Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Richard Fuller Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady confirm that even with the changes to working tax credits, they will still be higher as a proportion of gross domestic product at the end of this process than during any period of the Labour Government prior to 2004, and that at that stage there was no commitment to a national living wage?
Emma Reynolds
I say to those on the Government Benches that they are simply out of touch with the lives of working people up and down this country. Of course we want an economy in which people are highly paid and highly skilled, but the course towards such an economy has to be charted before the support is cut off.
Let us deal with the crucial issue of devolution. We urgently need to rebalance our economy to drive growth and prosperity in all parts of the country. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. London dominates our economy, and its growth surpasses that in all of our major cities, which is not the case in either Germany or France where other cities beyond Berlin and Paris are true engines of economic growth. I agree with what the Chancellor said last week—that we will not achieve a better settlement by pulling London down. We should be proud of the dynamism and success of our capital city—and long may it continue. We must, however, reverse the long tradition of British politicians of all parties and of civil servants who have hoarded power in Whitehall and failed to trust local government.
There is a huge political and economic imperative to devolve power as close as possible to local communities. As ever, the Chancellor’s Budget speech on devolution was heavy on rhetoric, but rather light on substance. This Government boast about bringing about a “northern powerhouse”, but their rhetoric rings hollow, given that no part of the country has faced bigger cuts to local authority budgets over the last five years than those in the north of England. Indeed, the shelving of the electrification of the Manchester to Leeds trans-Pennine railway means that the Government’s plans are closer to a power cut than a powerhouse. We need a settlement for every part of the north, but as one of my hon. Friends pointed out to the Secretary of State earlier, there was barely a mention of the north-east in the hour-long Budget statement or in the 123 pages of the Red Book.
Ahead of the Budget, we know that there were briefings about which deals would be announced, and we know that the Secretary of State did what some might call a frenetic round of local government speed-dating during the Local Government Association conference two weeks ago. We welcome, for instance, the extra powers that the Government are planning to devolve to Greater Manchester. We also welcome the progress that three combined authorities—Sheffield city region, Liverpool city region and Leeds, West Yorkshire and partner authorities—are making towards a devolution deal, and the progress that Cornwall is making. As a Wolverhampton MP, I particularly congratulate the leaders of the local authorities that are working so hard to create the West Midlands combined authority. We are proud of the fact that Labour leaders in local government are making the weather on devolution.
While we welcome that progress, we also believe that the Government should not impose a one-size-fits-all approach to devolution, and should stop putting obstacles in the way. In his first major speech after the election, the Chancellor said that he would not impose the mayoral model on anyone, but in the very same breath he said that he would not settle for anything less. Why are the Government running scared of letting local people decide, and when will they clarify exactly what different areas and combined authorities can expect to achieve from devolution if they do not opt for a mayor?
Alison Thewliss
When the powers this Government have force people into poverty and do not help to support them at their time of need, I say that that is a crisis and that we are hamstrung in our ability to help people. This Government expect the Scottish Government to mitigate the worst of their policies, but we should not exist to do so. Give us the powers, and we will do what we can.
Cuts have now come to the bone. Service provision has been removed, including things that make no logical sense to cut because such low-level interventions save money down the line. Sheltered housing services, which keep the elderly active, and services such as the Glasgow Association for Mental Health, which prevents those with mental health problems from slipping into crisis, have had their funding removed. This makes no sense: we can spend to save by investing at a certain level, but the cuts now mean that local government has to make such choices.
I do not know what the full impact will be of cuts that are starting to amputate huge chunks of our local bodies, but I very much worry that they will threaten the life of the patient. Local government serves both a social and an economic purpose, and the shrinking of public services takes well-paid and useful jobs out of areas and damages small business. In the past few days, the Local Government Association analysis has suggested that a £3.3 billion cut in 2016-17, or some 12%, will mean potentially devastating choices in many areas. These are not arbitrary cuts or figures on a balance sheet; they affect lives.
The proposed housing changes will have a significant impact. In Scotland, we take the attitude that a house is a home. That does not vary depending on whether someone’s house is a bought house or a rented one. I know from my case load that a social rented home in Glasgow is very desirable indeed. The huge numbers on housing waiting lists highlighted by organisations such as Shelter certainly seem to bear that out.
A lot of what has been said in the Budget seems to assume that markets will take care of the housing crisis in this country, but I would turn that contention on its head. The commercial rental market has driven up rents to the point at which people on average or even generous wages cannot afford to live, particularly in this city.
Richard Fuller
The acting leader of the official Opposition has said that their goal is not to oppose just for the sake of doing so. The hon. Lady has not mentioned anything in the Budget with which she agrees. Does she disagree with the acting leader of the Opposition?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman will find that the Scottish National party takes its own stance on many issues and does not follow the Labour party.
The problem with market rents is not, as the Red Book implies at paragraph 1.154, with social rents. I believe that, by and large, council and housing association rents are fair, not subsidised. I was glad that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned the proposed pay-to-stay policy, and I agree with a lot of what she said on that. The policy will drive people out of the communities they call home, push out key workers on modest salaries and all but ghettoise swathes of our towns and cities. The proposals are unfair in that local authorities will not see the benefit of the policy, because their share from increased rents will go back to the Exchequer, while local housing associations get to keep the funds. If the Government insist on pursuing this daft policy, they should at least give an even playing field to all housing providers to allow them to invest in new housing.
I note that there is a proposal to end so-called lifetime tenancies. Long tenancies can contribute positively to the fabric of our communities by ensuring that people stay and make their lives in an area and that they belong to it. They are part of what makes renting with a housing association or a local council attractive, as opposed to the uncertainty of the private sector, where people have to move all the time.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
This is a Budget that can make a step change in the British economy. It is a Budget that can step us up a gear in terms of work, productivity and pay.
It is a pleasure to follow an excellent maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), and a very thoughtful speech from the new Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), whom I congratulate on his election.
