 1991 going forward, and I hope that the Minister was listening carefully.

[Mr Fabian Hamilton]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that creating an arbitrary date—which is what the cut-off point would be—would lead to a great deal of anger and distress among some of the oldest and most vulnerable policyholders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The hon. Gentleman would be right if the date were purely arbitrary. However, the ombudsman stated that the malpractice occurred in 1991, so the date is not quite as the hon. Gentleman puts it. It has not been plucked out of the air.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Leaving aside the economic difficulties that we face, is not the central problem that when we put a cap on something, we have to make it work? Therefore, we have to arrive at a certain formula to make the cap work, because we are largely in the hands of the Treasury, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said earlier. Unless we get a grip on the Treasury, we will find ourselves in similar situations, and it is my guess that the Treasury has imposed the cap.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. What I would say is that, in contrast to the quotation from Winston Churchill earlier, my observation as a new boy to this House over the past six months is that the Treasury has behaved positively. We must remember that we will be administering public money. The Government have no money of their own; rather, we collect money on behalf of the people and then we administer it. It would be foolhardy and perhaps even foolish for us to say, “Let’s have somebody else administer public money.” At the end of the day, people have to have someone who is accountable, and we are accountable, as is the Treasury.

Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that the Treasury takes into account a proper evaluation of the total relative losses when determining payments—that is, the figure should not be £4.3 billion, but could be much higher. I strongly disagree with that. Many EMAG members have written to me, lobbying me to see the matter differently, but I have to say that I disagree. Given the current economic hardship, we all face an incredibly difficult situation, in which we are all having to tighten our belts. To deliver compensation of £1.5 billion at this time is entirely fair.

Amendment 2 is in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds North East and all I would say to him is that I understand the thrust of his argument that we should consider what the ombudsman says about the behaviour and actions of the coalition Government in dealing with the issue. However, I would rather get things done and dusted, and have something delivered to the victims than procrastinate further and wait for longer.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I can fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) said about the Government’s proposals being clearly better than what was offered by the previous Government. Frankly, that is not a very hard test to pass. The real test for us in this Committee is surely not whether what we have from this Government is better than what we had from the previous Government. It clearly is better. Rather, we as a Committee have to see whether it is as good as what is set out in the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings and recommendations.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Just to offer some explanation, what the Government have delivered is not just better than what the previous Government were thinking about—or dithering about—trying to deliver. I also believe that there was a point in this Parliament when the coalition Government were seriously considering implementing only what Chadwick had recommended, but we have moved away from that. We have buried that, and we are now in a much better place for the victims of Equitable Life.

[Mark Durkan]

My point still stands: the test is a fairly easy one. The Chadwick report was so grossly inadequate as not to be a credible starting point for any Government. Many of us said that to the previous Government, including the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton)—very bravely, loudly and consistently—and many of us have said it to this Government as well.

For us as Members of the Houses of Parliament, the test that many people will apply is: what regard do we have to the findings and recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman? As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) stressed earlier, the public understand the parliamentary ombudsman to be a creature of Parliament and to have some weight and merit in Parliament’s considerations. However, the previous Government acted pretty dismissively towards the ombudsman. What we have in some of the amendments before us is an attempt to show clearly that this House will give proper weight to what the parliamentary ombudsman is saying.

We all received a letter from the parliamentary ombudsman about some of the Government’s proposals. Given that, is it wrong that we should reference the judgment of the parliamentary ombudsman—as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is suggesting we do with amendment 2—perhaps as a way of moving on from the scandal and confusion that many feel surrounds the fact that the ombudsman was largely ignored by the Government and, in effect, by Parliament for so long?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates that we are talking about the oldest and most vulnerable people, and that they have been dealt with in a most disgraceful way following this scandal. We have a moral duty to compensate them.

Going back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), it is clear that when the bonuses that were attached early in the process are taken into account, some policyholders might not receive a penny piece in compensation. We need to recognise that, but there is an 18-month gap between the cut-off dates. A large number of the retired people who had taken out annuities could not adjust them once they had purchased them, and they are now trapped in that position. That is why we have a moral duty to compensate them.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

What action would my hon. Friend recommend? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North mentioned the possibility of people being judged to have received too much. Should we take that money away from them? The malpractice took place in 1991, and we should be talking about 1991, not about 1992 or about an open-ended process.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, if exorbitant bonuses were attached to certain policies, the policyholders would not be due compensation and they would not receive a penny piece. Remember, we are talking about compensation. We cannot take money off policyholders who have been receiving pensions. Parliament just cannot do that; it would be a retrograde tax and therefore unacceptable. Those who are due compensation should receive it, but those who are not due any would not receive any, and if they have benefited in the meantime, well, that is fine and dandy for them.

--- Later in debate ---

At the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that about £1.5 billion of funding will be provided for the Equitable Life payment scheme. As hon. Members have said, that is more than four times the figure produced by the Chadwick process, which was set in motion by the Opposition. The funding includes the full cost of losses to policyholders with with-profits annuity policies—approximately £620 million—which will be paid through regular payments. That amount is to cover those with with-profits annuity policies, whose policies started between 1 September 1992 and 31 December 2000. As hon. Members have indicated, those who took out with-profits annuity policies prior to 1992—in fact, not just with-profits annuitants but anyone who took out a policy prior to 1 September 1992—are excluded from the scheme. The Government are committed to implementing the ombudsman’s recommendation to introduce a fair and transparent payment scheme to Equitable Life policyholders for their relative loss as a result of regulatory failure. That is what the ombudsman asked us to do, and that is what we are implementing. The Bill authorises us to make payment under the scheme.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Is it not precisely the point that, rather than being an open-ended compensation scheme, the scheme relates to malpractice?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our obligation is to compensate people for regulatory failure by the Government when they were the regulator of Equitable Life. The scheme is not an open-ended compensation scheme. It is very focused, and that was the ombudsman’s recommendation. Her locus in this matter is a consequence of the Government having acted as the regulator for Equitable Life during the period in question.

