Finance Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Livingston, and indeed the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who served on the Public Bill Committee. He is not in his place at the moment, but I found his contribution interesting, as always.

I support new clause 13, tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, which would introduce a bankers bonus tax to fund a job guarantee for every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months. History will judge this Budget as chaotic. It has been a Budget of U-turns—on pasties, on caravans, on skips and on charities. It should be remembered as a Budget for “millionaires row”—admittedly, that is a little sparse at the moment—but I hope it will not be remembered as the Budget that let the greedy bankers off the hook. Tonight, I want to put on the record the impact on the north-east.

The north-east requires an alternative vision for economic confidence, growth and jobs. The proposals in new clause 13 of a guaranteed paid job for people who have been out of work for 12 months, as suggested by the Institute of Public Policy Research North, would boost the process of regeneration that is so badly needed in my region. According to economists at IPPR North, coalition spending cuts have worsened the impact on our region’s economy and added to unemployment—especially youth unemployment—in the north-east. Well over 32,000 public sector jobs have been cut. I remind the House that unemployment in my region stands at 11.3%; 145,000 people are out of work. The private sector-led recovery that was promised has clearly not materialised in my region, at least, and a recent report from Northern TUC shows declining employment in the private sector.

In the Public Bill Committee, I gave some examples of the private sector haemorrhaging jobs in my constituency, and I do not propose to repeat that tonight. The problem we face—the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, raised this point—is that money is being sucked out of the region through public spending cuts, benefit cuts and the slashing of regeneration and infrastructure projects, worsening the economic problems. The Government, through their policies, are squeezing out demand from the regional and national economies. That is counter-productive, as it pushes up both the benefits bill and Government borrowing.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor pretend that there is no alternative, but the Opposition recognise that politics is about priorities and making choices. Sadly, the Chancellor has chosen to give a £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires, while more and more people in my area are losing their jobs and young people in particular have little prospect of finding paid employment. He has also chosen to keep VAT, a deeply regressive tax that hurts the poor, at 20%.

IPPR North has said that business confidence is failing. The lack of confidence among employers has created a hire freeze across the north that looks likely to get worse. The unwillingness of employers to take on permanent staff only increases economic insecurity for ordinary households. Where vacancies do exist, they are often for low paid and insecure work. Given that more than 1 million young people are out of work, we need real action from the Government to stop the next generation from wasting away on unemployment benefits. That is where the real jobs guarantee comes in. We need to offer a jobs guarantee, especially to young people, to stimulate the economy and offer personal hope to each individual.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

General Government expenditure accounts for 50% of the economy, our debts are at record levels and we have the highest deficits. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the answer to debt, deficit and the Government’s massive share of the economy is for the Government to do more or to do less?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention if he had sat through the whole debate, because those points have been raised. It behoves the Government to do more, not less; we have to learn from the lessons of history. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 13.

Beer Duty Escalator

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

All the Members who have intervened have made the most wonderful points, and my hon. Friend certainly has not disappointed in that regard. I am a little disappointed, however, that he did not mention his four breweries for a potential future press release.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As the Member for Bedford, the home of the largest family-owned brewery, Wells and Young’s, may I ask him whether he agrees that it is also a timely debate? The Treasury recently took action to reduce the fuel duty escalator, and it would be a welcome addition if we were also to eliminate the beer duty escalator and its impact on our economy.

[Gavin Williamson]

I would never dream of supposing that I knew more than Treasury Ministers, but that would certainly be a good idea to bear in mind for future Budgets. We must look at the economics involved. As I mentioned, there has been a 50% increase in the rate of duty, but only a 10% increase in the amount of revenue.

I have had the great privilege over the past few months of serving on the Finance Bill Committee, where I heard many emotive and brilliant arguments from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary about the need to get the balance right between the rate of tax and the money it brings in.

Interest Rate Swap Products

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is right. My constituents are in exactly the same position.

There is, at least, provision for my constituents to break the swap, but doing so would cost them a cool £1 million. They have complained to the financial services ombudsman, asking for compensation and asking for the original swap margin to be reinstated at its 2006 level or, alternatively, for the swap to be torn up so that they can keep their existing margin. They have been advised that the 2008 swap was mis-sold and inappropriate for their business, and they are discussing the details of that with the financial services ombudsman.

In 2008 Lloyds sold another of my constituents, Phillip Derbyshire, an enhanced collar—or, as it was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), an enhanced noose. It has cost him £1.275 million, about 75% of his pension pool. He is 64 years old. Both the FSO and the Financial Services Authority are unable to assist him, and Lloyds claims that there has been no wrongdoing. My constituent claims that the circumstances of sale were

“tantamount to a sting operation under duress”,

and I completely believe him.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Does not the abuse of trust that my hon. Friend is describing give rise to another fear—that the FSA will roll over and talk about changing the rules while missing the critical issue of compensation for people who have suffered, which is what the House wants to see?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend, and I shall end my speech by making the same point.

Lloyds repeatedly referred to the product that it was selling to my constituent as “a protection”, both orally and in writing. The downsides were simply not explained. My constituent was told that if he sold his business or died, the product would be an asset. All that was independently witnessed, because he is quite a savvy man. He was told by an independent banking consultant that the product was totally inappropriate to his needs, and that it was beyond the level of his financial sophistication to understand it. He is now looking into whether he can sue Lloyds.