I am delighted to be called to speak in a debate on local growth, because I believe that the first objective of the Budget is to deliver growth and prosperity throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly in places such as Worcester. If growth is to reach every part of the UK, it must be sustainable, and if it is to benefit the whole population, it must be translated into sustainably higher pay. For that, the first requirement is fiscal credibility. We need only look at Greece to see the situation countries can get into when they lose control of their finances to know that the Chancellor is right to say that if we do not control our debt, our debt controls us. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in his opening remarks, that was very much the situation in the UK in 2010, but through the gargantuan efforts of the British people, British businesses and the British Government we have reduced our deficit and set out on a path to begin to pay down our debts.
The second requirement to deliver sustainable growth is security, and I am delighted that this Budget does what the coalition could never, and commits firmly to investing in our nation’s security and defence with that 2% of GDP commitment.
The third requirement is productivity, and I particularly welcome the detailed productivity plan that was published on Friday. This is not before time. The UK lags behind other leading economies in productivity, and it was not a Labour spokesman but my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills who set out the scale of the challenge in his 2012 Macmillan lecture for the Tory Reform Group, when he said:
“we in the political pack must not duck the really hard economic question— which is, why have people in the low and middle-ranking jobs not been able to secure a real increase in their pay for nearly a decade? And we must not dodge the really hard answer—which is, that the productivity of people in those jobs is falling behind that of their competitors.”
He concluded:
“If we want our economy to grow again, if we want our national income to be honestly earned and fairly shared…if we want to benefit from healthcare that is high quality and free, if we want to live comfortably in retirement, if we want all these things, we need to ensure that we are all a lot more productive than our competitors.”
He was right to put productivity at the heart of our mission, and the Chancellor has been right to put productivity at the heart of this Budget. I welcome the plan that sets out to raise investment in skills, in research and development, in infrastructure and, most of all, in people, in order to achieve this.
We need to provide the right incentives to businesses to invest and that should become a core principle of the Government’s ongoing review of the business rates system. We need to remove the disincentives that penalise manufacturing businesses from investing in value-added plant and that create an artificial shelf on business expansion for businesses of all sorts when they move from smaller to larger premises that fall just above the small business rate threshold. We need to design the system so that it supports growth and helps scale-up businesses. We should consider discounts for businesses that invest more in training their staff, and tapers to support businesses that grow through the thresholds for small business rate relief. I look forward to further updates on that important review, promised by the end of this year. This must not be seen merely as an administrative review, but rather as an important tool in the drive to provide higher productivity.
To get there, we need to improve our skills base. It has long been a truism in the post-war period that Germany does skills and apprenticeships better than us. This Government’s commitment to driving up the quality and quantity of apprenticeships has begun to change that, and it is essential that this continues. I am pleased to see the drive to achieve 3 million apprenticeships by 2020 and the use of the German funding model, where large employers pay a levy towards the cost of training.
We also need to make sure that schools deliver the best possible education across the country, which means delivering on one of the key commitments of the Conservative manifesto: fairer funding for all our schools. In a time of overall budget constraint this has never been more urgent, and I look forward to seeing the detail for delivering that in the next spending review. I was pleased to see fairer funding highlighted up-front in the executive summary of the productivity plan.
One of the most welcome changes in the Budget was the creation of the new roads fund predicating vehicle excise duty revenues to investment in our roads. I recently held a debate on the vital priority of upgrading Worcester’s southern link road, including the Carrington bridge, a key bottleneck in our area. Any Government committed to local growth will want to fund such projects.
We need to keep focusing on holding down the cost of travel. That is why I particularly welcome the extension of the fuel duty freeze that the Conservatives in government have now maintained over five years. So many of my constituents are concerned about this and so many businesses have told me what a massive issue it is for them that it has been something I have campaigned on in each year of my parliamentary career. Fuel costs contribute to the cost of living for everyone, whether or not they drive a car, and the price of food in our supermarkets is one of the things that would be higher and less affordable if Labour had had its way and fuel duty was higher. I also believe that the Treasury benefits from holding down fuel duty over the long term as economic activity increases.
Beyond transport, higher productivity will require businesses to have the confidence to keep investing, and the decisions to keep bringing down corporation tax and to maintain the UK’s world-beating research and development tax credit offer and extend capital allowances each have a vital role to play.
Richard Fuller
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the specific measures that are valuable to the economy? The record over a number of years of setting a trajectory of lower taxation for businesses assists all of us, creating jobs and increasing the wealth of the country.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the track record of delivery and the confidence that that gives business to invest over the long term.
The biggest change we can make to help people with the cost of living is to ensure they are paid better and keep more of what they earn. The Budget takes this further by delivering a national living wage. I welcome the fact that not only is this key social reform being delivered by a Conservative Government, but that the Government are taking steps to help to ensure that businesses, particularly small ones, have the help they need to deliver it. The extension of the employment allowance by a further £1,000 and the reduction in corporation tax will help to make sure that businesses can play their part. I hope the Chancellor will consider carefully how the charitable sector and the care system can be supported in adjusting to this change.
The Opposition have made much of the changes to tax credits. One would think from hearing some Opposition Members’ speeches that in altering this system we were taking on a core principle of the post-war consensus and the welfare state. In fact this invention of Gordon Brown has always been problematic. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has pointed out repeatedly, the limited resources of Government can be better used in targeted support for early intervention and in helping troubled families than in a subsidy for employers to pay low wages. The growth of its cost from £1 billion when it was launched to £30 billion today is clearly unsustainable. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is currently leading the Labour party, was right in thinking this is a change it should support, and it is a shame that the contenders for the leadership and those on the Labour Front Bench do not share her vision.
I welcome this Budget as a boost to local growth and look forward to supporting it in delivering a more prosperous, better paid and more productive Britain.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow an extremely gracious maiden speech by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I particularly noted his kind words for the staff of the Houses of Parliament, which I thought was a particularly noteworthy thing to put in one’s maiden speech, and his kindness to his namesake who took his seat on the aeroplane. The hon. Gentleman follows a man, Gregg McClymont, who was probably one of the most intelligent Members and was one of the most fair-minded, so he certainly has big shoes to fill. He has made a very good start with his maiden speech today.