Let me explain to the Committee and to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), who raised the question, why 1 September 1992 is a logical, not arbitrary, date. The ombudsman indicated in her report that there were problems with the regulatory returns for 1991, and that those could influence policyholder behaviour. However, they could not have come to the attention of policyholders, and prospective policyholders, before they were submitted at the end of June 1992. No policyholder would have been aware of that regulatory failure until the returns had been published. It is unlikely that those returns would have come to anyone’s attention prior to 1 September 1992. I stress that the date is not arbitrary, but a consequence of the ombudsman’s findings and how they impact on what policyholders would have been aware of. Policyholders would not have been aware of the regulatory failure until the autumn of 1992.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I will test the Financial Secretary’s arithmetic a little further. Has he worked out what that advantage is over and above the £1.5 billion?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is difficult to calculate that because, as he will recognise, the tax status of Equitable Life policyholders varies. Some pay no tax, some pay tax at the 20p rate, some pay tax at the 40p rate, and some may even pay tax at the 50p rate. The value will depend on their tax status, and we do not have sufficient access to taxpayers’ records to be able to match Equitable Life policyholders with their tax records, so we cannot calculate the benefit. However, he will appreciate that it could provide a significant benefit to some policyholders, and I hope that they will recognise that when they receive their payments. We have sought to be as generous as possible in the tax and benefits treatment for that purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The mere fact that it is 10 November 2010 and I am standing here delivering a speech on Third Reading is something of which I am incredibly proud. This is a sobering Bill, which is long overdue. I thought in Committee that I heard the shadow Minister apologise, but, sadly, I know from listening to his remarks that he obviously has no remorse. Behind him are the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), who have been passionate advocates for the victims of Equitable Life and incredible champions for their cause, and they have had to listen to their Front-Bench spokesman speak with forked tongue. He says, on the one hand, that Labour wants to champion the victims of Equitable Life, many of whom sadly have not survived to see this day, but on the other that it did not promise anything. Labour let the victims down in the previous Parliament and tried to get away with delivering what Chadwick recommended.

The Front-Bench spokesman for the coalition Government is to be commended, because we are debating a figure that is four times the amount that Chadwick recommended. I remind the House of the economic landscape that we have inherited. We are borrowing £500 million a day; every time we go to bed and wake up in the morning, we have been saddled with another £500 million of debt by the previous Government. Just paying the interest on that debt costs £120 million a day—just to stand still. Against that background, and within six months of this Parliament, we have been able to deliver the Third Reading of this Bill for victims of the Equitable Life tragedy.

I want to highlight some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), chairman of the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders, has made. He has made some forceful points, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans). It is important to remember what we heard from the Minister about the additional money that will come as a result of the tax treatment of the payments. He would be right to say that he had already shared this information with us but that it was hidden in the detail. That important point needs further airing.

I repeat a recommendation that I made in Committee, although I know it would be complex: it would be incredibly helpful for us all if the additional benefit for different tax bands provided by that tax treatment could be calculated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East rightly reminded us, many hon. Members signed the pledge on Equitable Life before the election. I am proud that I signed it and many of my colleagues and I believe that we have absolutely delivered on it. There is a lot of detail to get through and we will all work very hard to ensure that we deliver for the victims of Equitable Life. I hope that the shadow Minister will reflect on his remarks and feel that he could take some of them back. I hope also that he will be much more considered next time he speaks on this topic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the previous Government had acted, and acted sooner, more compensation would have been payable to the victims?

[Bob Blackman]

If the Labour Government had acted when they should have done, £1.5 billion would have represented 100% compensation for everyone that had been so badly wronged. However, the dragging of feet over the past 10 years means that we are in the parlous state in which, ever day, people who should be due their compensation are dying and every day that we delay means that, sadly, more people will not receive their compensation.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I shall make a couple of observations. First, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—the hon. Lady is, after all, quoting its forecast, so I presume that she would accept its whole forecast—has predicted that unemployment will fall and that more private sector jobs will be created. Secondly, she must accept—even the deficit deniers in the Labour party must accept it, and they admitted it during the general election—that there would have been a reduction in the public sector head count if there had been a Labour Government. I do not know whether the hon. Lady agrees with that—she can shake her head, nod or whatever—but that is the truth. We have had to make some decisions, but there is a high turnover in the public sector anyway, so we hope that much of this can be accommodated by posts not being filled. There will be redundancies—I think the Labour party has accepted that there would have been redundancies under its plan—but we are going to do everything we can to deal with that situation and help those people to find work. In the end, however, the current size of the budget deficit means that we have to deal with this situation, or many, many more jobs would be at risk. Let us remember that this Government came into office with unemployment rising, and that is what we have had to deal with.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor, although very good at the jokes, demonstrated in his response his confusion about the difference between fiscal and structural deficit. I wondered whether the Chancellor could help by explaining that difference to him.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that we will go with that. With respect, Members must get into the habit of asking questions about the policy of the Government, not about advice to shadow Ministers. Let us get that straight.