Does the Minister agree that it is wrong for banks to make loans contingent on the purchase of other financial products such as IRSAs? Where are we with this issue now? What conclusion will be reached from the debate? We have seen the motion, and we have heard from many Members in all parts of the House who want to see forthright action by the Treasury and the FSA, and compensation for their constituents. Can the FSA be persuaded to move faster? As for compensation, there is an absolute need for it.

This is a scandal and a scam. It is finished now, but we need to ensure that it never happens again.

Public Sector Pensions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, for, I think, the first time, and it is a particular pleasure, if I may say so Sir, to have the Economic Secretary as the Treasury Minister responding to the debate.

We live in a time when nation after nation is being told: “You are not as rich as you thought you were.” As a result, nation after nation is facing cuts—sometimes mild, sometimes severe—in the services their Governments can provide, the real incomes that their labour can earn and the value of their assets, calculated as the debt that can be raised against their businesses and homes. We are living in such times because for more than a decade nation after nation rapidly increased the amount of its borrowings as a proportion of its economy—its national leverage. It was not just excessive Government borrowing, but an entire national pastime undertaken by millions of households, companies and banks in many nations. That beggaring of future generations is now—sometimes harshly but ultimately correctly—being brought to an end, and it is in that context that we review a future fund, including how it may help and how it might fit with current Government policies.

So, what is a future fund? A future fund is shorthand for moving the burden of paying for public sector pensions from the current tax-as-you-go model to a proceeds-from-invested-capital, or fully funded, model. It is fair to say, and I am sure that the Economic Secretary will confirm this, that Lord Hutton’s recent review of pensions ruled out a move to a future fund. Like you, Mr Leigh, I do not have any wish to be a champion for lost causes, but I hope that I am able to make some strong points about why the Treasury should reconsider Lord Hutton’s proposal to move on and not make a transition in the way in which public sector pensions are funded. This is not about public sector pension negotiations or about changing public sector pensions; it is about the process that the Government undertake to fund the pensions.

I encourage the Economic Secretary and the Treasury to reconsider a future fund for three main reasons. The first is that it promotes intergenerational fairness, and reinforces the Government’s view about long-term thinking for the security of our economy. Secondly, it offers an opportunity to rebalance the structure of earnings, to restore emphasis on pension provision—deferred income—rather than on immediate income and, thirdly, it enables the creation of a UK sovereign wealth fund, to stimulate investment in long-term projects.

I shall take each reason in turn. First, on a future fund promoting intergenerational fairness, those of us of a certain age look back on our lives and, being part of a bulge bracket of population—some of us at the latter end of it—perhaps realise that we have taken a lot for ourselves and that, as a generation, we have been somewhat greedy on the nation’s resources. That is one reason why this Government came into office at a time of such enormous debts, which future generations will need to repay. One thing that guides me as a Member of Parliament is looking for ways in which we can use fiscal probity to unburden future generations of some of those liabilities. Let us be under no illusion: it will not be easy for our children and grandchildren to compete in the future world economy. It will be tough. We have new competitors coming up all the time, so they will need every advantage, one of which is to bequeath them lower taxation rates than they otherwise would have.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman consider the Norwegians to have been a great example of setting up an oil fund for future generations to ensure that their oil wealth was not squandered in one generation?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely fair point. I was not in Parliament in the 1970s, and I am not sure whether such points were made at that time, but clearly countries that have received the beneficence of resources—Norway is one example, and Australia another—have seen the value of looking at the long-term investment of natural resources, and have set up future funds to provide for future pension liabilities. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point in support of my argument. Of course, we are not as endowed with natural resources as those countries are, but the fundamental point about fairness between the generations is still solid.

Let us remind ourselves that the current level of public sector debt—the debt that we all talk about and are so worried about—is £1 trillion. The public sector pensions liability, which we do not often talk about, is £1.1 trillion. All those obligations have to be paid by future generations and, as we have so significantly ramped up this first amount of debt, should we not look for ways to reduce the unfunded part of public sector pensions for future taxpayers? A future fund would, over time, eliminate that burden from taxpayers and transfer it to the returns that would be generated from a funded pension scheme.

The Intergenerational Foundation has noted some questions about public sector pensions, and also some of the risks, and this change would reduce risk. At the moment, Lord Hutton’s proposals manage risk by way of a view of a cost ceiling on total public sector pension liabilities, which is based on projections of economic growth. The projections show the liability as a steady share of gross domestic product, falling in the long term. I am not sure that history is littered with Governments who under-predict economic growth; in fact, I think that it is often the other way around, with Governments having a rather rosy view of future growth. So, inherently, as we consider the risk that will fall on future generations, there is a likelihood that the Government, under current systems, will underestimate the liability that they are passing on. As Lord Hutton said:

“What we’ve seen is how very quickly the assumptions which underpinned my assessments of the long-term sustainability of public services pensions have been shown to be too optimistic…That is going to affect the sustainability of public sector pensions in a negative way.”

The change in the pensions structure would considerably eliminate that risk.

I shall now talk a bit about the second point, which is the rebalancing of the structure of earnings, to restore the emphasis on pensions. Over the past few decades, the role that pensions have played in the round of the compensation offer made to potential employees has reduced considerably and, I would say, undesirably. There is much more emphasis today on the immediate levels of compensation, on “How much will I earn this year?” rather than on “How much of what I earn am I putting away for my long-term retirement needs?”.