For me, the test of the Budget is whether it fits with what the good people of Bedford and Kempston talked to me about during the election campaign. As mine was a marginal seat where people had a straight choice between Labour and Conservative, and obviously chose Conservative, I listened intently to what they had to say. Their first and most abiding thought was that they appreciated the need to continue with the Government’s economic policies. They appreciated the stability that those policies had brought to their lives after the tremendous fears about the economy at the time of the 2010 election, when it could have gone either way for the United Kingdom. They appreciated the need for deficit reduction and understood the fundamental point that it is unfair on our children and grandchildren for this generation to continue to live beyond its means, and that somehow, in the fairest way possible, the Government have to find their way to getting the books in balance and to starting to repay the debts. That is the trajectory that was outlined in the Budget.
The second thing that people in Bedford and Kempston told me was that they understood the need for welfare reform and benefit reform to be at the centre of the changes that would be made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) said, for many people, the idea that a benefit cap of £26,000 is somehow fair to them, when they pay their taxes—the median income in Bedford is £19,000—does not strike them as fair. People in Bedford will think that the Government’s proposals in the Budget to reduce the benefit cap, both in London and separately outside London, are fair. They will also see changes such as the limiting of child tax credit to two children, the introduction of a maximum income for staying in council housing and the changes to housing benefit as fair and reasonable.
Alison Thewliss
Does the hon. Gentleman consider it fair that a woman who has been raped will have to declare that to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions to qualify for her child to receive tax credits?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady repeats a point that one of her colleagues made in an earlier day of the debates on the Budget. We need to examine in this debate the broad range of the impact of the Government’s policies. When the Government make any change, they are moving big blocks around—that is one reason why I am a Conservative, actually. When that happens, there will be specific examples of an impact on people’s lives that the general policy was not supposed to have. The hon. Lady should raise those instances directly with Ministers, so that changes can be considered. However, we should not undermine the entire sweep of Government policy because of a particular example. I have found the Government reasonable in understanding the need for certain changes to benefit policies if they have a deleterious impact on individuals.
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful, although wrong, speech.
If a constituent of mine were a single parent with two children and met up with a man who had a child, would the hon. Gentleman advise her not to get together with that man because they would then have three children and be subject to cuts in their benefits?
Richard Fuller
It is not the role of an MP to advise an individual constituent on their life choices. That is their decision. With respect, the role of an MP is to analyse and scrutinise Government policies to see whether, in the round, they will provide the changes that the British public think are fair and reasonable. Against that test the deficit reduction policies, with welfare reform at their core, accord with what I heard on the streets of Bedford and Kempston. I hope that when the hon. Lady’s party has finished tearing itself apart at its parliamentary Labour party meeting, it will come together and see that it is worth supporting the welfare reforms.
I wish to say a few words about the Government’s proposals on pay. A lot of hon. Members have mentioned the interaction between the introduction of a national living wage and the changes to tax credits. That is an important debate to have, but I hope that Members of all parties will give the Chancellor credit for grasping that important nettle. At some point, the era of corporate welfare, with the taxpayer subsidising wages, had to be brought to a close. The cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer was getting larger and larger. We were sending terrible signals to employers about what they should do about pay rates, and terrible signals to people in work that if they chose to improve their wages by getting extra skills or training, all their extra pay would be taken away because of changes in benefits. The change needed to be made, so I look to the Opposition to bring forward more thoughtful responses in the weeks ahead. They should have the grace to say that the change is important and that, overall, they support it.
As a Conservative, I say to my party’s Front Benchers that we have not yet seen the impact of tax credits following the recent recession. There is an argument that in the previous recession, during which the Government had a tremendous record of overseeing growth in jobs, tax credits had a beneficial impact in dampening the impact of the recession. They made people more willing to accept reduced hours, because their income was increased by tax credits, so employment could stay high. I urge the Government not to get too ideological about the transition from tax credits to the national living wage, and to be cautious about the impact on businesses on a sector by sector basis.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s comments about housing policy. There has been tremendous take-up of Help to Buy in Bedford—one of the highest proportions in the country. The extension of the right to buy to social landlords will be particularly welcome in Bedford. Between 1991 and 2001 the decline in home ownership there was 10%, compared with 4% in the rest of the country, because in 1991 the council put all the housing stock into a social landlord. Since then, the most significant increase in household wealth has been through people buying their own home. For 20 years, a large proportion of people in my constituency were denied access to one of the most fundamental ways in which they could have provided a better future for their children, because they were denied the right to buy. The change to the right to buy has been presented thoughtfully, and I encourage the Government to move it forward.
This afternoon I have heard the progressives and socialists on the Opposition Benches say that they do not support the national living wage, poor people getting a pay rise or people in council houses having a cut in their rent, and that they would deny people on low incomes the chance to buy their home. The right to buy has been one of the most successful policies that any Conservative Government have ever introduced, and I hope that the Government will move forward with it later this year.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be speaking in the Budget debate. The Chancellor’s announcement on the increase in the minimum wage, mistakenly called a living wage, raised the issue of low pay. That is a debate we all welcome. Sadly, when it is combined with high housing costs and cuts to working tax credits, families in my constituency will be worse off. I will not vote in favour of this Tory Budget. Not only will many families be worse off following the Chancellor’s Budget; it has failed to address the deeper issue of social mobility.
This was not a good Budget for young people. For younger people, it is becoming more expensive to attend further education or to secure well-paid employment, and it is much more difficult for them to get on to the housing ladder. The employment training levy, to be levied against workplaces, could provide much needed workplace training opportunities. However, coupled with the proposed cuts to further education due in the autumn, training programmes could be at risk—one step forward, two steps back. Converting student maintenance grants into student personal debt will increase the debt of our young students further. In one case I know of, a student will leave a local university with £56,000 of personal debt—hardly a good start to a career for a young professional.
Preventing under-24-year-olds from gaining access to housing benefit could lead to long-term homelessness problems among a small but needy group of youngsters— many of the rough sleeping population are in this critical age group—creating not just personal misery, but further cost to the NHS in later years.
