Scottish Football (Tax Liabilities)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing an important debate, which has touched on a much wider set of issues than just Scottish football. It covered the importance of football, and football and sporting clubs, as cultural institutions within communities—institutions that help bind communities together. I thought that my hon. Friend’s remarks about Dunfermline, and in particular Cowdenbeath, were deeply informative. I confess I was not aware that Cowdenbeath were known as the Blue Brazil. I assume that that is to do with the shirts, and not the temperature in which they play north of the border; but it could be either, I guess.

Two broad sets of remarks have been made in the debate, and I want to frame mine against that context. I have already mentioned one of the areas covered: the importance of football clubs as cultural and community institutions that are integral parts of communities—aspects of communities that inspire pride, loyalty, aspiration and ambition in individuals, but which also act as standard bearers for those communities in the wider world. I do not think that anyone could deny that Rangers, Celtic—their great rival—and all the great clubs of Scotland have been standard bearers for Scotland in the world of sport and beyond.

Rangers, of course, are a great Scottish club, and the one that prompted today’s debate. We heard a bit of their 140-year history, and about the nine great championships that they won on the trot in Scotland, equalling, I believe, the Celtic record. I was not aware, until I started looking at this subject, that they are also the club that has won more national championships than any club in any national football league in the world. That is a measure of the club’s success. However, what we cannot understand by looking at the names inscribed on trophies and trophy walls in such clubs is the wider, deeper, historical, cultural and sporting significance of the club. Anyone who has been to Ibrox, as I have, as a great sports fan—though a Welshman, of course—knows the importance that the community attaches to it. It is right that we should be discussing the issue today, and framing our remarks in that context.

The other broad set of remarks on the sporting front was about the role of money in sport, and football in particular, as well as about ownership, the transparency of football club financing, and the sustainability of clubs in a world where money seems to be the prime driver, despite all those other—in many respects far more important— cultural, historical and community values associated with the role of the club. That is something that I, as a Welshman and a sports fan, feel is significant for a different code of football—rugby football. We have similar issues with the game in Wales. I agree with the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who made some remarks about the necessity for greater transparency about finances. He also said some things, to which I hope the Minister will pay attention, about the role of HMRC and the Government in seeking greater transparency in finances, ownership structure and the potential pitfalls and difficulties that clubs may encounter, in rugby and of course football. Clubs are businesses, yes; but they are more than just businesses.

However, in that context of clubs as businesses the role of HMRC is simple. Its job is to collect the taxes that are due in the appropriate volume and at the appropriate time. It is not often that I or other hon. Members quote judges; perhaps judges would feel that we do not do so approvingly. However, Lord Justice Mummery, in a recent tax case at the Court of Appeal, said rather appositely that

“tax is a contribution towards the costs of providing community and other benefits for the purposes of life in a civil society”.

That is a phrase that would have fallen, perhaps not as eloquently, but certainly as easily, from my lips. Tax is important to the wider community just as those football clubs are.

It is in those two contexts that I place my remarks. Individuals and businesses, however humble or, in the case of Rangers, mighty they are, need to pay their taxes. Therefore it is a matter of great regret to me that Rangers have not paid the £9 million in taxes that HMRC has said is outstanding for PAYE and VAT. That is why Rangers have gone into administration, which we deeply regret. As I understand things, HMRC is also looking at whether there may have been instances of tax avoidance. I am sure that the Minister will take great care over that, given his and my deep and continuing concern about tax avoidance. I know, in particular, that HMRC is interested, in the Rangers context, in the use of employee benefit trusts. There are several investigations in progress about EBTs, and, as I understand the matter, their use for payment of individuals working for Rangers, including players, plays a part in the non-transparency of the financial affairs. I will not go into further detail because I cannot: we do not have the detail that would make further comment possible. However, I should like assurances that the Minister is making himself certain that he understands, to the extent that he can, given the arm’s length nature of HMRC, the detail and complexity of the issues involved. I also ask him to consider the wider cultural set of understandings and sensitivities that HMRC needs to bring to bear in this case.

One of the other issues that has clearly come out of this debate is the importance of local knowledge and local understanding—the rootedness of Rangers in the local community. Under the current Government, in particular, and under the last Government, there has been a reduction in numbers of local HMRC staff. That reduction is being sped up under the current Government, with 10,000 more HMRC staff due to go before the end of the spending period; it was announced in January that 4,000 or so staff would go. Given that reduction and the potential loss of local knowledge, is the Minister certain that those people in HMRC who are dealing with Rangers in Scotland will understand the cultural context and have the requisite sensitivity to appreciate both the financial nexus locally—the interconnectedness of clubs and businesses that surround Rangers, and of course the connection between Rangers and the wider Scottish professional football league, which, as we have heard from hon. Members, is a crucial connection—and the cultural significance of Rangers for the local community?

Given the Minister’s slightly arm’s-length relationship with Revenue and Customs, has he been briefed in detail about Rangers, to the extent that he can be briefed about the issue? Does he feel that he is fully on top of the issue? Does he understand—I am sure he must—the importance of Rangers to the wider community and the wider sporting fraternity in Scotland? Is he certain that the HMRC people dealing with Rangers have the requisite expertise?

In closing, I will say a few things about the issue that I think is at the root of many of the problems that we have in football; there may be particularities around Rangers connected with the takeover of the club by Craig Whyte and the way that the club’s business has been managed since May 2011, but Rangers are not a unique case. The root cause of the problems that football clubs, rugby clubs and other sporting institutions across the length and breadth of this land are facing is to do with the role of money and the commercialisation—the commodification—of sport, whereby players and clubs are bought, sold and traded in a global marketplace that Governments in this country and elsewhere seem to have little control over, and perhaps they also have too little insight into the financial machinations and the rationale for the changes that happen. But if those changes come about, especially if they come about as dramatically as they have done with Rangers, and if they lead to the potential loss of great institutions that are of such cultural and financial importance to their local communities, Governments need to think about the extent to which they must improve their insight into those sporting institutions and those businesses, and consider their particularities. I hope that the Minister will comment on that issue too.

Finally, I will make what is perhaps a personal point. I echo the plea made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that we should look at alternative models of ownership for football clubs and that the Government should also become engaged in a discussion about those alternative models. In my capacity as a constituency MP, I have been working with Pontypridd rugby football club and other Welsh rugby clubs to look at FC United of Manchester, which is a fan-owned football club with extremely transparent structures and financial arrangements. Those sorts of arrangements may provide the key for the Government when they think about how to frame policy, not only at HMRC but more widely across government, that will help to ensure there is a greater degree of transparency in ownership, management and—crucially—sustainability for institutions that are not simply sporting institutions or businesses but, of course, a vital part of their local community.

[Damian Collins]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up on something that I said. I wanted to clarify that although there is a role for HMRC, before HMRC becomes involved there is a role for the competition organisers to act as whistleblowers and bring in the relevant authorities if they think there is a problem. The competition organisers should be the first port of call and then there should be recourse to a higher authority if they cannot sort out the problem themselves.

[Owen Smith]

Again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Clearly, there is a role not only for the authorities but for the clubs themselves—indeed, for the sport itself—to think about both the sport’s sustainability in the long term and the extent to which money is quite often eroding the ability of local clubs to represent a local community, whether that community is in Leeds, Pontypridd or, as in the case of Rangers, Glasgow. These clubs were not created for professional or financial benefit; they were created as part of community representation.

HMRC needs to reflect on that point when it deals reasonably, sensibly and even-handedly with those clubs, as it professes to do with all of the individuals and institutions with which it works. We have all encountered instances of individuals feeling that HMRC is not dealing with them even-handedly. I am sure that the Minister will want to assure us in a moment that HMRC always deals even-handedly with institutions and individuals. However, in this instance—a case in the public eye that is of such enormous importance, not only to Glasgow but to Scottish life in general and indeed to the representation of the UK on a wider, even global stage—I am also sure that he will want to make certain that HMRC painstakingly looks at the wider financial and cultural disbenefits of Rangers ever collapsing, and ensure that in collecting the tax, as it must indeed do, it understands that it must also make sure that that situation does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I do not know what advice the Scottish First Minister provided, if indeed he provided any. I know that there were discussions informing him of the issues, as was appropriate; for example, whether there were going to be any public order issues that could be related to progress on this particular matter. There was nothing in any way improper about a discussion with the First Minister in broad terms. Similarly, I assume that the discussions with Ministers of the UK Government were not about specific tax information, but in the broadest of terms.

[Owen Smith]

I appreciate what the Minister has said about the limited nature of the advice that he has been given by HMRC, given the nature of his relationship with HMRC. Can he tell us whether he in turn has impressed on HMRC that it needs to think of the wider financial nexus around Rangers, and of course the cultural significance of the club? It is a business, but it is not just a business.

[Mr Gauke]

HMRC is well aware of the significance of Rangers football club and its importance in Scotland. I have no doubt that HMRC is aware of that sensitivity. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Rangers should receive special treatment, but HMRC is aware of the importance of Rangers to Glasgow and to Scotland, and indeed to the UK more widely. I have no doubt about that.

I return to the issue of the support that businesses receive from HMRC, both generally and in respect of football. Of course, facing tough conditions, many businesses can stumble upon difficult times. That is why HMRC invests so much time and energy to support those businesses, whether they are start-ups or established large businesses, when they encounter difficulties.

I will focus on the support that is provided for the many thousands of businesses, large and small, through the time to pay arrangements, which allow them to spread the payment of their liabilities beyond the due date. That facility took on a more prominent role in November 2008 when the Business Payment Support Service was launched. Its purpose is to provide speedy access to quick decisions from HMRC for businesses facing short-term financial difficulties and who wish to discuss time to pay arrangements.