House of Commons statistics have tracked the active membership of occupational pension schemes for private sector and public sector employees, and have compared 1995 with 2010. Over that period, the number of public sector workers in such pension schemes increased, from 4.1 million to 5.3 million, but the number of private sector workers halved, from 6.2 million to 3.1 million. That was a halving in the coverage of occupational pension schemes in a very short period—15 years—which is why I say that the change has been dramatic. Being conservative, I like to see things in the round of their consequences. We are now seeing that many people fear that they do not have enough money for their retirement, and the Government have rightly recognised the need to encourage pensions through auto-enrolment programmes. This would be another measure that would encourage people by, as I shall explain in a minute, creating a floor on public sector pensions that would enable the focus to turn back to how pensions will be provided for private sector workers.

The third point is the role of a future fund in creating a sovereign wealth fund. To create a future fund, we have to fund it—and, boy, does it take a lot of money. If we have £1 trillion of liabilities, that is a lot of money to save up, so a long period is needed. The Australian future fund set a period of 14 years before money could be taken out: the law was passed in 2006, and no disbursements can be made until 2020. For the UK, taking a 20-year period, it would require a minimum of at least £20 billion a year—probably significantly higher than that; somewhere between £20 billion and £30 billion a year—fully to fund all the Government pension schemes over those 20 years.

To put that in context, that figure is equivalent to 3% of total Government expenditure. It sounds a lot, but the Government spend a lot—it would be 3% of expenditure—and it would be only half the money that the Government are spending on the interest on their own debt. It is therefore a manageable amount of money, even though the amount is significant. In addition to looking to fund that out of annual public expenditure, it would also be possible to make asset sales into the fund. In fact, the Australian future fund started with an asset transfer, from the sale of part of the telecommunications company Telstra, for its seed investment. I have checked—with the Minister here, I wanted to be absolutely sure—and the Government’s deficit reduction targets would not be imperilled by any future sale of assets going into a future fund. Quite rightly, if I may say so, the deficit reduction targets are set absent of any funds from the proceeds of the disposal of certain assets, such as those of Royal Bank of Scotland.

Some may say that taking £20 billion out of public expenditure when we are trying to create demand is a very odd suggestion, but of course the £20 billion would not be lost from the economy. Essentially, £20 billion would be transferred from current expenditure to an investment fund for long-term investment. That money would become a fund of resources that could be used to invest in long-term projects. If we take the Ontario teachers’ pension fund—I hope you will look it up later, Mr Leigh—it involves patient capital that is invested in long-term investment projects. It is there to secure the pensions of those wonderful teachers in Ontario; they are not quite, but almost, as good as the teachers in Bedford. It is there to protect their pensions, which it does by looking for long-term investment returns. It is the fund that seeded the money for Birmingham airport. If we had our own infrastructure fund set up as a future fund for public sector pensions, we could provide resources to fund long-term investment projects.

Let me say something that I rarely say, which is that I agree with the comments made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who spoke yesterday about the need for a significant investment in housing construction. Of course, we need other construction projects, but we understand that we are under fiscal restraints because we must demonstrate that our deficit is being reduced. I ask the Treasury team to consider this very carefully: in current market conditions, particularly with the constraints of fiscal responsibility and the lenient conditions for monetary policy, a future fund would be uniquely placed to provide the long-term patient capital to fund such infrastructure investments, without there being any challenge to the probity of the Chancellor’s deficit and debt reduction policies. This environment provides an opportunity to fund and seed a future fund with the resources from the Government’s credit easing or quantitative easing programmes, and that would happen in such a way that markets would see that it was matching a reduction in the country’s long-term public liabilities for funding public sector pensions.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a visionary proposal. How does he believe that he could bring the public with him, not only in accepting his proposals but in having a profitable engagement about them?

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I recently got the box set of “Yes Minister”, and “a visionary proposal” has echoes of “a courageous decision” in the lexicon of that show. However, he raises the important point of how we are to bring the public along with us. That can be done in a number of ways. First, it is a responsibility of our generation to show young people that we are doing everything we can to give them a better future. That is what mums and dads are doing around the country right now—cutting back on their own budgets to make sure that their kids have a few extra luxuries and are protected from some of the problems that we are going through as we try to reduce our deficit. The future fund would be another way of engaging with and doing something for younger generations, and I hope that groups such as the Intergenerational Foundation will press that message.

I am conscious that I am taking up the Minister’s time, but I want to make these points, if I may, Mr Leigh. Secondly, trade unions have been very concerned about a race to the bottom on pensions and—you know what—for many reasons, they have been fair in making that point. We do not want to have minimal or zero pension provision. It would be too attractive to take that headline number for this year’s income; it would be far better for us to have a structure in which people understand the proper role played by pensions. If we said to trade unions, during the process of reviewing public sector pensions, “That’s it—no more reviews,” that would deal with all the fears of people enlisting in pension programmes about another change somehow coming in. They have already had one change and now there is another, so they are thinking, “Well, there’ll be another one, so why should I contribute to a scheme when I don’t know where it’s going?” If we called a halt to that while investing in a public fund—the future fund—we could tell trade unions, “That’s the floor in public sector pensions. Now work with the Government on trying to encourage the private sector to start rebalancing the ways in which it looks at compensation, so that the role of pensions is restored to its rightful place.” In those ways, we can bring people along.

Of course, the person I most wish to bring along with me in relation to this opportunity is the Minister, but I am fearful that I am not in a position to do so today. However, I hope that, much like the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and me, she is at least engaged to look at what the hon. Gentleman called the “visionary” idea of having a proper and fair way between the generations and of accounting for public sector pensions through a future fund.