The cost and availability of childcare is a major block to productivity, and in high value areas such as London it is becoming prohibitively expensive. Childcare cuts to Sure Start and children’s centres undermine the Government’s excellent 30-hour childcare commitment, slowing down parents’ return to work and preventing the return to work of much needed skilled workers. Assessments show that returning women to work in London would be a real spur to the economy. Unfortunately, owing to the prohibitive cost of childcare and lack of childcare places following cuts to Sure Start and children’s centres, we have a false economy.
Renting in the private rented sector is now prohibitively expensive. A family would need a household income of £75,000 per annum to rent a modest three-bedroom property in Finsbury Park in my constituency. This is unaffordable and represents a failure of the housing market to support local families. By spending such a high proportion of income on housing costs, people are unable to save eventually to get on to the housing ladder. The average age of first-time buyers is going up every year in London. We are becoming not just a city of renters, but a nation of renters. Many of our children are in low-quality, high-cost housing with no hope of remaining in the local area to look after us in our older age.
While some elements of the Budget, such as applying the brakes on buy-to-let property, might have benefits, they are undermined by a failure to announce more new affordable housing and by the regressive right-to-buy housing association discounts, which set us back decades on housing supply. We must address the supply issue; it is critical.
Furthermore, pay freezes in public sector employment will be bad for young people. We know we have a crisis in retaining teachers, particularly in English and maths. We know we have a problem retaining nursing staff in our A&Es and our local hospitals. This pay freeze for the public sector is detrimental. Unless young people have access to unlimited family funds for their education, housing and training, they face a bleak future under this Tory Chancellor.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady has listed a number of steps that would lead to an increase in expenditure to cover some of the important topics she mentioned. Does she accept, however, the overall need, while we are borrowing over £70 billion a year, to reduce expenditure more each year so we can get back into balance? Does she accept that general trend in principle?
Catherine West
Let me deal with aspects of the question of expenditure in turn. First, the employment training levy is being levied on small businesses by your Government. It is not a Labour proposal, but I support it because it is about investing in the workplace. Secondly, the position on student maintenance grants amounts to cost shunting—taking the costs from the university and putting them on to the individual. I referred to a case of a student owing £56,000, so instead of it sitting on the balance books of the Chancellor, it is sitting on those of the individual, which is a bad thing. Thirdly, we spent £60 billion on housing benefit over the last Parliament. We should have invested more of that in new build housing. We should not forget that council housing is not a cost. It is a net contributor to the economy because the rent is so low that housing benefit is not payable on many council properties. Housing benefit is mainly payable in the private rented sector. By investing in social homes, we will be saving the housing benefit bill in the longer term. Finally, on childcare, your own pledge by your own Government is 30 hours per week—
Tax Credits (Working Families)
Richard Fuller Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I think that it is for the Government to tell us what they plan to do about the living wage, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us when he winds up the debate. At the time of the general election, we made a manifesto commitment to incentivise employers to pay the living wage. The Government are welcome to steal that policy, but they should steal it—and allow it to embed a living wage, and higher wages, in our economy—before they start messing around with tax credits.
Shabana Mahmood
I will give way to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), but then I must make some progress.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady mentioned the Labour party manifesto. Will she be a bit more specific? For example, does she favour the granting of tax credits for training contracts to take people from the minimum wage to the living wage, does she support a requirement for local authorities that commission care to commission it in a way that enables employers to pay the living wage, and does she agree that, given the persistence of zero-hours contracts for less than two years, there should be a requirement for such contracts to carry the living wage?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting and important observations about the way in which we can encourage employers to pay the living wage, and I hope that Ministers take up his suggestions. Ours was a clear, straightforward policy to incentivise the paying of the living wage by sharing with employers the benefit that the Government obtain because people are earning more money.
Greece
Richard Fuller Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Just as I do not particularly like other nations telling the British nation how to conduct its own affairs, I do not think we should go around lecturing others. They have chosen to form a currency; we chose not to join it. The point I have made is that there is a remorseless logic to being part of the eurozone that leads to greater political, fiscal, financial and economic integration. That is why I do not want to be part of it. I have also made the point that that integration, although necessary to secure the stability of the euro, has an impact on the UK as a large non-euro member. That is one of the issues that should be addressed in the renegotiation. We would not be having a renegotiation if we had not had a Conservative Government elected and able to put this issue to the British people in a referendum, and quite a lot of us in this House worked to achieve that Conservative Government.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the financial risks based on Greece’s decision spreading to the sovereign debt of other eurozone countries? Can he assure the House that the Bank of England has done whatever it can do to ensure that if financial risk does spread, British companies and British banks are secure?
Mr Osborne
As I have said, Britain is much better placed than it was a few years ago; our banking system is much better capitalised. Of course, the eurozone and the European Central Bank have previously taken steps to try to contain the contagion, for example by setting up the outright monetary transactions programme and the European stability mechanism—in other words, various bail-out mechanisms that came into operation during Spain’s financial problems a couple of years ago—but I was very clear in my statement that a Greek exit from the euro would have an impact on Europe’s financial system and knock-on effects for the UK. I do not think that anyone should underestimate the challenge of establishing that a country could leave the euro. Those are all issues that we need to be alert to in the months ahead.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Fuller Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
What we are fighting for is Britain to be part of a reformed European Union. Now that we have finally persuaded the Labour party to come to its senses and support the referendum, we can get on with the business of negotiating a good deal for this country.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
May we have a Treasury review into how effectively the balance sheets of housing associations are meeting the challenge of building new housing, looking in particular at their average cost of capital, the amount of leverage and whether a change in accounting policy would help to meet the housing challenge?
Mr Osborne
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his re-election; I enjoyed visiting him in Bedford just before the election. He raises an interesting point about how efficient housing associations are in increasing the housing supply, which is what we want them to do, and we are certainly looking at that at the moment.