Many hundreds of thousands of businesses have accessed the service since its launch. The time to pay arrangements have helped hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers and businesses suffering short-term financial difficulties. This has been particularly helpful during the past four years, given the economic challenges that the UK has faced. HMRC will continue to offer that support service where it is appropriate to do so, although I make it clear that the facility is not there to prop up an insolvent business whose existence is dependent on not paying the taxes for which it is liable. That is why HMRC will probe deeper when a business comes back repeatedly to seek time to pay. Such repeat requests can indicate a more deep-rooted financial difficulty, which can mean a time to pay arrangement is unlikely to be the appropriate outcome.

At a time when the public finances are as they are, it is crucial that businesses and individuals pay the tax that is due. That is a point that every speaker has made this afternoon. Businesses and individuals who do not pay their taxes are restricting growth and getting an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules. The Government are committed to levelling the playing field for the compliant majority. Even as HMRC puts in place services to support businesses, small and large, to realise that ambition, it also expects all businesses, be they football clubs or not, to be run effectively from a tax management point of view.

As reported in the media, it is true that in recent years some football clubs have had poor compliance records for the payment of tax liabilities. I am not talking about the payment of tax on profits; I am referring to the PAYE and national insurance that the clubs have deducted from their players and other employees and the VAT that they have charged their customers. Too often some football clubs have used those moneys, which were never theirs, to fund their business, because they have overstretched themselves in other areas. Many hon. Members will doubtless have views on why that situation has arisen, and why clubs so often apparently spend more than they can afford. I think all hon. Members will agree that it would not be right for taxpayers to fund such shortfalls.

However, things have begun to change. One practical way was when the previous chairman of the English football league, Lord Mawhinney, approached HMRC to explore how they—the football league authorities and HMRC—could work together to reduce the levels of tax debts in the football league.

From those initial discussions emerged a working arrangement that remains in place today. All English football league clubs consented to HMRC sharing information with the football league on their payment compliance in respect of PAYE and national insurance. Not only does any club that withholds those taxes face decisive action by HMRC, it will also encounter sanctions from the football league.

However, the issue is not always about sticks. The carrot is that eventually, all clubs will compete on an even basis. No club should benefit over another simply because it retains taxpayers’ money to fund its operation. That is an absurd proposition, with which I know hon. Members will disagree.

The decisive action taken by HMRC and collaboration with the football league authority has paid dividends. Similar arrangements are now in place with the Irish Football Association and the football conference, which is the tier immediately below the football league.

In addition, some months ago HMRC met the Scottish premier league and the Scottish football league authorities to explore whether similar arrangements could be put in place for the top four divisions of football in Scotland. Further discussions are scheduled soon on that proposal. HMRC will meet the Scottish leagues next week to monitor the payment of taxes, which addresses one of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I have provoked the hon. Gentleman. Before we go too far off the topic, I will let him come in.

[Owen Smith]

I want to confirm that the Minister is saying that there will be 10,000 further jobs going under this Government over the spending period, as well as the 4,000 job losses announced in January.

[Mr Gauke]

The working assumption is as I have said, and as is in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is redeployment within that, so that there are additional staff dealing with tax evasion. There is capability to reduce the number of staff working in processing, where the use of new technology can substantially reduce the need for manual work.

I cannot comment on the case of Rangers specifically, but I assure the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that HMRC is working with the administrators, alongside other creditors, to reach the best solution for the public purse and the club. We have heard how Rangers going out of business would be a disaster for Scottish football. The purpose of administration is to save the club and to ensure that creditors get as much as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

We are working with banks on the details behind the national loan guarantee scheme. We have set aside £20 billion to enable the rates that are charged to small businesses to fall by up to 1%. The utilisation of the scheme will very much be driven by the demand from businesses for debt finance.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Chief Secretary appeared not to know too much about what the Work programme was going to do to deal with unemployment. This morning, the National Audit Office tells us that the programme will fail to get a third of the people the Government are targeting back into work. Can Ministers now tell us how much extra this latest failure to tackle unemployment will cost the Exchequer?

[Mr Hoban]

The NAO’s report this morning was based on guesswork. The scheme has not been fully implemented and there are no published figures as yet on the out-turn for the scheme. Let me just say that private sector providers expect that this scheme will be more effective than the schemes put in place by previous Governments.

Regional Pay (Public Sector)

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies]

I am sure that Mr William Graham will be extremely honoured to be quoted in a debate in this House. I will tell him about that when I speak to him later today, as I have arranged to do—[Interruption.]—not on this issue, but on another one that will be of particular interest to Welsh Members across the board.

This issue has the potential to distort local markets. That was my view 30 years ago, and I still see that potential now. I should have thought that I would have found a measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr in our discussions on Sunday morning, because there are significant questions about the difficulty of transferring from one area to another, for example, and whether inflexibilities will be introduced into the market. There are a host of other issues to consider, too.

We need an inquiry. I understand that one or two Opposition Members feel that the inquiry may not look across the board. I would be disappointed if that were so. We need an inquiry that will bring forward the information that all of us, including the Chancellor, need to make a balanced judgment. The appropriate time for that to happen that will be in six months.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to speak to his boss, the Secretary of State for Wales, and perhaps even the Chancellor, because, as he just learned from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), there is not a review? A series of letters have been sent to the national pay review bodies, asking them to consider the matter. Will he take up the challenge and tell the Chancellor that there ought to be a public review, and that trade unions and other bodies absolutely ought to be involved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Chope; happy new year.

I, too, offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on securing this important debate, which, as he has rightly pointed out, will be one of the defining debates in respect of economic policy over the coming period. He made a series of telling and well argued points. It was slightly ironic to hear a nationalist Member of the House arguing in effect in favour of collective bargaining on a national, British basis right across the UK. Nevertheless, it was a very interesting point.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I make no apologies for what I said, because at the moment sovereignty over these issues resides in this place, and as someone who has been sent here to represent the ordinary working people of Carmarthenshire, I will continue to do so as long as that is the case.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and pleased that he makes no apologies for what he said. I entirely agree with the arguments that he made in respect of solidarity and collaboration right across the UK for people who have similar interests across Britain, whichever area of the country they live in. I wholeheartedly share his views about that, which is why I am a Unionist, not a nationalist, on today of all days.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who made a powerful speech, and of course the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who I am delighted is taking up the challenge of telling the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we need a proper review to address this very complex issue—as he described it—as opposed to a couple of private letters to the heads of the national pay review bodies.

Public sector workers must wake up every morning wondering what this Government will do to them next. We have seen the continuing pay freeze; we have seen additional cuts in wages when inflation is taken into account for the next two years; we have seen the 3% additional effective cut in wages as a result of the changes in public sector pensions; and 710,000 public sector workers, up from the 400,000 previously admitted to, are waiting to see whether they will be in a job at the end of this spending period.

Against that backdrop, there was the bombshell in the Chancellor’s autumn statement that regional pay will be re-examined. The Chancellor said that the evidence suggests that regional pay should be considered, because there are disparities between pay bands in the public sector across the UK. As we know, the Chancellor is very keen on evidence-based policy, so I thought that I would assess the evidence in respect of regional pay to date, because we have some experience of it.

London weighting is well established. It is a means of trying to deal with the problems, particularly in respect of housing, for people working in London on lower public sector wages. The previous Government sought to expand that by looking at key worker status and further help for key workers in London. As several hon. Members have said today, and as the Chancellor said repeatedly when he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee, we also have the experience of the Courts Service. However, the Chancellor has been slightly less than fair with the facts in respect of the Courts Service. The fact is that the Courts Service changes that were introduced in 2008—the previous Labour Government introduced zonal pay and five zones across the UK—were a significant improvement on the disparities that existed hitherto. The Courts Service came together in 2005. There was a merger involving the magistrates courts, the county courts, the Crown court and the Supreme Court. Before that point, more than 50 rates of pay were being applied across the Courts Service, so we went from 50 to five. The reality is that despite protestations by some of the unions at the time, most members happily opted into that service; indeed, more than 95% did so.

Opposition Members, who believe in evidence-based policy, would like the Government properly to review the experience of workers in the Courts Service. They should consider retention, rates of pay and the way in which the system has facilitated movement or otherwise across the country, and bring that to the table as part of the evidence for the current proposal.

[Glyn Davies]

It has become fashionable for Opposition Members to disown the policies of the previous Government and, in fact, to disown their own policies at the start of this Government. I have listened to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who has discussed the five regional zones and evidence-based policy. He has described the current proposal as a bombshell, which indicates to me that he has no interest in the results of the inquiry. All we are hearing is knee-jerk opposition to make a point before we have even heard the facts.

[Owen Smith]

For the third time, I have to tell the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that there is no inquiry. A couple of letters have gone from the Chancellor to the heads of the pay review bodies asking them to come forward with evidence on how local pay might reflect local market conditions, which is not an open inquiry. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had taken up the challenge to appeal for an inquiry.

The world has changed since the policies were implemented in 2008 on the Courts Service, which took place in an economy that was growing right across the UK. The world has changed. When the facts change, we reconsider our views, and we are doing that right now. We are thinking about the meaning of the Government’s proposals on regional pay and what the evidence shows us. We will come to a considered view when we know what the Government are proposing, but let us look at the evidence.

Of course, it was a previous Tory Chancellor, in the 1990s, who first talked about introducing regional pay on a much wider scale. What happened in the NHS? Local bits of the NHS were given the right to conduct local bargaining, but they lacked the necessary experience and were unable properly to assess local market conditions. As a consequence, there was more than a year’s delay before regional pay bands were set. When regional pay bands were set, the differential across the country was 0.1%. The rationale for that was, of course, that managers understood that, given the problems and complexity that widespread differentials would throw up, a collective agreement right across the country was the best possible option. The Chancellor agreed, and a year later he took back the power, concerned that there might have been spiralling costs had the situation continued.