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

It is a pleasure to respond the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). A number of us have heard him make those points passionately and eloquently in the House, and in a fairly factual way, I shall lay out what the Government are able to say in response.

Before doing so, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, because he has been able use this platform to draw attention to the importance of ensuring affordability. He has spoken in robust and wise terms of the bombs that an irresponsible Government might leave for future generations, and I particularly congratulate him on raising such themes in his well-informed and practical discussion. I suspect that he will agree that it is a great shame that no Front Bencher from Her Majesty’s Opposition is here to join us in the debate. After all, they have a sizeable charge to answer in terms of what they left for future generations in this country.

I shall describe the situation that we face. As I expect you know well, Mr Leigh, the annual cost of public service pensions paid out has risen by more than a third over the past 10 years to £32 billion. To put that in context, as my hon. Friend did for other areas of spending, that figure is more than what is spent on police, prisons and the courts combined. Put simply, costs have of course increased because people are living longer. Although improvements in longevity are very welcome, the Government are therefore paying public service pensions for much longer than was expected when the schemes were designed. The bulk of that extra cost has mainly fallen on the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend is well aware that rebalancing the costs of providing pensions more fairly between employers, employees and other taxpayers requires bringing expenditure under control. We must make far-reaching structural changes to scheme designs, and that is what the Government are doing.

My hon. Friend has teed me up to deal with the remarks of Lord Hutton, who produced a landmark report—Members are well aware of it; perhaps you even have it on your bedside table, Mr Leigh—that took an impartial and comprehensive look at public service pensions. The Government are committed to implementing that blueprint, which will give us a new public sector pensions landscape. I do not intend to examine that landscape in detail, but I will make some points about it.

I emphasise, as my hon. Friend already has done, that this is not a race to the bottom. It is important to get public service pensions on a fairer, more affordable footing, but the Government must also ensure that the hard-working public service workers continue to receive pensions that are among the very best available. That is what has encouraged us to consider the changes so carefully. They have been discussed extensively with trade unions and other scheme representatives for more than a year, and those discussions continue.

The changes will deliver the Government’s objective to ensure that most low and middle earners who work a full career will receive pension benefits that are at least as good, if not better, than they would get now. They will also deliver our commitment to protect accrued pension benefits for those closest to retirement.

I have digressed somewhat, so let me return to the key point from Lord Hutton’s report with regard to this debate: the concept of funded versus unfunded. My hon. Friend has referred extensively to the Australian Government’s future fund, but we must bear in mind that we in this country are not alone in providing unfunded public service pension schemes. It is also fair to note that all pensions, whether funded or unfunded, are claims on the output of our successor generations. The great and truly visionary questions raised by my hon. Friend relate to intergenerational fairness, which is an issue that spans both funded and unfunded schemes. The funding status does not determine the sustainability or affordability of pensions, or the size of liabilities built up over time. Unfunded pension schemes are commonly used by Governments, because they are the most cost-effective way to provide pensions benefits over the long term. The method is available to Governments, but not necessarily to the private sector.

Lord Hutton’s report—or, to give it its full name, the interim report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission—found that keeping schemes unfunded has many advantages. It also dealt with some areas of funded public service pension schemes in this country, but recommended no change. The report stated that keeping schemes unfunded avoids potentially significant investment management costs and the risks involved in investing, whether in the UK or overseas. The report also noted that there are risks involved in the Government—in one guise or another—controlling up to £1 trillion or more of financial assets. It also stated that, even when the funds are placed in the hands of trustees, in an emergency the Government could still be compelled to underwrite the funds, which represents a further risk.

My hon. Friend spoke of the Ontario teachers pension plan as an example in support of his cause, but I feel honour bound to put a few points on record about its current performance, which is a cause of concern. The plan has experienced recurring funding shortfalls for the past 10 years. Indeed, as of 1 January, it is projecting a $9.6 billion shortfall, because the cost of future pensions continues to grow faster than the planned assets. That is connected to how the plan’s members are living longer and to interest rates.

Ireland’s national pension reserve fund also gives us cause to reflect on what can happen with such funds. My hon. Friend may have read the same Financial Times article as I did in November 2011 that reported on how that reserve is to be tapped for €12.5 billion of the bail-out costs with regard to Ireland’s public finances. There are risks connected to some of the schemes, so I do not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend’s interpretation that all is rosy in the land of funded schemes.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not think that anyone is saying that all is rosy in one scheme or another. Equally, I am sure that the Minister would agree that all is not rosy in the current system. One of the reasons why we have an off-balance sheet is that Governments do not like to talk about the obligations that they incur when they take on additional work. Does she accept that, if we transition to a fund, rather than the current scheme, and Governments add it to the public sector payroll, they would have to justify the full obligation of those pensions to the fund?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Such a scheme could be designed in that way, to entrench the principles of responsibility that have been the key note of what he has outlined today, and for which I respect his argument.

To respond to the debate and to offer the Government’s view on funded pension schemes, we support the conclusions of the Hutton report, as my hon. Friend knows. I think that he will therefore understand why I acknowledge the report’s concerns about funded schemes. I think that he will also appreciate why I want to finish by talking about the problems that can result from moving to a different scheme structure. The transitional costs are difficult to contemplate. As is often the case—perhaps in those countries that have already tried this—a move to funded schemes involves significant financial costs.