Royal Bank of Scotland
Richard Fuller Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He is right: over the past five years, we have taken painstaking steps to establish a system of regulation in the financial services industry that will ensure that never again will the taxpayer be forced to bail out a bank.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will know, there is a direct connection between the tolerance of reckless and illegal activities in financial institutions and the destruction of valuable banks such as RBS. Will she confirm that she will allow the Government to give full force to any recommendations concerning the fair and effective markets reform that was announced by the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday? Will she also confirm that unlike the last Government, who showered honours on bankers who were reckless, this Government will bring the full force of the law to bear?
Harriett Baldwin
I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House. He has made an important point. In his speech, the Governor said that it was right to fine many financial services organisations that had behaved badly in both the recent and the distant past, because such behaviour reduces banks’ capital. Responsibility needs to fall on the individuals who are culpable, and also on the management of those individuals. Reducing the capital that is available through regulatory actions contracts the supply of lending to small businesses.
Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry
Richard Fuller Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson
I am now becoming a bit confused about what Conservative Members are arguing for here. Do they want more or less regulation? [Interruption.] Did I hear someone say both? The important issue here is to ensure that regulation is fit for purpose, and that we do not simply have more of the same when we talk about new entrants into the banking system.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Let me help to clarify the matter for the hon. Lady. The point that she was trying to make is that having an enormous amount of regulation can be ineffective and bureaucratic, but, equally, having too little regulation will not work. What we need is effective regulation. One of the most effective aspects of regulation, when it comes to changing behaviour, is the potential for criminal prosecution of those who do wrong. That is not mentioned in her motion. Will she address that during her speech?
Cathy Jamieson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some clarity. He is absolutely right that regulation is part of the process, but we also need a culture change and an attitudinal change. He is correct to identify the lack of prosecutions. Although that is not mentioned specifically in the motion, I recommend that he reads Labour’s document, which takes account of that point. Our agenda is not entirely punitive, because it is driven by economic imperatives. We all know that the performance of the banking sector is vital to the health of Britain’s economy. It employs more than 1 million people, each of whom has an important role to play in advising businesses and consumers, and helping them to manage their money, invest wisely and plan for the future. Without the banks, consumers would be unable to save and borrow. Businesses would not have access to the patient finance that they need if they are to grow and to create high-quality, well-paid jobs.
Too often in recent years, many banks have fallen short of the very high standards that we expect of them; that is a view shared across the House. In many instances, they have not acted with trust and they have not acted fairly. At times, they have acted recklessly and unethically. Instead of helping their customers, they have exploited them.
Banks and their employees operate in a high-skilled environment, dealing with sophisticated financial instruments that are often beyond the ken of the average consumer and small business owner. Rather than using that knowledge to guide and advise consumers, they have, in some instances, abused that knowledge to exploit them. In investment, consumer and business banking, banks have betrayed the trust of customers and undermined the integrity of the industry. In doing so, they have totted up some truly colossal sums in fines.
Indeed, 2014 was a record year for fines in the City of London, culminating in the £1.1 billion fine levied by the Financial Conduct Authority on five banks, including HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland, for their part in the forex fixing scandal. In recent times, four UK banks—Barclays, HSBC, RBS and Lloyds—have also paid £1.5 billion in compensation for mis-selling interest rate hedging products. Other recent scandals include LIBOR fixing and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.
Cathy Jamieson
No, I am going to finish the point that I began.
Bonuses are a reward for exceptional performance in other industries, so that should be the case in the banking sector as well. However, despite the scandals that have emerged over the past year, most recently at HSBC, it looks as though this year’s round of bank bonuses will once again be very generous.
There needs to be more accountability in banking, and pay must be more closely aligned with long-term performance, so a Labour Government will embark on a serious and far-reaching programme of reform in the banking sector. We will reintroduce our successful tax on bankers’ bonuses, which generated over £3 billion in 2010, and act to ensure that this tax incorporates role-based pay or any other payments made by banks in an attempt to circumvent the EU bonus cap.
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, and I am happy to reiterate my remark that the financial services sector employs up to 2 million in this country, most of them outside the City and many of them doing regular jobs in banks and call centres, or even in places such as a new dealing room that has been set up outside Birmingham, which I recently had the pleasure of visiting. All those people are as mortified as the rest of us at the behaviour of a few, so it is always important to remember that we are talking about the behaviour of a few, not of the many.
The third thing that the Government have done is to improve the accountability of bankers. I hope hon. Members will agree that the vast majority of people in the financial sector are decent people who have played by the rules and just want to get on with providing a valued and trusted service to their customers. We must have high standards in banking, because that is what will help the UK to continue to thrive as a leading and trusted financial centre. The sector remains a huge asset to the British economy, contributing almost an eighth of the total tax receipts and giving us a trade surplus of £16 billion last year.
Banking oils the wheels of the economy, helps our businesses grow, fosters investment and boosts aspiration. When bankers get it right, it is a driver of this country’s growth. When they get it wrong, the damage is consequentially enormous, because it threatens the livelihood of millions of people in this country, as we saw during the financial crisis.