[Hywel Williams]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will give way in a moment.

NHS trusts have the capacity to engage in a greater degree of differentiation, but by and large they do not do so, because they accept that it would be unfair and lead to unintended consequences. We saw some such unintended consequences when the police looked into regional pay. In the London Metropolitan area, there was an agreement a few years ago to offer a much higher rate of pay to Metropolitan police officers. The unintended consequence was that officers transferred in droves from the areas around central London, and outer metropolitan boroughs consequently had to set higher rates themselves. Such a policy leads to unintended consequences and involves significant risks, so the Government need to think carefully before they pursue it.

[Hywel Williams]

I do not want to dwell on the policies of the previous Government, because I think that those of the current one are infinitely more damaging, but before we leave 2008, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the previous Government were not considering regional pay in any other part of the public sector apart from HM Courts Service? Was it just the Courts Service?

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not in the House in 2008, but as far as I am aware, we introduced the policy in the Courts Service and there was further consideration. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), certainly talked about regional pay, but we did not introduce it in other areas. At the end of our period in government, there had been some experimentation in respect of the Courts Service, but we did not introduce the policy elsewhere.

Let us look at what happened at the Courts Service and consider where we go from here, because there are significant risks. At the time, the Government, and certainly the Treasury, understood that there were risks. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has mentioned the Treasury paper in 2004-05, which stated that

“extremely devolved arrangements are not desirable. There are risks of workers being treated differently for no good reason. There could be dangers of leapfrogging and parts of the public sector competing against each other for the best staff.”

That takes us to the motive: why have the Government now decided to bring this forward? If it was not a good idea a few years ago, why is it a good idea now? The reason is, of course, found in the two issues that they have with the public and private sectors. First, they believe in a totally outmoded, almost Manichean split—the public sector is bad, bloated and inefficient and the private sector is good, lean, hungry and eager to work. That is their understanding.

Secondly, the Government have a thoroughly outmoded notion that cutting the public sector and effectively forcing people to transfer to the private sector—through actively cutting jobs, as we heard was the strategy in the Budget, or through reducing regional pay, as we now hear might be the strategy—will somehow inflate the private sector. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. It is a totally misguided prescription, and one I fear that the Government will repeat.

The Treasury has said that the reason for looking at getting rid of national pay bargaining is to produce

“an economic reform to boost regions of the economy that are over-dependent on the public sector. All the evidence is that flexible public sector pay to reflect local labour market conditions will allow the private sector to flourish.”

Show us the money and show us the evidence, because we cannot see it at the moment. We can see a pamphlet with a lot of inflammatory language about the Manichean split between the fat public sector and the lean and hungry private sector from a think-tank which is pretty close to the Prime Minister and which some would say is a free-market, right-wing organisation, but apart from that I do not see a lot of evidence to support the position.

I suspect that the Minister will come out with some inflammatory comparisons, but I hope that she will not. We have heard so often about paramedics earning 16% more in the public sector than in the private sector, and I hope that we will not hear such unnecessary and unfair comparisons now. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies itself has said, such comparisons do not take into account the fact that there are invariably older and more experienced workers with better qualifications in the public sector. When such factors are taken into account, the differential between the public sector and their private sector counterparts is perhaps only 2%.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. This morning, the Bevan Foundation responded to the debate by stating that the IFS figures do not compare like with like and that it is deeply misleading to use the figures in that way.

[Owen Smith]

I entirely agree. The evidence is shaky and a leap of faith is required—just as we were meant to believe that cutting the public sector would lead to a flourishing private sector. As we have heard, there is no reasonable basis for making that leap of faith. On job creation in the public versus private sector, we learned that in the last quarter, for every 13 jobs lost in the public sector, only one was created in the private sector. That is the reality of what is happening in the economy. We should not take, with any degree of faith, the Government’s reassurances that changing regional pay will make a key difference.

On both sides of the House, we have come to understand that fairness is an important theme in modern politics. In politics, we seem to be tussling daily over who can be the fairest, and the Government have to stand against the test of fairness on this issue. They need to answer the question whether it is fair to target public sector workers once more to pick up the bill for a crisis in our economy that they did not cause. Is it fair for the Government to implement a policy that will once more impact disproportionately on less affluent areas that have greater health problems due to the legacy of heavy industry and other issues? Is it fair to implement a policy that will suck demand out of their economies and further reduce the incomes of people living there?

The Government have a manifestly failing economic strategy to reduce the deficit that has led, on their admission, to an increased level of borrowing— £158 billion extra is being borrowed as a result of the their policy. That is why they are thrashing around looking for extra savings and why they are countenancing further unfair and destructive measures. They need to think hard about the policy, conduct a proper review and provide evidence to substantiate their dangerous claims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

Absolutely—which I am clearly not ready for at 10 to 11 on a Tuesday morning.

The point that I was going to make, which is the most important one that I want to leave behind in this debate, is that the Government have set out no detailed proposals at this stage. As I think all hon. Members know, the proposal that has been made so far, through the autumn statement and subsequently, is only to ask the experts how public sector pay might better reflect local markets. I, for one, do not have a problem with that being done by letter. I hear what hon. Members have said about that. However, I am also particularly delighted that the hon. Member for Pontypridd changes his mind when facts change. I hope that in this case also he will wait for the evidence.

[Owen Smith]

Does the Minister accept that the Chancellor has clearly indicated that he is in favour of the reform? He spoke before the Treasury Committee, and no one can be in any doubt that he thinks it is a good idea.

[Miss Smith]

It is perfectly possible to think that something is a good idea and then to ask experts how it could happen.

The Economy

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Glyn Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I am not absolutely certain that I picked up his point. Governments and institutions have to work as closely together as possible for the benefit of the people they all serve.

First, inward investment has historically been strong in Wales. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills told the Welsh Affairs Committee that Wales was doing relatively badly. I think Wales is doing very badly indeed; last year only 3% of inward investment in the UK went to Wales. In the two previous years the proportion was 6%, which is about what one would expect given the population of each country. In the days when Lord Walker was Secretary of State for Wales, it was 20% for two or three years in a row. There was a major focus on Welsh links to the most successful parts of Europe, such as Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Barcelona and Lombardy. There was a strong relationship with Japan, which in those days was aggressively developing its economy throughout the world. A lot of investment was going to Wales, and we need that sort of advantage. When I became a Member of this House I had been a Member of the Welsh Assembly for eight years, and I want the relationship between the two institutions to work as well as possible. On inward investment the working relationship has not been as close as it should be, and we need to change that.

Secondly, I want to touch on cross-border issues, in particular their impact on my constituency of Montgomeryshire. Again, it is a question of making devolution work for the people. There is a real problem in terms of capital investment in Wales. A consequence of the autumn statement is that over the next three years another £216 million will go to Wales for capital projects, but projects on the border will not be considered, because the arrangements following devolution mean that they cannot be. For my constituency and for the whole of mid-Wales, industrial development depends on access to the west midlands market and the motorway network. One of the biggest impediments is the stretch of the border between Welshpool and Shrewsbury. A road project there has high priority for the Welsh Government and would almost certainly have gone ahead, but the total cost is around £30 million, with a significant proportion—about £5 million—over the border in England. Although it has huge priority in Wales it is given almost no priority at all on the English side. That project has been sitting around for ages and is not going ahead, yet it should really be a priority. I could give three or four similar examples.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but would it not have been easier if the Government had chosen not to cut £900 million overall from the Welsh capital budget? Admittedly they gave back £200 million last week, but there is an overall reduction of £700 million in this Parliament.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but he completely ignores my point and is going back to the partisan knockabout that produces absolutely nothing. There is an important point of principle relating to cross-border investment, and all Members of the House and of the National Assembly, not just the Government, should try to focus on the issue so that we have a resolution that benefits the people who actually depend on it.

Thirdly, I want to touch on the impact of proposals for wind farms in mid-Wales. Many of my constituents, and indeed people in neighbouring constituencies, fear that there is an intention, or a desire, to sacrifice mid-Wales on the altar of onshore wind, irrespective of the consequences for the economy. About two decades ago, when I was involved in developing the economy of mid-Wales, strategy was based on the growth of manufacturing industry—what today we might call rebalancing the economy—after the loss of jobs from agriculture and mining over a long period. Over the last 30 or 40 years the percentage of people employed in manufacturing rose from about 7% to about 24%; it was a terrific performance, but between the late-1980s and the mid-1990s there was less concentration on regional development and the figures probably slipped back.

Today the most important developing industry in Wales is probably tourism. People who work in the industry contact me regularly to tell me that onshore wind is the biggest threat to the potential of their business. We cannot ignore that. Planners in mid-Wales are aware of the threat. They are deeply concerned that wind farm applications are being submitted without the necessary information about ecological or environmental impacts. There is almost no transport planning for the 20 or so proposed wind farms, yet planners are under pressure to approve the applications. If they do, they will be sacrificing the economy of mid-Wales. Many of us in the House have concerns about the costs and their impact on the fuel bills of the most vulnerable in society, and we are worried about the impact on British jobs, which will be exported as a result of those costs. From the perspective of my constituency, the economy of mid-Wales will be destroyed at the same time.

Fuel Prices

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This has been a very important debate. It has also been timely, because VAT on fuel and high fuel prices are just two of the essential costs that are currently squeezing family living standards throughout Britain and strangling business confidence. It is also timely as today’s inflation figures reveal that inflation is still at 5%, which is more than double the Government’s now-forlorn target. This country has higher inflation than any country in the eurozone apart from Estonia.