Contributions in respect of current employees would have to be diverted to the new pension funds. Pensions in payment would therefore have to be financed through extra Government borrowing or taxation. To put a figure on that for the UK economy, it would cost more than £25 billion next year alone, with costs declining only very gradually over the 21st century. It would be problematic for the UK Government to contemplate that at this time, owing, as my hon. Friend has already said, to the actions of previous Governments and to current global trends.

My hon. Friend referred to the Government’s credit easing schemes, which were announced earlier this year. He is interested in how the funds connected to those schemes could be used in relation to a future scheme, but, although the national loan guarantee scheme will provide up to £20 billion of guarantees to banks, that is not a case of guaranteeing loans to individual businesses. The full credit risk of the loans remains with the banks, so no cash is set aside for the project that could be redirected, as my hon. Friend suggested, to setting up a pension fund. I will direct his interest—I am sure that he is already, as the phrase goes, “all over it”—to the memorandum of understanding with the National Association of Pension Funds and the Pension Protection Fund that was announced in last year’s autumn statement. That might be a way to gain direct investment from pension funds into UK infrastructure assets, which I am sure my hon. Friend is interested in.

To sum up, the Government will introduce legislation in the autumn to implement the final proposals that have been reached based on Lord Hutton’s recommendations, including maintaining the current funding agreements. The Government believe that those deals should not need to be revisited in the next 25 years. We have said so publicly and deliberately, and stand by that position. That should reassure pension scheme members that they are right to remain in their schemes, which will remain among the very best available. The Government’s commitment to continue to provide guaranteed, index-linked benefits in retirement should encourage young and old people alike to take up the pensions savings baton. The reforms should achieve the objectives of sustainability, fairness and responsibility within the public finances.

Banking Reform

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The process we are going to go through is a very transparent one. We have published a White Paper today, setting out clearly our response—our detailed response—to John Vickers’ recommendations. As I said earlier, we are going to publish a draft Bill, which will be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. We are being very transparent about how we are implementing Sir John Vickers’ recommendations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with us and ensure that the recommendations get through, so that we remedy the mistakes of the past.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s proposals for the long-term protection of depositors, but he will be aware that many of us are concerned about the supply of credit to businesses in our economy right now and the impact right now of these long-term proposals. What analysis has the Treasury made of the impact on credit from these proposals in the near term? May I suggest that the Minister continues to monitor the impact with more urgency so that the concerns that have been raised can be assuaged?

[Mr Hoban]

Strong banks that are in a position to lend to businesses are absolutely vital to the long-term future of our economy. We have seen that the mistakes of the past eventually catch up with people. They have led to a weakening of bank balance sheets, which are now being strengthened. We need not only strong banks, but schemes in place to sustain bank lending and to ensure a supply of credit to SMEs.

Jobs and Growth

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

Credibility is about getting things right, not about getting them wrong. We were told that we were out of the danger zone and that the recovery had been secured, but what has happened? Plan A failed in Britain and in the eurozone too, and it is the very plan that the Chancellor has been urging on us. What did he say to The Daily Telegraph in August last year? He said:

“Britain is leading the way out of this crisis”,

and

“The eurozone must follow our lead and act decisively”.

The Prime Minister is off to the G8 summit this weekend. The only countries in recession that will be represented there are Italy and Britain. How are we leading the way? The fact is that the austerity policies that are failing in Europe are the very same policies that have failed in Britain, and which the British Government have been urging the German Government to urge the eurozone to stick with. That is the reality.

Opposition Members have consistently argued that it will not work for all countries to try to reduce their deficits at the same time, that tough medium-term plans to cut the deficit will work only if Governments also put in place a plan for jobs and growth, and that a time when a global hurricane is brewing is precisely not the time at which to rip out the foundations of the house here in Britain.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). We have nothing in the file for him, because unfortunately we were unable to find anything interesting that he had said during the last two years.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the compliment from the right hon. Gentleman, who has often demonstrated that he does not have a sound grip on economics. He is continuing to say something that I do not think is correct: he is continuing to compare austerity policies with growth policies. Does he not accept that growth is an outcome, which all policies are intended to achieve, and will he have the honesty to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and cost his plans?

[Ed Balls]

The right course is to take a balanced approach that combines medium-term deficit reduction with getting jobs and growth moving. The problem with austerity is that it chokes off jobs and growth and ends up costing more in spending, more in unemployment and more in borrowing. We have set out a clear alternative. We have said “Repeat the bank bonus tax, and use the money to create jobs.” We have said “Rip up the failed national insurance cut introduced by the Chancellor, and use the money for a tax cut for small businesses.” We have said “Yes, cut VAT by £12 billion for a year to get the economy moving.” We have not said how many shovel-ready infrastructure projects can be launched, because we do not have the details.

The Prime Minister says that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis, but unless you grow, your debts get bigger and your deficits get worse. That is what the Chancellor has proved over the last two years. It is not only the Labour party that is advancing that argument. Only last week, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund said:

“We know that fiscal austerity holds back growth and the effects are worse in downturns... so the right pace is essential”.