The public will want to know that this Government have made reckless misconduct leading to bank failure a criminal offence, and overseen banks being fined heavily for their worst excesses. There have been £450 million of fines for the disgraceful rigging of LIBOR and £1.1 billion of fines for the manipulation of foreign exchange rates—disgusting and unacceptable behaviour. I know that all Members will be reassured to know that the Serious Fraud Office has opened investigations into a number of individuals in relation to the manipulation of LIBOR and forex. Of course, many firms have sacked and dismissed staff found guilty as part of their own internal investigations.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is now stressing one point that the everyday people feel is most important about the reform of our banking system—that when bankers do wrong, they should face criminal prosecution and the prospect of jail. Is she satisfied that we now have the right measures in place—measures that the last Government did not put in place—and will she assure the House that she will ensure that the Government use all their powers to enforce the regulations as far as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
That is an important point. This Government have taken every step we can think of to ensure accountability, prevent future wrongdoing and improve standards in banking. We are always open to new suggestions, but it is our genuine belief that we have fundamentally changed the underlying systems that banks work with. I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that when I speak to the chief executives of banks, as I do regularly, they assure me that they, too, take the matter extremely seriously and have put in place checks so that they can indentify wrongdoing and punish the offenders under their own steam, as hon. Members will have seen in the press today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Fuller Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel
Let us put this into some context. For a start, tax credit spending rocketed under the previous Government and throughout this Parliament we have made it abundantly clear that we support those with low incomes. Let us not forget either that the impact of Labour’s great recession is still being felt. We continue to help people with the cost of living through the increases in personal allowances, the freeze in fuel duty, cuts in council tax and, of course, by reducing the cost of child care.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Working tax credits are in effect a form of corporate welfare for employers who could pay higher wages, especially if tied to increased skills. Will the Minister continue her conversations with the Minister for Skills and Equalities about ways in which we can create a combination of those two, perhaps in the form of tax credits for training, such as proposed by Premier Inn?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He is right that more can be done through working with business and learning from their suggestions.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Richard Fuller Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
Of course that is exactly what the Chancellor has done in this Parliament. In 2010, when he set his first mandate, he said that this would be done by the end of the rolling five-year forecast period. In 2010, the Prime Minister clearly thought that that meant 2015 but the Chancellor now thinks it means 2018 or 2019, which is why he still says he is meeting his fiscal target. Everybody else can see it is a completely preposterous claim.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor has called this proposal a load of “pony and trap”, which I believe is a metaphor for something else. He has also called it a “gimmick”. He knows that many in his own party oppose it, but he has not explained to this House why he is forcing them to vote for it.
Finance Bill
Richard Fuller Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I will be fairly brief.
Under the last Government, I moved amendments like the new clause on virtually every Finance Bill. It has always made me anxious when Governments resist the requirement to provide information. That is all that is sought in the new clause. It simply looks to ensure that the House is properly informed about the impact of a differential tax rate. For the life of me, I could not understand why such amendments were resisted by the last Government, and I cannot understand why the new clause is being resisted now.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
On the point about being informed, does the hon. Gentleman think it unwise that the Leader of the Opposition has already stated that he will increase the rate to 50p?
John McDonnell
I want openness and transparency. I would prefer people to put their cards on the table in the run-up to the general election, so that the electorate know where everyone stands. It would be invaluable for all parties in the House to have the information that is requested in the new clause, so that they could test it and see whether the hypothesis that has been put forward by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and others is accurate. I do not believe that it is.
This debate goes much wider than the 50p rate of income tax. Members need to wake up to that. A few months ago, the Mayor of London ordered water cannon in case there are more demonstrations and riots. There is a deep feeling of unease and a building anger in our community about inequality. People do not usually mobilise and go out on the streets in the depths of a recession. Let us look at what has happened elsewhere: people get angry, mobilise and go out on the streets when they feel that the country is coming out of recession, but they are not sharing in the benefits from the sacrifices that have been made. We have asked people in this country to make immense sacrifices.
We should look at the various reports that have come out. A few months ago the Oxfam report exposed the fact that for the first time more of the people who are in poverty are in work than out of work. More children are therefore growing up in poverty in working families than in non-working families. I think that that is a first in the history of this country. A survey by Save the Children showed that, as a result of poverty, a staggering number of parents are going without food so that their children can eat. It showed the number of children who have never had a winter coat because their parents are unable to afford one. All that is building up into a significant anger about the inequality in our society.
Taxation rates are therefore not just about the income that they raise; they are about tackling inequality. The right hon. Member for Wokingham said that this has been happening over a long period. We now live in a society that is more unequal than it has been since Victorian times. It is true that for a short period in this recession, the Gini coefficient went down for two years. However, according to HMRC figures, it started rising again in 2012-13. I think that that will provoke anger in our community. Politicians need to be aware of that anger. Unless we do something about it, it will be difficult to contain.
That is why Governments need to be seen to be addressing the appalling inequality in our society. One way of doing that is to redistribute wealth, as Governments ought to do. The new clause does not talk about the vast maldistribution of wealth in our society. One publication from the Treasury revealed:
“The top 10% of earners in Britain have salaries which are equal to more than the bottom 40% of earners”.
That is absolutely staggering, and that is just about earnings: in some FTSE 100 companies, the chief executive and the directors earn 166 times the average wage of the workers.
Taxation is about addressing inequality. The new clause simply looks at one element of taxation and asks for an accurate report on whether it helps in the redistribution of wealth and in tackling inequality.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his concerns about rising inequality. Why does he think the Opposition have been so timid in proposing remedies? Are they afraid of something? Are they worried what the media might say?
John McDonnell
I will give the Labour party the benefit of the doubt. It has the national policy forum at the weekend, where there is the discussion and development of policy. That is the healthiest level of democracy we have had in the party for a number of years. I hope that it is bubbling up into a comprehensive programme that we can put before the electorate and that addresses the central issue of inequality. One way of doing that is to have accurate information before us, which is what the new clause seeks.
I will finish there because I know that other Members want to speak. I just warn the House that unless we address inequality, we will reap a whirlwind in our society. We saw riots only a few years ago. I think that the injustices in the distribution of wealth will provoke even greater conflict in our society unless it is addressed.
Mr Gauke
There is no evidence that HMRC’s original analysis was wrong. When the Opposition announced earlier this year that Labour would introduce a 50p rate, they claimed that a new £10 billion had emerged that had previously not been taken into account. That turned out not to be the case, however; they got that completely wrong. The data still point in the direction that HMRC’s conclusions are as I have suggested, and there is no reason to believe that the analysis was wrong. The fact is that the 50p rate is an ineffective way of raising money from the wealthiest.
Richard Fuller
Is the Minister as concerned as I am that Labour Members are not simply calling for a 50p rate? We have also heard calls for a 60p and a 70p rate. Are they not trying to set the tone for what has already been introduced in France—namely, a rate that is much higher than 50%?
Mr Gauke
I note the fact that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras referred to a rate of “at least 50p”, and I suspect that he speaks for many of his colleagues in that regard. The fact is that there is an ideological divide involved here, in that the Opposition want the higher rate, regardless of the practicalities.