The debate is timely, too, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) just said, the unemployment figures will be published tomorrow. We all hope that we will not see the dole queue growing on a Tory watch, as it so often has done in the past. Most importantly, it is a timely debate because the Chancellor has a brief window of time in which to change his mind and take action before he appears at the Dispatch Box in 14 days. He has a chance to do something, and the need to do something has been the theme of this debate.

Almost 20 Government Back Benchers representing constituencies across the country—from Wyre Forest, Argyll and Bute, Penrith and The Border, Cleethorpes, Burton, Congleton and High Peak among other places— have spoken in the debate. All of them pleaded with their Government to do something about high fuel prices in this country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate. He put the case most eloquently in an interview he gave on Radio 4 this morning, when he said that what he wanted from his Government were tax cuts for millions of hard-pressed people, not tax cuts for millionaires. We on the Opposition Benches entirely agree with that sentiment. The occupants of the “millionaires’ row” of the Government Front Bench may be less keen, however. [Interruption.] Yes, perhaps present company should be excepted, I confess. Normally, there are a few more millionaires on the front row. Tonight, they are a bit short. Perhaps they would like to come in.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I am not going to give way on that point.

What all those Back Benchers have wanted is action. The crucial difference between what they have called for today and what has been called for by Opposition Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), and my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) and for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and many others, is that we want something substantive done. For example, we want what we might have seen in the motion had it pursued the line of thought that the e-petition did. We want to see something tangible. What Opposition Members have called for is straightforward. We have said, “Cut VAT by 3p on a litre of petrol, reverse the tax increase that the Chancellor put on ordinary working people in the Budget and get the economy moving.”

[Mr Reid]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will not give way because we do not have much time. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] I will give way once.

[Mr Reid]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that such a policy would require the unanimous consent of the EU Council of Ministers? How long does he think it would take to get that agreement?

[Owen Smith]

Interestingly, the Government tried to tell us that there was no prospect of our seeking a derogation in respect of VAT on petrol, but they are, in effect, seeking a derogation for their rural subsidy—or their rural special pilot. [Interruption.] We are not opposing it, but we are saying that they could go further than simply seeking a derogation for rural areas; they could cut 3p off VAT right across the country, not just on fuel, but on all things, and get the economy moving. That is what they could do. There is a reason for them to do it, and here they should have listened to the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). She gave a very interesting speech and it was interesting to hear a Conservative Member acknowledge, so many years after Conservatives have protested that it was not true, that VAT is a regressive tax. VAT hits the lowest-paid people the hardest, and VAT on fuel does exactly the same.

It is very instructive today that so many Conservative Members should have signed the motion, albeit this bowdlerised, Whip-friendly motion. It is evidence that Conservative Back Benchers, unlike those on their Front-Bench, are perhaps concerned about the living standards of ordinary people in this country. It is also evidence that they have spotted, at last, that they were sold a pig in a poke by their Chancellor at the Budget last year. What he said when he announced, with such great hubris, that he was putting fuel in the “tank” of the economy was that the Government were going to have a fair fuel stabiliser—this is the fair fuel stabiliser that he had been promising since 2008. Hon. Members may remember that this was a pledge to link the prices of unrefined petrol and refined petrol in order to smooth out volatility. Of course that is not what Conservative Back Benchers got at all. They have not got a mechanism that smoothes out volatility or that connects petrol prices to oil prices. They have not got what they all stood on as a manifesto pledge. This is yet another broken promise from this Government.

[Robert Halfon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will not give way. What they have got instead is more smoke and mirrors from the Government. They have got what one commentator referred to as the Chancellor taking one policy and giving its name to another one. The casual observer would think that they had fulfilled their manifesto pledge, but in reality, of course, they have not done so.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I am glad to hear that he was listening to the “Today” programme. He talked about a vulgarised Whip motion, but that same motion was signed by 13 Labour MPs, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner).

[Owen Smith]

I presume that the hon. Gentleman could confirm—I am not going to give way to him once more to give him a chance to do so—that he spoke to the Whips beforehand. I say that because the motion does not reflect what he wanted in his e-petition. What the motion rather coyly says is that the Government should

“consider the feasibility of a price stabilisation mechanism”,

thereby conceding that what the Chancellor said he was delivering is fiction. It is not a stabiliser; it is merely a gimmick, as we have come to expect from this Government. Why should anybody trust the Tories on fuel tax? Similarly, we should not trust them on VAT because they always say that they are not going to put VAT up and when they get in, they do.

At this point, I must give Government Members a bit of a history lesson, because we have heard such rot this afternoon about the Labour Government’s record on fuel tax. Between 1979 and 1997, during the last period of Tory government, the Tories increased fuel duty fivefold—not a five-point plan but a fivefold increase in fuel duty, which went up from 8p to 45p by the time they left office. During the ’90s, when they invented the fuel duty escalator, fuel duty increased from 59% to 75% of the price per litre. That is what we inherited when came to government. It was left to Labour effectively to stabilise prices by freezing successive—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but they really ought to read the facts before they come into the Chamber and speak. Let me quote from the House of Commons note that was prepared for this debate:

“Duty rates were cut or frozen for around six years from early 2000…By autumn 2008 duty was lower…in real terms”

than at any point since 1996.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

In a moment. What is the reality of what the Government did—[Hon. Members: “Stop pointing!”] I think she is worth pointing at. What is the reality of what the Government did in the Budget? It merely takes us back to where we were in 2008. Far from it being a substantive change, this is once again smoke and mirrors from the Government. They say there is nothing they can do but there is a choice—there is always a choice in politics.

[Miss Smith]

Did the hon. Gentleman vote against the Finance Bill measures? Did he vote for the fuel duty cut that we proposed?

[Owen Smith]

We have heard that utterly specious remark all the way through. We voted against the entire Budget, which we feel is choking off growth in this country. There is a choice the Government could take—they could choose to act. They should act today and implement a plan—plan A or plan B, we do not mind what it is called. They should just do something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I welcome that point from my hon. Friend and near neighbour. I should like to reassure her constituents, as well as motorists up and down the land, whether they are in rural, suburban or urban areas, that this Government have listened to their concerns and will continue to do so. However, today is not the day to try to change taxes—that is for the Budget. Today is to listen.

From our first Budget last year—indeed, from when we were in Opposition, when we said, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd has pointed out, that we would introduce a fair fuel stabiliser—this coalition Government have listened and acted. In the Budget in March, we announced a £2 billion package to support motorists at a time of record pump prices. However, the Labour party, including the hon. Gentleman, whom I do not believe was there at 4 am when many of the rest of us were, failed to support that package, which was supported by the Federation of Small Businesses on behalf of, for example, van drivers.

Before I come to specific points raised in the motion, I will explain why the Government took the action that they did in the Budget.

[Owen Smith]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the price stabiliser is not what it was described as being by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister when they were in opposition? It does not link pump prices to oil prices.

[Miss Smith]

It is the Labour party that wants a price stabiliser, and I shall come to that. Our fair fuel stabiliser aims to do other things, and I shall deal with that in due course.

Motoring is an essential part of everyday life for many households and businesses, and the cost of fuel affects us all. The Government recognise that the price of petrol is a significant part of day-to-day spending. We know that high oil prices are causing real difficulties with regard to the affordability of motoring. It is important that a responsible Government listen, consider and act.

It was the previous Government who, in the 2009 Budget, introduced a fuel duty escalator. That involved planning for seven fuel duty increases after the 12 that they had already made. None of those planned increases was subject to either oil price or pump price movements. Despite what Labour Members may claim now, and the synthetic anger referred to earlier in the debate, the previous Government had no plans whatever to support motorists. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said, “We are where we are.” It is regrettable that the previous Government did not act to prevent us from being where we are. From the very beginning of this coalition Government, we have looked at how we could ease the burden on motorists. We acted with a £2 billion plan to ease that burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

No. I am sorry, but there is not time.

I need to explain to the hon. Lady that we deferred the inflation-only increase that was planned for April 2011 to January 2012, and deferred the 2012-13 increase to 1 August 2012.

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Smith]

No, I will not. I need to press on.

There have been calls for the Government not to go ahead with those two duty increases. I can understand that, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor understands that, but let us not forget that those increases remained in the Budget so that we can deal with the record deficit that we inherited. This is a time of international instability, and the difficult decisions that the Government have taken to tackle the deficit have made Britain safer for householders. Our reduction plan has led to low interest rates, which help householders through their mortgages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I need to explain that our fuel duty cut was on top of an increase in approved mileage allowance payments; that helps employees and volunteers who use their own cars. I think that, in the light of their speeches this afternoon, my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), will welcome that. That is all on top of the increase in the personal allowance, cuts in corporation tax, above-inflation increases in child tax credits, and the triple guarantee for pensioners. That is real help for motorists, businesses and families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) said.

Let us not forget that although the Opposition have talked so much today about helping motorists, they could not even bring themselves to offer their support for the fuel duty cut, or the increase in the supplementary charge on oil and gas companies to fund it, in the Finance Bill debates.

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Smith]

No; I am terribly sorry. Today, average pump prices are approximately 6p per litre lower than they would have been if we had continued with the previous Government’s planned escalator, which the Opposition are so keen to airbrush out of history. That means that a typical Ford Focus driver would have been £56 better off in 2011-12, and an average haulier £1,700 in 2011-12. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are chuntering and trying to suggest that motorists would be better off under their plans for an escalator and a VAT rate of 17.5%. We know that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) was planning to increase VAT.