Even the head of the European Central Bank is now pressing for a jobs and growth plan.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor must wake up to the fact that our economy has not grown on their watch for a year and a half. Instead of trying to divert the blame for their failure and using the eurozone as an excuse for Britain's problems, they must admit that they got it wrong—that they gave the eurozone the wrong advice—and start pushing for the right solution to the eurozone crisis. I agree that there should be a proper role for the European Central Bank and a greater emphasis on fiscal burden-sharing, but there should also be a change of course on austerity, because only a balanced plan that puts jobs and growth first will succeed in getting the deficit down. When the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and even the United States are urging policies for jobs and growth, this Chancellor and this Prime Minister are looking increasingly isolated and out on a limb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

On that point, will my right hon. Friend note that last month we had the largest number of new company formations in my constituency of Bedford? One reason for that is that they want stable, low, long-term interest rates, which this coalition’s policies are delivering.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what businesses need—a stable economic environment in which we are not exposed to some of the financial problems that some eurozone countries face at the moment. The low interest rates and the credibility that our policy bring help every business, not only in Bedford but around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Binley]

I do—they will tell you that, Sir—as you did when you said that there was no money left. We are both honest men.

I wish that the shadow Chancellor would welcome some of the achievements that the people of this country welcome; it is foolish of him not to do so when there are considerable signs of recovery. It simply lowers the esteem in which all politicians are held, and I urge him, and the Opposition Front Bencher who responds to this debate, to take that into account.

There are welcome signs of recovery. The private sector has created more than 500,000 jobs since the general election; the International Monetary Fund forecasts that the UK will grow at twice the speed of Germany and three times that of France; borrowing costs have fallen, investment has been increasing and only yesterday we saw a drop of 45,000 in the number of unemployed people in the first quarter of this year. All those things are welcome, but it would be refreshing to hear Opposition Front Benchers greet them with some enthusiasm—although I doubt that they will.

The truth of the matter is that consumers and businesses are saying, “To hell with it; we’ve got to get on with life,” and that is one reason why we are seeing some of the green shoots of recovery. Now we need to nurture them and ensure that they continue to grow and bear fruit.

The situation is fragile, and no one would say otherwise. Consequently, I urge the Government and the Chancellor to do more. We will not achieve growth with new laws. The previous Government tried that for 13 years, and we saw what happened. This place does not create the growth; it simply sets the atmosphere and ambience for it. So I appeal to the Chancellor to recognise that we need to change the culture regarding entrepreneurialism and the attitude to small businesses, and indeed serious and important recommendations on doing so are coming forward from various parts of the House.

We must also understand the needs of small businesses, because therein lies our best chance of growing jobs and the well-being of this nation.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing that a small businessman would like to do more than to employ a young, new worker? What would my hon. Friend suggest to the Chancellor can be done with employment regulations, so that we get our businesses employing people more easily?

[Mr Binley]

I welcome that important point, because I was about to turn to that very area. More can be done, and we do indeed need to reduce the regulatory burden and to strengthen the business environment.

I welcome in the Queen’s Speech the proposed measures to deal with executive pay and employment tribunals, but I still do not understand why the Government are obsessing about maternity and paternity leave, especially for very small businesses. I simply point out that many people meet in the workplace and set up a family life together, and, if a small business employing 10 people loses 20% of its work force for six months, temporary labour cannot be used as a replacement. That simply does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention and that of other Members to the fact that I am an adviser to a venture capital fund and also to my other entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I support everything in the Queen’s Speech that will deal with improving jobs and achieving growth in our country. I hope that is the only partisan point that I shall make because I would like to talk a little bit about the use of language, and then advise hon. Members about a very practical way that Members of Parliament can play a role in achieving the goals that we all seek in terms of enhancing jobs and creating growth.

Let me start, if I may, with language. It is always important, in trying to solve a problem, to use words in the correct way and in ways that make sense, because if we do not do that, of course we will not solve the problem. Sadly, we have a major problem with the language when it comes to jobs and growth, starting with the word “austerity”, which has been much used today in a number of speeches.

A dictionary definition of austerity, in its economic context, is:

“An economic policy by which a Government reduces the amount of money it spends by a large amount.”

In popular discourse that is a description of the coalition Government’s economic policies. The trouble is that it is not a correct description of the coalition’s policies. Over the period of this Government, total public spending will increase, not decrease, from £670 billion to £734 billion. If we choose to measure it in terms of public borrowing as a percentage of GDP, the reduction in the UK will be significantly less than that of Greece, Portugal and Ireland. “Austerity” is therefore a good catch-phrase, but it is not an accurate way to describe coalition policies. That is compounded by a false choice that is presented to the public: austerity versus growth. I think that is a false and misleading set of alternatives to present, because growth is an objective that all policies seek to achieve, and a better description of the policy alternatives that are being put forward is, on the one hand, growth based on living within our means, and on the other, growth based on borrowing.

The BBC, if I may say so, is particularly noteworthy in its use of these false comparisons. On 12 May Gavin Hewitt, who is the BBC’s European editor, had a column entitled “Growth versus austerity”. On 4 May, Stephanie Flanders, the BBC’s economics editor, commented:

“It’s not only Labour politicians who say this”.

in the debate about the trade-off between austerity and growth.

Yesterday evening, a debate on BBC’s “Newsnight” featured a huge animated set of scales with “austerity” on one side trying to be balanced with “growth” on the other. That is not the BBC bias of which the Mayor of London has recently spoken, but it is misleading propaganda being put to the British public.