The reality is that, if we want to raise money from the wealthiest, a high rate of income tax is ineffective. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made it clear that the changes in the 1980s resulted in more income being raised from the wealthiest. If we want to raise money from the wealthiest, there are much better ways of doing it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said. For example, we have taken a number of steps to deal with avoidance and disguised remuneration—those measures were opposed by Labour, by the way—and to deal with stamp duty avoidance. We have increased stamp duty rates. We have also introduced measures relating to capital gains tax and restricted the cost of the pensions tax relief. Those measures have raised far more than the revenue forgone from the 50p rate.
We talk about priorities. Let me set out one fact for the House. Even if we put aside the additional sums raised from the wealthiest, and even if we put aside the damage to competitiveness from the 50p rate, for every £1 forgone as a result of our measures on the 50p rate, we have forgone £160 as a consequence of the increase in the personal allowance. That is where our priorities lie, and I am proud of that record.
Chris Evans
My hon. Friend advances the argument eloquently. We debate these issues and talk about employment rights, but if someone is in a poor workplace, is struggling to pay the rent or the mortgage and the bills, and faces a severe threat that they might lose their job, they might be forced into doing this. In many non-unionised businesses there will be nobody to police this, so those people might be forced into it. She powerfully made the point about how women, in particular, are in that type of situation.
I should have made my next point before the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) intervened on me, but I will do so now. Paul Callaghan, partner in the employment team at Taylor Wessing, has said:
“Osborne is potentially forcing all new employees to waive the main employment rights including unfair dismissal and redundancy rights in exchange for £2,000 of shares. This makes Adrian Beecroft’s fire at will proposals look moderate.
From April it may become the norm for job offers to require this waiver which will also involve the loss of flexible working rights and stricter maternity rights. This is likely to have a disproportionate effect on women.”
Henry Stewart, founder and chief executive of the training company Happy Ltd, has said:
“I welcome anything which makes it cheaper and simpler to give employees shares, but coupling it with taking away employment rights is ridiculous. If as an employer you have a problem with unfair dismissals, you need to improve management—that’s what the government should be giving incentives for. I don't think it's been thought through.”
In a nutshell that sums up what I think of this proposal. Bad employers who are afraid of unfair dismissal cases, reprisals, recrimination and grievances from employees should think about how they are managing their staff and look hard at their human resources department.
Corey Rosen, founder of the National Centre for Employee Ownership, one of the world’s leading groups promoting share ownership, has said:
“There is a lot of employee ownership in our country, but not one of these employees and not one of these plans asks employees to give up any employment rights to get any of the various tax benefits associated with employee ownership.”
That is a voice from the United States, not somewhere known for being particularly friendly to those in trade unions or on employment rights.
Simon Caulkin, writer on management and business, has said:
“In effect, Osborne's cobbled-together scheme is a back-door re-run of the agenda of…Beecroft”.
Rebecca Briam, partner at Gannons Solicitors, said:
“It is unlikely to get off the ground.”
With only five businesses out of 200 wanting to take up the scheme, I think she is right. She goes on to say:
“The proposals will be unpopular with employees because the chances of benefitting are so slim.”
She said that it was
“unpopular with employers, especially privately controlled companies, because of the risks imposed to the share structure. Far from saving on payroll expenses, the total costs for an employer may well increase.”
Manufacturers’ organisation EEF said:
“Our members have indicated they would not implement the new status.”
The Federation of Small Businesses said:
“The scheme is unlikely to be appropriate for many small businesses.”
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said:
“There is very little evidence as to why this policy is needed or what impact it will have.”
Such views support the new clause that is before us.
Earlier, I talked about the vehicles that are created for the purpose of tax avoidance. Matthew Findley, partner at law firm Pinsent Masons, addressed that matter quite eloquently. He noted that the income tax positions of those receiving the shares is still unclear:
“There is nothing in what the Government has said so far that would stop senior executives or substantial shareholders from participating in the arrangement. This may mean that an opportunity still exists for such individuals, even if they may be viewed by some as the ‘wrong’ people politically to benefit.”
Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies talked about the potential for tax avoidance as the scheme
“prepares to put another billion pound lollipop on the table.”
He says:
“Just as Government Ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour, that same Government is trumpeting a new tax policy which looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry.”
An avoidance industry is something of which a Government who want to create jobs cannot be proud.
I support new clause 11. As there has been such a low take-up of the scheme—only five in 200 companies have said that they would consider it—a report needs to be produced. Numerous commentators from the business community have expressed the fear that a new tax avoidance scheme is being set up, which suggests that this is a pertinent and sensible new clause, and I urge the Government to accept it.
Richard Fuller
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who spoke with great authority, drawing as he did on his experiences as a trade union official before he was a Member of Parliament. I will, if I may, draw on some of my own experiences of working with small businesses. In that regard, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for missing the beginning of her comments. I thought that she spoke persuasively and eloquently about some of the issues and about the policy that the Government have introduced. She had me persuaded all the way, until she referred to the spare room subsidy as a tax. It is just not a tax, and it is such a shame when bad slogans happen to good people because all the persuasion power of their speeches is lost. The rest of her speech raised some important points.
We should put the new clause into context. The Government have an extraordinary long-term economic plan that is delivering improvements to the economic lives of my constituents in Bedford and Kempston. It impacts on their ability to find work and get into work. It also raises their average weekly earnings, which is a major concern for many people. It is good to see the plan starting to bear fruit.
Perhaps now is not a good time for an ordinary Tory Back-Bench Member to criticise the Government, but if my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me, I will do so. We are looking here at a policy in search of a problem; we are not really looking at something that will have a dramatic impact on the well-being of our businesses or our employees. I am open to being persuaded by the Minister. He usually persuades me and I am sure that he will do so today, but perhaps I could go through some of my experiences from when I was in business relating to two parts of our debate.