The Opposition cannot say where £12 billion of extra expenditure would come from, and it is simply not true that motorists would at present be better off under the previous Government’s plans. When comparing the changes that we announced in the Budget with the previous Government’s fuel duty and VAT plans, pump prices are approximately 3p a litre lower. By the end of the Parliament, average pump prices will be 3.5p a litre lower. Cutting fuel duty and scrapping their escalator will more than offset the impact of the increase in VAT.

I shall quickly address the issue of whether oil price falls this summer have been passed on at the pump, which is a matter of concern to hon. Members who have participated in the debate and to many of our constituents. For motorists to realise the benefits, as we all wish them to do, retailers need to pass those on at the forecourt. Individual pricing decisions are for retailers—we have heard about competition from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and others—and the Office for Fair Trading is not aware of any evidence that would allow it to launch an investigation.

The Chancellor has made it clear that although the Government can control the duty rate it cannot control the world oil price. After such a good debate, I hope that I speak for Members from all parts of the House in saying that we all want motorists to benefit as much as possible from falls in oil prices. A number of complexities mean that pricing is not the same at every petrol station in every part of the country, but overall prices today are lower than they were at the beginning of the summer, just as they were lower at 6 pm on Budget day after we cut prices by 1p. They are 6p a litre lower because of the actions taken by this Government.

Furthermore, I regret to say that the motion is wrong about fuel duty receipts, which have not fallen by £1 billion since 2008. Official receipt data show that receipts have increased in recent years. Let me deal briefly with the fair fuel stabiliser. The support we are providing to the motorist needs to be paid for. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) referred to sound Conservative principles, and this is one of which I am proud—things must be paid for—and it is fair that companies make a higher contribution. Only in that way can we support the motorist in a way that is fair, affordable and transparent. Updates on the introduction of a rural fuel duty rebate will be available to hon. Members who are interested in that, and we must do what we need to do in a sustainable manner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Of course we always want HMRC to approach things in a proportionate manner, and it certainly handles large companies and their tax bills better than it did several years ago. However, we must collect the tax that is owed. That is a very important principle at any time, and it is particularly important at a time when we are all having to make difficult decisions in our attempts to reduce the budget deficit. We will not tolerate tax evasion, and we do apply penalties to people who do not pay their tax on time.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The Chancellor is talking a good game, and yesterday the Exchequer Secretary announced the establishment of an “affluent unit” to tackle tax avoidance. For the sake of clarity, I should add that that is not a pet name for the Tory Front Bench, but a department in HMRC. However, the £900 million is not new money. It is not additional, and nor are the 200 staff. Is not the reality that the Government are more interested in offering tax breaks to the wealthiest than in tackling tax avoidance?

[Mr Osborne]

This is the Government who have introduced additional charges for long-staying non-doms; Labour had 13 years in which to do that, but they did not. This is the Government who have concluded a tax treaty with Switzerland; the previous Government had an opportunity to do that—[Interruption.] Well, this is what a Europe Minister in the last Government said:

“Swiss…deal offered to HMG…more than decade ago but GB turned it down thus losing billions in revenue”.

They had 13 years to deal with tax avoidance and evasion. We are dealing with it now, while they must account for their new general election strategist.

The Economy

Owen Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I was just getting to the explanation for that, which is the one that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave at the Mansion House last week. He dissected the growth figures, which showed that although financial services were contracting, in the rest of the economy we were in a period of growth. We need to rebalance our economy, and to take it away from a large financial services sector and more towards manufacturing and other sectors.

I shall continue, because time is brief and many colleagues want to contribute, by bringing the debate to life with some real-life examples, and by drawing the attention of the House to some areas where we are making considerable progress. First, there is a genuine improvement in manufacturing—the Government amendment mentions an increase in activity of 4.2%. I have the privilege to represent a considerable amount of manufacturing industry, which is situated particularly in the west Thurrock area and in Purfleet. Among the large operations in my constituency is a Unilever plant that manufactures, among other things, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, Flora margarine and other spreads. The company very recently relocated its manufacturing operation for jars of Hellmann’s mayonnaise from the Czech Republic to Purfleet. Why? Because it was more cost effective. Do not let it be said that the UK cannot compete internationally for manufacturing presence.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The latest manufacturing output numbers show a clear decline, not an increase. There was an increase over the last year, but that was largely because people restocked after running their inventories down during the crisis. Does the hon. Lady concede that manufacturing now is going in the wrong direction?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Gentleman wilfully ignores what I just said. I gave one illustration of inward investment and an improvement in manufacturing in this country. That decision was taken by a thriving company because it is cheaper to produce here than in eastern Europe. He should look at the evidence instead of constantly talking the economy down.

Jobs are increasing. My father has lived all his working life in Sheffield, and many hon. Members are familiar with the economic problems in South Yorkshire. He has spent his entire working life as a builder and labourer. For much of the past decade, he struggled to find work, and has been in and out of work on short-term contracts. When he was laid off last year, he did not hold out much hope of finding more work, given the prevalence of eastern European gangs in that area of work, but last week, the day before his 63rd birthday, he re-entered the world of work, in Sheffield, so it is clear that the economy is indeed moving in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I shall focus my remarks on the challenges faced by the black country economy and the west midlands to illustrate some of the challenges that the Government face over the next period.

As the Chancellor pointed out, one of the most extraordinary statistics in the west midlands economy is that even in the boom years we saw a 6% decline in private sector jobs in the west midlands, compared with 3.4% growth in private sector jobs nationally. Worse still, after 13 years of Labour, not only was unemployment higher in the west midlands, but productivity was down, the skills gap was widening, the rate of innovation in the west midlands was poor compared with other regions, the rate of new business formation was weak, and the imbalance between the west midlands region and the rest of the country was growing. There was a lack of support for manufacturing businesses and a considerable decline in private sector jobs.

When the coalition Government took over one year ago, that was the picture that we faced in relation to the dynamics of the west midlands economy. It would have been madness to continue to pursue the policies that had comprehensively failed the west midlands region. Recently, I held a manufacturing summit in Cradley Heath with the Sandwell chamber of commerce. Companies such as Westley Plastics reported that they were enjoying strong growth in their order book and seeing considerable growth in export opportunities. Whatever the Opposition say, it is manufacturing that is leading the recovery in the west midlands and in the entire country.

In the west midlands and the black country we still have a vibrant manufacturing and industrial base. Companies in my constituency such as Somers Forge and Thompson Friction Welding are innovative, dynamic and capable of creating the high-quality jobs that we desperately need in the west midlands, but we must do more.

[Owen Smith]

May I point the hon. Gentleman to unemployment figures for the west midlands? We have heard a lot about those 520,000 net private sector jobs. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the west midlands has not seen any of those jobs. In fact, the last figures showed that minus 6,000 jobs, public and private, had been created in the west midlands.

[James Morris]

As I said, one year in, following the policies being implemented by the coalition Government, we are beginning to see clear signs that private sector jobs are coming back into the west midlands after 13 years in which, despite quarter after quarter of economic growth, we saw substantial declines in private—

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I would like to make progress and bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Throughout the boom years, nearly 2 million people were living off benefits, at huge expense to the economy, while three quarters of the new jobs went to people from abroad. That was a scandal. It is ironic that the Opposition motion calls for the Government to spend all sorts of money that we do not have on 100,000 jobs for young people. I remind Labour Members that the unemployment figures for people between 16 and 24 started out at 650,000 in 1997 and ended up at 930,000 in 2010, at the end of their Government’s tenure. That is an unacceptable increase.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Alison McGovern]

rose—

[Margot James]

I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee.

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Lady cites a number that we have heard many times from Conservative Members. If she cares to look at what the number was at the end of 2008, just before Lehman Brothers collapsed and the financial crisis ensued, she will find that it was significantly lower than it was in 1997—and we all know it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

We have heard a lot today about learning the lessons of history, but what we heard from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) shows that the Government clearly have not learned the lessons of their own history. In the last years of the Labour Government, we listened to the Conservative party talk about wanting more deregulation and complain that we were over-regulating. We concede now that we were not regulating the banking sector as vigorously as we should have done, yet still we hear calls for further deregulation. That is a lesson that Conservative Members really ought to learn.

Equally, Conservative Members ought to look much closer, and with a far less jaundiced and more objective eye, at the Government’s past year of performance. Any objective reading, any audit of how they have performed economically, must tell them, as it tells us, that it has been a disastrous year. Unemployment is higher by 1.5%, inflation is higher by 1.6%, output is down by 0.7% and manufacturing, which went up for a period as there was restocking and which boomed partly because of big deflation in the value of the pound, has now ground to a halt. We are not seeing a manufacturing-led recovery. Critically, growth, the key driver of our economy, is flat, non-existent, zero.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman focuses on manufacturing, but how does he contrast performance over the past 12 months with that over the previous 12 years, when manufacturing in Wales in particular, and in the west midlands, fell dramatically from representing close to a third of the economy to nearer 20%?

[Owen Smith]

I answer candidly that we have already said that we need a rebalancing of our economy. On both sides of the House, there was far too great an emphasis on the belief that we were in a post-industrial society and manufacturing was not an important part of the mix. We have learned the lessons, as I hope Government Members have. I hope that there will therefore be an active industrial policy from the Government, like the one that the Opposition are talking about. That is the only way in which we will improve manufacturing.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I cannot resist.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the country takes on the debts that the Opposition suggest by cutting VAT and spending vast sums, interest rates will rise? That alone will stifle any economic growth.

[Owen Smith]

No, I do not agree with that for a moment. A VAT holiday right now would stimulate the economy. We saw it work previously and it would work today, and that is why we advocate it. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.