I now turn to a practical idea that all Members of Parliament should consider in their constituencies. I am drawing on some of my experience in Bedford, and on Monday at 3 o’clock I shall be holding a workshop to describe that in more detail to hon. Members. I looked at the comparative advantages that Bedford had in terms of economics. We do not have much. We do not have a university science park, we do not have a lot of inward investment, and we do not have a big employer, but people have a willingness to invest in and grow local businesses. We are in the process of creating a Bedford business enterprise investment scheme fund—a policy introduced by the Labour Government and enhanced by this Government. That is an excellent scheme, to encourage people to invest in local businesses. The idea of the fund is to get people to put money into their local business because they want to see them grow. There is a sense of civic duty that motivates people, and the fact that they have idle balances sitting in the banks, earning very low interest rates, is a very good economic incentive for people to do that.

A Member of Parliament can act as a great initiator, champion and cheerleader for this initiative, drawing together a local advisory board of business people to run the fund, seeking out partners for the fund to help to popularise it in the community, and finding new businesses that the fund can invest in. In Bedford, we have set a target of raising £500,000, and we are well on our way to achieving that.

I believe that if other hon. Members engage in that sort of action, it will mean that MPs, who are often criticised for lacking real world experience and being out of touch, will be seen in their local communities doing something practical to help people. If we put a network of projects together, we could seek support for this excellent initiative from the regional growth fund so that we have a constellation of local groups across the country where local people come together to support—commercially—the growth of local businesses in their community. If people would like to learn more, I shall be happy to explain on Monday at 3 o’clock in the Thatcher room.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

We have heard quite a lot already about the economic situation. The context for the Budget is one of economic stagnation. The growth forecast produced last year for this year was for growth of 2.5% in 2012. The OBR’s estimate now of growth in 2012 is just 0.8%. The growth forecast for 2013 is also 0.8%. That is close to stagnation.

Unemployment is rising, the cost of living is rising, and it is particularly worrying that business investment appears to be collapsing. The OBR forecasts that business investment this year will drop 7%, from an estimate of 7.7% to 0.7%. That is connected with the OBR’s forecast for such meagre growth as there is to be, according to its estimate. A much larger share of this growth—three times larger—is to come from private consumption rather than from export-led growth. We have a demand crisis in the economy. I worry that the Chancellor is putting all his eggs in one basket, rather like Japan did in the 1990s, gambling everything on low interest rates as a way to stimulate the economy.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a demand crisis, but does he accept that some of the responsibility for that comes from the policies of the previous Government, which so substantially over-leveraged not just the Government, but the entire economy?

[Gregg McClymont]

There is no doubt, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say, that not everything in the garden was rosy by 2010. That does not take away from the current Government their responsibility to stimulate the economy. On any metric, growth of 0.8% this year and next year is only very limited growth. On current estimates we will not return to 2007 GPD levels till 2013. That slump will be the longest since the 19th century—six years to get back to a previous level of GDP. That is indeed a slump, and this is a stagnation Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Gapes]

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

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

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

[Gregg McClymont]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is rather a caricature of what happened during the global financial crisis? It was a global crisis. Surely the financial sector, and the banks in particular, have to take some responsibility for the debt that we face.

[Richard Fuller]

As always, I have a lot in common with the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the point. The point is that the damage was already being done in our national economy. It was the strategy of the previous Government not to be content with leveraging up their own debt; they required the leveraging up of household debt and corporate debt, as well as financial sector debt and Government debt. Debt was the answer in the period when they came up with the statement that they had ended boom and bust. That debt has to be paid for. It is two years since the Labour Government left office and there is not enough time to pay for the 10 years of the growth of debt in our economy. It will take a significant amount of time for us to de-leverage the economy in every sector. This Budget is part of that process.

[Phil Wilson]

If that is true, why did the Tory Opposition go along with our spending plans right up until 2008?

[Richard Fuller]

That is a good question, which the hon. Gentleman should address to the Chancellor. I was not in Parliament at that time and I am not sure that that is what I would have said.

Much has been said about the granny tax. The one thing that grandparents want is what is best for their grandchildren. They understand that in tough times—this is because many of them have been through tough times—they have to give something to ensure that we will be stronger in future. That is what this Budget will deliver, and it is part of getting our economy balanced and back on the right track.

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned personal debt, about which I share a great deal of concern. Is he aware that under the Government’s plans personal debt will rise, not fall, over the coming period?

[Richard Fuller]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to unsecured personal debt rather than overall levels of personal and household debt. There is much for the Government to do, such as examining excessive rises in credit card terms and penalties for people who have to take on unsecured debt, and I believe they intend to do it.

We need to do more about our deficit, and I suggest again that one thing we can do for the sake of general fairness is consider creating a future fund that takes the pension obligations of our public sector workers and puts them into a fully funded scheme. It would take 20 to 25 years to accomplish that, but Australia, New Zealand, France and Norway are doing it, and it would show that this generation in Parliament understands its responsibility to the next generation of Britons. If we added that to our fiscal responsibility, we would be doing the next generation a great favour.

Amendment of the Law

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this most important debate. Before I start, I put on record my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his statement yesterday, for putting growth at the heart of the Budget, for unashamedly backing business, and for rewarding hard-working families. Those are the areas I want to focus on, but first I want to talk a little about the cut from 50% to 45% in the top rate of tax.

I have to say that I did not campaign for the cut and I was surprised to see it in the Budget, although that does not mean I do not welcome it. As a Conservative, I believe that all taxes should be as low as possible so that everyone can keep as much of their money as possible and spend it how they wish. But I recognise that at a time of national austerity, when public sector workers are experiencing a pay freeze and then very modest pay increases, and ordinary families are struggling with high fuel and energy prices, giving what appears to be a tax cut for the wealthiest in society seems to make no sense. Our hearts say this cannot be right, but if we use our heads, look at the hard facts and stop listening to the class war rhetoric of the Opposition, it begins to make a little more sense.