On the one hand, we have employee and workers’ rights and, on the other, we have employee shareholdings. The approach seems to be to conflate those two issues into one policy and I am not sure whether that will ultimately prove to be wise. In my experience as an employer, although employees’ issues in employment sometimes concerned the extent of employee rights, red tape and regulation often led to far more concerns about the impact of government on the business. In addition, the problem was not necessarily the rights per se but the complexity of the regulations. For a small business, just understanding the regulations to comply with them causes problems. I am not sure that the problem was specifically the rights that were given to employees. Is the objective in this case to reduce the complexity of regulation for businesses through the use of the combination of employee shareholdings, or is there some other objective?
The hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned some of the issues when companies give shares to employees. For a large part of my life, I have worked with technology businesses and the provision of shares was a norm for business. It was a way in which many companies could afford to start, to grow and to prosper. In those circumstances, people were given shares not because of their employee rights but as an incentive either to reward effort or to encourage effort to promote the success of the company. It was also a matter of the trade-off of rewards. Many small companies did not want to use the cash they got from investors to pay high or market rates to their employees and wished to defer that by providing people with the opportunity to have shares to share in the ultimate long-term success of the business. That is a tremendously powerful model for many sectors, not just the technology sector but other sectors of our economy, in that people are willing to trade off immediate returns for long-term rewards.
When we consider other ways to think about compensation, which will, I think, be a growing issue over the next five years, we must consider how to encourage people to defer some of their compensation until later in their lives. I can understand how the promotion of employee shareholding helps with short and long-term rewards, but my concern is that combining that with employee rights means that clarity might be lost. Rather than being given a positive impression about why we are encouraging employees to become shareholders, people will instead ask whether there is a catch. It should be absolutely clear that there is no catch when people are being offered shares. This is clearly an issue of deferring compensation from period x to period y.
I am concerned that, as I have said, this is perhaps a policy in search of a problem. As with so much that Government do, we will see unintended consequences. If the new clause is targeted at small businesses, we must remember that the Government have other options at their disposal. Just a week or two ago, the Centre for Policy Studies produced some very positive policies about abolishing corporation tax for very small businesses and abolishing capital gains tax for investors. To my mind, that would have more of an impact on encouraging more entrepreneurial businesses. We have recently seen news about the merger of national insurance and income tax, which would alleviate some of the burdens and complexity for business in managing employees.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
When I visit small businesses in my constituency, I am sometimes quite shocked that, say, one person out of 10—a large proportion of the staff—has to spend all his or her time dealing with regulations and sorting out the problems they cause rather than getting on with making money.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend speaks from great experience and is, as usual, exactly on the point. For many small business people, the biggest constraint is time: they have to be the sales person, the accountant, the HR person and the form filler. The policy that has given rise to new clause 11 is supposed to be helping those people, but I think there are many other ways we can support our small businesses that would have a greater impact.
One of those is that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should lose its great focus on a grand industrial policy, centred on our large corporations, and start to show a bit of passion about our small businesses. I know that the Secretary of State is a good friend of the Treasury Bench—obviously, he is a member of it—but somehow we are not getting the focus and heart for our small businesses that we should be getting, and it would be good to hear that voice coming through louder and clearer.
I am drawn by Opposition Members’ eloquence on the questions they are raising about this policy. It did not occur to me at the start of our support for the policy that it was going to be a big policy that would have an impact on many businesses. I would be interested to hear an update from the Minister on where the policy is taking us and what our goals are when it comes to promoting employee shareholding. What are his concerns? Does he share my concern that, in trying to put together promotion of employee shareholding and reductions in employee rights, we may be failing to make progress on two issues, rather than making progress on both?
Mike Kane
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who spoke with such authority about his work now and previously with small businesses. It was a pleasure to serve with him on the Finance Bill Committee, where generally he spoke loyally from the Government Benches on his party’s agenda, even though he disagrees slightly with the policy before the House now. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who spoke articulately and ably, using his experience as a former trade union official.
I believe that shares for rights as it has been proposed lacks common human dignity. We know that the main purpose of Government is to protect individuals, communities and their property from exploitation and harm; Government must also provide a stable economic, social and legal framework for businesses and economies to thrive. The proposal does not do that. As I mentioned earlier, Lord O’Donnell described shares for rights as a form of modern-day slavery. It creates a two-tier market and a two-tier work force—one part having sold its rights and the other retaining them. I think that that is wrong for our economy.
The policy was announced with great fanfare in 2013, but the shares for rights scheme cannot be described as anything other than a massive flop. It is also proving to be another bone of contention in our fractured coalition. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and the Secretary of State are nowhere to be seen near the proposal. The real problem, though, as the Chancellor has found, is that it has been impossible to get employer organisations to back the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, according to the most recent information we have—hopefully, the Minister will update us—there were 19 expressions of interest by December last year. The Office for Budget Responsibility says it could be used as a tax dodge, costing us—the Treasury—nearly £1 billion a year. In this age of austerity, that is the last type of policy we need to be introducing.
Ministers seek to introduce the scheme without proper discussion, and without proper consultation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said, and have proceeded in what can only be described as a very chaotic way. Following the publication of the details of the scheme, a Government source was quoted as saying that the scheme was on “life support”, but Ministers still went ahead. As was mentioned earlier, John Cridland, director-general of the CBI, said that this was a niche idea that businesses really do not want. There is unanimity among people who really care about employers and their rights and those Opposition Members who believe that employees should also be shareholders and work hard in their small and medium-sized enterprises, where most employees now reside.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Fuller Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Grant
I grew up in an area close to the north-east, and I know how fabulous it is. We have an excellent domestic tourism package, and VisitEngland has launched two brilliant “holidays at home” campaigns, which have generated millions of pounds of incremental spending. I hope that the hon. Lady’s constituency will benefit from that.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on American football—and I declare my interest in that regard—I can tell the House that when it comes to sport-related tourism, I know of no sport that has the same potential. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the National Football League on hosting three American football games at Wembley this year, and will she welcome the visitors who will come to support the Miami Dolphins, the Oakland Raiders, the Detroit Lions, the Atlanta Falcons, the Dallas Cowboys and the Jacksonville Jaguars?