It is clear that the past year has been disastrous, so let us look ahead. Let us not rely on the Opposition or the Government, but instead examine the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections. It projects lower growth than it did last time, lower in fact than in its last three projections. It projects increased unemployment, with 200,000 more people unemployed by the end of this Parliament. Most critically and damningly of all, it projects ballooning borrowing, with £50 billion extra in borrowing in this Parliament as a result of the dreadful mistakes that the Government are making. [Interruption.] That is the reality—borrowing went down by £20 billion last year as a result of the stimulus, and it is now going up. No amount of shouting can get Members away from that fact.

What do those desiccated numbers mean for ordinary working people in this country? They mean heartache and misery. As one leading economist said last week when reflecting on a market survey that showed household income going down and household debt rising at the fastest rates since the depths of the crisis,

“The grim figures show household finances deteriorating at the fastest pace since”

2008-09, with people

“eroding their savings and taking on more debt to finance strong rises in living costs”

and reductions in their wages. That is the reality, as the Governor of the Bank of England recognised when he said that we were facing the biggest squeeze on living standards and wages since the 1920s. We can lay the blame for that directly at the door of the Conservative party.

In Wales, my part of the country, we are feeling the pinch harder than most. We have already heard the number of people unemployed in the midlands, the area that we hear the Chancellor have the temerity to talk about from the Dispatch Box. Employment there was down by 6,000 in the last period. In Wales it is barely creeping above the positive line, and in the north-east it is down by 14,000. The notion that there is a private sector-led jobs recovery spreading equitably across the country is absolute fantasy, and we must expose it.

Consumer Focus Wales, the body that looks after ordinary working people’s rights, says that some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including older people, those on low incomes and those with long-term conditions, are right now cutting back on essentials such as groceries and energy usage. That is a disgrace in this day and age, and the Conservative party must face up to it.

In my constituency of Pontypridd, three times the number of people are looking for every job this year than last year. That is the reality of employment in my constituency. Three people on jobseeker’s allowance looked for every job in the jobcentre last year, but now nine are looking for it. The citizens advice bureau is in jeopardy as a result of another of the Government’s cuts—the cut to legal aid—but in one single year, there has been a 20% increase in the number of people going to the CAB for advice about debt, family breakdown and job insecurity. That is the largest increase in the history of that CAB. Those are all clear indicators that it is not working but it is hurting. More austerity and pouring misery on misery will not help my constituents, just as it is not helping Greece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) answers that intervention, I ask hon. Members please to keep interventions very short, because a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.

[Owen Smith]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I completely reject that entirely false characterisation of the Welsh economy. Most importantly, the Labour Government in Wales understand that growth will deliver improvements to our economy, not austerity, cutting or increasing the viciousness of the circle. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) ought to read The Times from this morning, because it is not only Labour Members who are worried that they have got no economic plan for growth from the Chancellor, but the chief executive officers of this country. On page 2, a reflection on the CEO summit states:

“There is...a real fear that a long, slow, feel-bad recovery will leave Britain a helpless bystander as the new economies of Asia, Africa and Latin America storm ahead.”

What does the article go on to say? It says that we need a plan for growth, that plan A is not working, and that we need an industrial strategy that highlights growth sectors, just as the Labour Government in Wales have highlighted life sciences, digital economy and advanced manufacturing.

We need to target and invest in such sectors in a serious, intelligent and structured way, but we are not doing so. As the CEO of Vodafone, which is not exactly a Marxist-led workers’ co-operative, says in The Times today, we in Britain have a “faith” that

“the market will sort it out”—

a misplaced faith that the market is always the answer. That is another lesson that Conservative Members have not learned. The market alone cannot deliver growth in this country. The Government need to intervene and direct intelligently. That is what history teaches us.

Finally, I was not going to talk about banking reform, but the Chancellor ended his speech by saying that Opposition Front Benchers did not talk about it, which admittedly they did not. We will wait and judge Government Members and the Chancellor by what they do on banking reform, but we do not know exactly what will happen on that yet, do we?

We know that the Chancellor has cancelled the bonus tax, and we know that he is talking about looking at banks’ capital-to-asset ratios and trying to ensure that the leveraging they have on their debts is brought into line, but we will see whether the Government make good on those promises, whether they go beyond Basel III and whether they do what the OECD, which has been prayed in aid several times today, is telling them to do and split off high-risk investment banking from commercial banking. These are the tough decisions that have to be taken by a party that likes to listen to its erstwhile colleagues in the banking sector—there are probably a few Conservative Members who used to work there. These are the people who speak and whisper in the Chancellor’s ear. He is not listening to ordinary working people in this country. He needs to start doing that, understand the pain he is causing and move to plan B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about Ireland, but let us look at what happened last year and the situation that we faced going into the general election in May. The shadow Chancellor quite rightly observed that the market price of gilts was rising and that interest rates on them were coming down in the period before the election. It is true that in the six weeks before the election, interest rates on gilts came down, but that was only because the market realised that there would be an end to the Labour Government. The market anticipated the result of the general election, after it became clear that, as a consequence of Labour’s total irresponsibility, the end of a Labour Government would mean a new Government who were serious about dealing with our financial position. It is true—I remember this—that the rates came down from mid-March, but that was only as a consequence of people in the markets literally rejoicing because Labour was going to leave. The shadow Chancellor was quite right to make that point; I just felt that we needed a bit more context.

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman has had his say, but I will give way to him.

[Owen Smith]

I cannot help but point out that if the markets had been so omniscient and all-seeing, surely they would have spotted that the Tory party was not going to win the election.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The only question that the markets were interested in at that point was whether Labour would be re-elected. When it became obvious that Labour would not secure a majority in the House, they started buying lots of British Government debt, and the interest rates in the six weeks before the general election came down quite rapidly. Those are the facts, and one could find them out from the Financial Times, Bloomberg or any other information provider in financial services.

Funding Formula

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous]

I will most certainly refer to the Holtham commission. What the hon. Gentleman says is quite correct. He should have no fear about what I propose. The Holtham commission came to the same conclusion as the House of Commons Justice Committee report in July 2009 and the excellent House of Lords Committee report, on which there was a good debate on 11 March 2010. The commission really said the same thing as those reports: we need to move to a needs-based formula.

The money given to Wales and Scotland is distributed on a needs basis across the Principality and Scotland. It should not, therefore, be too difficult to put together a needs-based formula to allocate the money. That is difficult to argue against, and as I said, leading members of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties came to the unanimous conclusion in the House of Lords Committee report that we should move to such a formula.

I want to spend a little time explaining why the situation is unfair for England. We sometimes look at the Barnett formula as if it is just about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As a committed Unionist, however, I think we also have to remember the English. I do not, in any sense, say that apologetically; I just think we need to be fair to everyone, because poor people in England have similar rights and should also be treated fairly.

Council tax in Scotland has been frozen for a considerable number of years. Many of my constituents have worked hard all their lives to buy the home they love, but some are forced to sell their homes because they cannot afford the council tax, which goes up year after year. Is that fair?

I also think of business rates. I represent a town called Dunstable, which recently had 56 empty shops in its high street. Many shopkeepers told me time and time again that business rates were driving them out of business. Hon. Members might therefore be interested to know that business rates in Scotland were reduced by 80% for businesses with rateable values of up to £8,000 in 2008-09 and scrapped entirely in 2009 and 2010. Business rates were cut by half for businesses with a rateable value of up to £10,000 and by up to 25% for those with a rateable value of up to £15,000. Of course, I commend the Minister for recognising that unfairness as far as England is concerned and for bringing some relief, although it is not as much or as generous as elsewhere. I thank her and her Treasury colleagues very much for what they have done, but there are businesses that would still be operating in my constituency and paying tax revenue to the Treasury had we applied that relief earlier and more fairly across the United Kingdom.

Since 2002, personal care in Scotland has been given without reference to need, whereas it is time limited and not available in the same way in England. Prescription charges are much lower in Scotland and will be abolished completely by April. They do not exist in Wales. Why should people in the same circumstances in England have to pay prescription charges? On hospital car parking charges, it costs £2.50 per visit to park at my local hospital. If someone on a low income has a family member in hospital for a long period, those charges will be significant. Again, such charges are not paid in Scotland.

This year, the situation with tuition fees and education maintenance allowance really was the straw that broke the camel’s back for a lot of people in England. English Members have been receiving lots of letters about education maintenance allowance and the fact that it is to be replaced by a discretionary grant; but of course it is being kept in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There will continue to be no tuition fees for Scottish students and there will be no increase in the fees for Welsh students, while those of English students will double. Therefore, in a few years’ time, a Scots graduate, a Welsh graduate and an English graduate, working in the same company and the same office, perhaps having done similar courses, and earning the same salary under the same taxation system, will be paying back hugely different amounts of debt. How are we supposed to explain to our constituents that that is fair? My children are already giving me considerable grief on the subject, as they look to the university fees that they will no doubt pay in a few years. It is frankly not fair, and I defy any Scottish or, indeed, Welsh Member to say that the system is fair to the English.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman got this important debate, and pleased to be able to contribute a little. There is a one-word answer to the question that he has raised: devolution. In the spirit of fairness in which he has framed his remarks I entirely agree that we need to move to a needs-based formula, and the Holtham report and all the other empirical data we have about Barnett point in the same direction. We need to move in that direction. I am encouraged to hear a Parliamentary Private Secretary thinking in such ways. However, is it not invidious to cherry-pick ways in which citizens in Wales may be better off, when they are less well off in other respects? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the relative deprivation in Wales and Scotland. That is reflected in the empirical evidence, which shows that a needs-based, deprivation-based formula would afford more money to Wales than we currently enjoy.

[Andrew Selous]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is with me in wanting a needs-based formula. He is right that the evidence of the Holtham commission, and the evidence that the House of Lords took, suggests that Wales would benefit from such a formula and that if it is to be applied fairly there should be some reduction in what Scotland currently receives.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is up to the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Government to spend their money as they see fit. What is not fair and right is the allocation of money in a block grant on a bust formula from 1976, whose author no longer thinks that it is fair, when there is clearly in many cases such an imbalance between what the English and the Scottish can be offered. That is an entirely reasonable case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I will come on to the convergence in a moment. None the less, it is a point that is well made and that should be recognised by the Labour party. It is important not to confuse freedom of devolution, which enables nations to pursue their own policies, with funding. There is naturally a link, but because there is a policy, subsidy or generosity in one particular area, it should not then be used as proof or evidence of over-funding when we consider the whole context.

[Owen Smith]

I was rising to make precisely that point. Does the hon. Gentleman fear, as I do, that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will not be happy when we have a needs-based formula, because those examples that he cherry-picked earlier will still exist? The politics of envy, which underpins some of his concerns, will still play into this debate.

[Alun Cairns]

That point only demonstrates the hon. Gentleman’s misunderstanding of the spirit and tone of the debate presented by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend identified the differences, but recognised that that freedom needs to take place when we consider devolution. The obvious things in Wales are free prescriptions and—this one has focused attention of late—tuition fees. To those hon. Members who are critical of the Barnett formula because it is advantageous to Wales, I say that our NHS waiting lists are much longer and that the cancer drugs fund does not apply, so there are considerable drawbacks, and they need to be taken in the context of the whole funding settlement. It is far too easy to pick a policy that has been prioritised by the Welsh Assembly Government without accepting the areas that may not have been prioritised. Health is the obvious one. In England, for example, there is a guarantee of no cuts in NHS spending, whereas in Wales there will be real-term cuts and financial cuts to the health service. That point should be recognised in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has referred to the positive contribution of the Holtham commission. The two volumes of the Holtham commission can be brought down to a few figures. At the moment, Wales receives £113, which will drop to £112, for every £100 that is spent in England; Scotland receives £120; and Northern Ireland receives £124. Holtham concludes that Wales needs £115, which is marginally more than it is currently being awarded; Scotland needs £105, which is a significant reduction from its £120 now; and the figure for Northern Ireland is not far from what it already receives. That is the first needs-based assessment that has taken place. If that is not accepted in general terms, it is certainly an exceptionally useful starting point of where the needs lie.

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has said that, historically, Wales has been underfunded by £300 million, but that fails to understand the convergence that has taken place over the past 13 years or more. That £300 million is the current level, and it would have been a much smaller level in the past.

A very good point has been made about Crossrail. Despite the view that the Labour party in Wales is taking at the moment, we can compare the spending on Crossrail with that on the Jubilee line. The spending on the Jubilee line was Barnettised, but the spending on Crossrail by the previous Government was not, which highlights another way in which Wales was treated unfairly by the previous Administration. It is far too easy to point the finger, when a real debate is taking place on satisfying the needs-based requirement.

My closing points—I am conscious of the time—relate to the way forward. All the nations and regions need to engage in the debate about this extremely sensitive area. Those who are allied with the Scottish National party are a block not only to any form of debate—that position is natural, because of the way in which Scotland would lose out—but to changes elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Arfon builds up a strong relationship with the Scottish nationalists, he must recognise that that is blocking reform in Wales, because every part of the UK needs to engage in this debate if we are to come up with a needs-based formula that satisfies all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I will make a few brief remarks, because I, too, am on the Select Committee to which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) has referred. I must leave early, for which I apologise.

I welcome today’s important debate. Although the issue has been debated many times in this House—there was a recent debate in the House of Lords, which produced an excellent report that is well worth reading—it is worth debating again. The issue was not resolved by the Labour Government. I accept that we were tardy in addressing the issue. Once we saw the firm evidence in the Holtham report on convergence—the so-called Barnett squeeze that resulted in a reduction in the relative benefits to Wales over the past 10 to 15 years—we responded to that at the last election. The previous Labour Government were keen to see fair funding for Wales, and we went into the last election fighting for that pledge. Had we won, we would have delivered fair funding. I hope that this current Government will be true to their word and look to deliver a different form of funding for Wales and the other devolved nations and regions of the UK, and I hope that it will be needs-based, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has said.

My caveat—I did not mean to personalise the debate earlier in referring to the politics of envy—is that at some level, the hon. Gentleman’s underpinning concern is that parts of England do not benefit. In particular, he points to the fact that historically the east of England, which he represents, has featured towards the bottom of the league table of public expenditure over a long period. That is, in itself, reflective of the relative needs of the east of England. We have for the English regions, as Holtham and others have pointed out, a needs-based formula. Indeed, one of the conclusions of the excellent House of Lords report is that a quick interim measure would be for Wales and Scotland to go to a needs-based formula based on the English version.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, aspects of policy in the devolved nations and regions can foment a sense of envy. When one looks at the responses in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph on tuition fees, which range from outrage that the Welsh are doing something different through to incredulity that such a policy can be afforded in Wales, one sees that they reflect the lack of understanding that persists across the House about the way in which devolution works.

Current Government Members, such as the hon. Gentleman, have highlighted examples of how Wales and citizens in Wales appear to benefit financially from the devolution of powers and the policies that are pursued in Wales, whereas hon. Members from Wales have highlighted other areas, such as the health service, where—according to those hon. Members—people in Wales are not benefiting.

[Andrew Selous]

The evidence from Holtham and from the House of Lords Select Committee is that Wales would gain from a needs-based formula. So there is no part of what I have said that would cause problems as far as the Welsh are concerned. It appears that Scotland is more generously funded than a needs-based formula would suggest, but that is what we need to set up a commission to look into.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I fully appreciate that point; I heard him say very clearly that Wales would benefit. My point is simply that I fear that in much of the debate on this subject there is a concern that English regions do not benefit where other parts of the UK, particularly the devolved regions, do. Traditionally English Members from both Houses have expressed that view, which underpins and unfortunately colours debate on this subject.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is it not the case that moving to a needs-based formula would receive universal support, would be value-free and would not allow any political interference is an illusory hope, because even with a needs-based formula the question arises of how one assesses needs? For example, how much importance should be given to rural diversity and to the length of communications in Scotland? If a high priority were given to ferry links to the Shetland Isles and Western Isles, there would obviously be a high result there. When it comes to funding that depends on age, there are some parts of both Scotland and Wales where unfortunately, because of ill health, some people do not live to an older age, which would not be reflected in the formula. The idea that we can move to a value-free system with a needs-based formula is somewhat illusory. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend—that is essentially what I was trying to say a moment ago. An arm’s-length independent organisation, which Holtham considered—whether it is the Office for Budget Responsibility or whether it is some other body—is an excellent idea that we should take account of.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has said that it is not easy to conduct a needs-based analysis, but that does not mean that it should not be tried. He has raised the issue of sparsity in Scotland and the fact that many people live in the Western Isles, Orkney and such places, which makes a difference. There is a precedent for such an analysis, which was carried out by the Scottish NHS and which is referred to in the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett formula. The cost was about 15% extra for that component of the population. However, the point is that that component of the population is very small and the overall impact is less than 1.5%. So it is right that that factor is taken into account, but it is not material to what we are discussing.

[Owen Smith]

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has made—that it will be very difficult to introduce a needs-based formula—is valid. The aspects of a needs-based formula that ought to be taken into consideration and the weighting that ought to be placed on those aspects individually will not be incontestable. So it is easy to bracket them under “deprivation and sparsity”, or “deprivation” and some other criterion. Within that, there will be all sorts of eminently contestable notions related to the number of children in a country, the number of older people who are dependent, sparsity and all sorts of other aspects, which will be eminently contestable.

The simple point that I was trying to make is that even if we shift to a wholly independent—or ostensibly independent—and wholly needs-based formula, we will still see divergences and differences between the relative spending priorities and the relative quantum spent on individual aspects of public services across different parts of the country. That will still fuel a sense of resentment in certain quarters, when parts of the country are perceived as doing better than others. I therefore caution that we would not all be happy with a needs-based formula and I suggest that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire—

[Andrew Selous]

We would be happier.

[Owen Smith]

“Happier”—okay, well perhaps we would be “happier”. I, too, would be “happier” if we went to a needs-based formula; I will concede that much.

In conclusion, I simply add that at last we agree across this House that a fairer funding formula ought to be pursued and that Barnett has seen its day. I therefore commend the Government for considering how we might do something important about it in the future.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

There are still three hon. Members who want to contribute, so I remind hon. Members of the time.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I will say just this to the hon. Gentleman: record levels of the minimum wage, record support on Sure Start, record investment in education and tackling child poverty across the board. The Labour Government have a proud record of tackling inequality and trying those issues. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says, “Records of deficit”. I recognise, as does my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we need to tackle the deficit, and that is where the choice is today. The choice for the Financial Secretary is to cut deeper—[Interruption.] If he stops chuntering for a moment from the Front Bench and listens, he will hear me say that choices have been made to cut the deficit much more slowly than the hon. Gentleman was doing, over a longer period. There are other issues that could be looked at. The Government’s banking levy is worth a proposed £2.4 billion. If the Labour Government had been in office, that would have been £3.5 billion. There is £1.1 billion extra already from that funding. The hon. Gentleman knows there are differences of approach, and the Labour Government would have taken a different approach to the deficit, and would have been able to save those resources in a much better way.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that another example of the fundamental difference between what we would have done in office—indeed, what we did in office—and what this Government are doing today is the disgraceful sop we have heard from the Minister, replacing the child trust fund with a tax-free account, which as we all know will do absolutely nothing substantive to encourage saving among low-earning families, as the trust fund was doing? That is the real business we are debating today, and I, for one, think it is a mistake and a disgrace.

[Mr Hanson]

One of the great benefits of the child trust fund was that it encouraged people on lower incomes to save, it gave a kick-start to their savings accounts and it helped them to get into the habit of saving. The change that the Minister has made will mean that those people who can save will save, and those who are not used to saving, do not have the resources to save or are not part of that savings culture, will not save. That will impact, in due course, on the inequalities of people in their 18th year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Before coming here I read a document from the Save Child Savings alliance, which hon. Members might have had a chance to look at. I thought it would be helpful to run through some of its points about why it is so important to maintain and retain child trust funds, and answer them one by one. Its first major point is that child trust funds are all about fostering a long-term savings culture. I am sure that everyone in the House, from whatever party, will agree that that is a major national goal. However, the point about a long-term savings culture is that every form of fund or saving, including pensions, is exactly that—savings. So we cannot look at CTFs in isolation. The SCS alliance’s second major point is that keeping CTFs will help to protect the savings culture in the UK. To that, we could add the CTFs’ original goal of spreading financial literacy.

The question at stake this evening, therefore, concerns two main points: first, how effective have CTFs been in delivering either their original goals or the aims suggested by the SCS alliance? Secondly, what choices and other alternatives are available to provide the best for our nation’s children? The results so far show that CTFs have, over their lifetime of just over five years, accumulated £2 billion of assets, which is a reasonable absolute figure on its own. However, £1.4 billion of that was provided by the Government, and only £600 million by the families and friends of those participating. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), the take-up amounts to 70%, with 24% of open accounts having received no contribution from participating families or friends.

Many better forms of savings are available in the marketplace for achieving the same ends. In particular, I highlight the existing individual savings accounts, which came from the original personal equity plans of the 1980s. These provide significantly more investment options, have, by and large—although not altogether—delivered better performance and have much lower costs. They can be designated to children, which is important, and cost the taxpayer nothing.

[Owen Smith]

Is that not an unfair comparison, because the ISAs have been in place for much longer than the child trust funds? It is extremely early in the life of CTFs for one to conclude that they will not achieve what they might achieve, and what we would hope they would achieve. A good point was made earlier about the point at which families tend to invest in long-term savings for their children. We can safely assume that more would have been paid in by families and friends at later stages, as more expendable income became available.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a short period of history over which to judge them, but the fact remains that the annual management costs for CTFs, at 1.5%, are significantly higher than most of us would need to pay for an alternative form of savings. That will not alter over time. In answer to the suggestion that, in time, parents, families and friends might put more into the accounts, there is nothing to prevent them from opening an ISA or, as the Minister suggested, a new denomination of children’s ISA—if one becomes available—in their child’s name. Although I think that half the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is right, I do not think that the overall impact of CTFs would be positive.

Finance Bill

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

I seem to remember that the Government’s response to the banking system was opposed by the Conservatives when it came down to the substance of a vote. When legislation was brought before this House to accelerate the way in which the banks could be sorted out, the Conservatives voted against it.

In the Budget and the Finance Bill, the Conservatives should have centred their rationale on how the recovery can be sustained. In the debates on those measures, I think we have established that there is a consensus that the deficit has to come down. The price of dodging an economic doomsday was not cheap, and the deficit was bound to rise. However, when the shocks hit back in 2008, we had the second lowest debt in the G7. Between 1997 and 2007, we cut public sector debt from 42.5% of gross domestic product to 36% of GDP. Over the 10 years before the crisis, UK borrowing averaged 1.4% of GDP compared with 1.9% for the rest of the OECD economies. As a result, even amid the current expense, our national debt will simply rise in line with every other major economy.

We have learned something from the debates on the Finance Bill and the Budget about the disposition—the economic philosophy—not only of the Conservatives but of the Liberal Democrats. They may feel that the price of recovery was not a price worth paying, but they cannot ignore what economic statistics are now saying about how the recovery is improving the position of the public finances. In March, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor told the House that the deficit this year was £13 billion better than expected for 2010-11; in June, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that it was £8 billion better even than that. Since February, £123 billion has been knocked off projections for national debt, and that is before we sell our shares in the banks. The Government’s budget was underspent last year to the tune of £5 billion according to Treasury figures that we saw a week or two ago, and interest rates were falling in the months before the election.

When we examine the savings generated by falling unemployment, we can really see the wisdom of a strategy that hinges on growing our way out of recession. Our policy all along was to act to ensure that we kept unemployment down. Not only did that policy work well, and not only was it morally right, but it was economically wise. Our policy has delivered unemployment that is 2% lower than either in America or across the European Union. In the Budget in 2009, we had to assume that unemployment would stick at about 2.44 million. A year later, in the 2010 Budget, that forecast had fallen by 700,000 people to 1.74 million. That meant that over the four years from 2010 to 2013, there would have been a fall of £14 billion in the unemployment benefit bill, as well as an incalculable saving in human misery.

With that inherited recovery in place, the question that the House should ask in relation to the Finance Bill is what action should be taken to speed up the recovery. How can we guarantee the recovery’s certainty and begin to marshal investment into rebuilding an economy that is better balanced? Instead of providing any answers to those questions, the Budget and the Finance Bill will slow the recovery down and put more people on the dole. They offer a strategy for rebalancing the economy composed in equal measure of a wing and a prayer.

Nothing better illustrates the gambling instincts of this Government than the fast cuts to public sector jobs and the depression of consumer demand through VAT. With the most breathtaking casualness, they are prepared to put our hardest-fought recovery at risk. With such an unlikely scenario for growth in his pocket, one would have thought that the Chancellor might just hedge his bets a little and ensure that the private sector was creating jobs at some pace before bringing forward plans to sack up to 800,000 public servants. One might have thought that he would have some regard for cities such as my home town, Birmingham. It already has high unemployment, but if the Chancellor cuts 9% of the 156,000 public sector workers there, it will potentially rise by 14,000 people. That will not help the recovery in Birmingham; it will act as a drag anchor on recovery. That story can be told in towns and cities all over the country.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

On precisely that point about the different levels of private sector job creation and public sector job losses around the country, was my right hon. Friend worried to see the Oxford Economics report of last week predicting that in Wales, for example, just 4,000 jobs will be created, which represents 0.3% growth over the next five years? That will lead to significant net increases in unemployment in Wales and the report predicted that we would not see a return to the current levels of employment until 2025. The picture is similar in the west midlands and other areas across the country.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend highlights the second risk that I wish to move on to. With risks so great, and talked about so freely and with such casualness, one would have thought that at the very least, the Finance Bill would contain one or two more measures to encourage the growth of domestic demand instead of measures to try to tax it back into recession.

The truth is that the Bill attacks domestic demand with such viciousness that the country is now hoarding its silver at an almost unprecedented pace. Britain’s families and businesses now have so little confidence in the future of the economy that rather than make the odd investment here and there, they have tucked away something of the order of £130 billion in the bank as the household saving rate has escalated. Britain is now saving money that is not being spent either in the shops or on building new factories or production lines. The Budget has not restored confidence but is draining it fast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

What Policy Exchange has done is review the economic literature, which is what I am looking at. Perotti, in 1999, said:

“High debt levels are associated with higher probability for fiscal policy to have”

expansionary effects. The European Commission—not something that Labour Members tend to barrack—said: “Expenditure cuts may exhibit” expansionary features,

“even in the short and medium run.”

So the economic evidence is there. The best quotation from that review is this:

“Though now quite well established in economic literature”—

referring to the argument that fiscal consolidations promote growth—

“this work is still feeding its way into the wider public consciousness.”

No doubt part of the reason for the slow move of that argument into the public consciousness is the argument put forward by Opposition Members that it is not true.

There are two other important ways in which consolidation will get to higher growth. The first, of course, concerns expectations of future tax rates. If people around the country can see that spending is out of control, they will anticipate that taxes might have to rise in future, whereas setting out a clear path for taxes makes it clear that there will not have to be sharp and immediate tax rises in future, even if that path includes some tax measures. That forward-looking element of human nature, which is so important in understanding how the economy works, matters at a personal level—for some people far more than for others, as I entirely accept—but it especially matters in the corporate world. Businesses look to the future to see how much tax they will be paying, as well as how much it will cost them to pay it because of the complexity of that tax. That is why it is so important to have both the simplification of the tax system that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary—soon to be right hon. Friend, no doubt—set out, and the ladder down in headline corporation tax rate, which will set out a 1% reduction year on year so that our businesses know that Britain is open for business.

[Owen Smith]

On that specific point of corporations looking to the future and thinking about how to plan their business, can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any industrial sector or any big British company that has responded to the austerity budget and said that they now anticipate significant growth and taking on new people? I have not seen any such report.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) resumes his speech, let me say that we allow some latitude on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, but that it would be useful if Members made reference to the Bill from time to time.

[Matthew Hancock]

The reductions in corporation tax that are outlined in this Bill have been welcomed by the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses. Indeed, a multitude of business organisations have welcomed it. Even the Engineering Employers Federation said that this was a path in the right direction. That shows the support from business organisations.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

Let me make some progress; I have only a couple of minutes left.

The final argument is about productivity. Greater tax competitiveness not only helps productivity in the private sector, as consolidation can also help productivity in the public sector. We read only this morning that the police have said that they can take 12% out of their budget without affecting front-line services. I wonder what that 12% was spent on under the previous Administration.