The 50% tax rate left Britain isolated as the country with the highest income tax rate in the G20—higher than our competitors such as the United States and countries in Europe. It made Britain a less attractive place for wealth and job creators to set up and do business. It encouraged the wealthiest in society to be more creative about where in the world they paid their tax. It saw £16 billion of income deliberately shifted into a previous tax year, meaning that the total take from the 50% rate was only around £l billion. It did not raise the levels of income expected and it made Britain less competitive.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a lot of sense. Would he also draw Members’ attention to the HMRC report and the chart on page 23 showing that even with a 45p tax rate we will still have the highest tax rate for top earners in the OECD and G20?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I think my hon. Friend has just done that.

The higher tax rate made Britain less competitive, and if we are less competitive, it means less growth, fewer jobs, reduced prospects for economic recovery and fewer tax cuts for the rest of us. Despite the perception, therefore, that this cut benefits the wealthiest, I believe that it benefits us all. Having a top rate of 50% rather than 45% raises only £100 million in direct tax, whereas the other Budget measures introduced yesterday raise five times that amount—£500 million.

We should not listen to Labour on this matter. Its aim is to reignite the class war and divide Britain along the lines of envy for its own political gain. I want to say to the people of South Basildon and East Thurrock, “Ask yourself this simple question: what is in the best interests of you and your family? If you answer economic growth, better job prospects, low interest rates or lower taxes, welcome this change, because it goes some way to delivering those aims.” On its own, however, it is only a small step. To achieve real growth, we need more, and I am pleased that we are getting more. The Chancellor both confirmed existing growth measures and announced new ones. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I am pleased that the science budget is receiving continued support. Investment in science and technology is vital if we are to emerge from financial austerity. New technologies, deployed for our own economic gain, can provide both jobs and growth. I therefore welcome the maintenance of the £4.6 billion science budget. I believe—I think the Chancellor does too—that science and technology form the basis of our future competitiveness.

Investment in sectors that Britain excels in is also vital. Investments such as in the Francis Crick Institute at St Pancras, the establishment of a UK centre for aerodynamics, which will encourage innovation in the aircraft industry and help design and commercialise new ideas for decades to come, and the £100 million of support, alongside the private sector, for investment in major new university research facilities are important parts of that support.

Also important are the changes to research and development tax credits to encourage businesses to invest in innovation and technology. We also need to improve links with small businesses and the research base to assist in the commercialisation of research and, I hope, capture the value that can come from that. These will be the key drivers of economic growth, and the Government should continue to strive to create the best possible operating environment in which this can take place to encourage greater investment and international interest. We want the international research community to see the UK as the best place to invest in science and technology. I am therefore pleased that the Science and Technology Committee will be looking at how we can bridge the valley of death—the chasm between concept and commercialisation.

This goes wider than just science-based businesses, however. We want all businesses to see the UK as the best place to set up and do business, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has taken to ensure that this becomes a reality. The reductions in corporation tax, the introduction of corporation tax relief for video games, animation and high-end television, and the investment in broadband provision and infrastructure are all welcome additions to the growth programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

We would never introduce the kind of unfair flexibility—if I can call it that—that the Government are now promoting. The simple reality is that hard-hit areas will be hit even harder in the next stages, be they in Wales, the north-east, the north-west, Birmingham or Northern Ireland.

In the time remaining to me, let me deal with something that commanded but a passing reference in yesterday’s Budget—housing. We have the biggest housing crisis in a generation. Millions of people in Britain are in need of a decent home at a price that they can afford. About 2.8 million people are on council waiting lists, 30,000 of them in the city of Birmingham. Owing to the combination of this Government’s economic mismanagement and the failure of their housing policies, this crisis gets worse by the day.

House building was down by 11% over the first 18 months of this Government in comparison with the last 18 months of the Labour Government. It was the vainglorious boast of the Housing Minister who gives hubris a bad name that he would beat Labour “hands down” year on year, but that is not what is now happening. Homelessness is up, with families presenting themselves as homeless up by 14%. Rough sleeping is up 23%, yet it fell by 70% under the Labour Government. We have a mortgage market where millions struggle to get a mortgage. Scottish Widows estimates the average age of unassisted first-time buyers to be going up from 37 to 40 to 44. We have a private rented sector growing rapidly which is characterised by soaring rents and, all too often, abuse of tenants.

What, then, of the “housing revolution” announced by the Government in November last year? All I would say is that if we had a house for every press statement issued before and after that time, we would not have a housing crisis. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister donned wellies and went to a building site to say that all would be well. What came out the following day, however, was that as a consequence of the £4 billion cut instituted by the Chancellor in October 2010, affordable house building had collapsed by 99% throughout England.

What of the new homes bonus? It is both inefficient and unfair, while our planning system is being thrown into chaos by the Government.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the building of affordable homes. Does he not regard it as appalling that, under the last Labour Government, the building of social houses went down by 25%?

[Jack Dromey]

Under our Government, there were 2 million new homes, 1 million more mortgage holders and half a million more affordable homes, and 1.6 million homes were renovated under our decent homes programme. Has housing been at centre stage as much as it should have been under successive Governments for 25 years? No, but I will compare our record any time with the failure of this Government.

In conclusion, housing matters. Housing matters to the economy. Housing matters to health, as evidence of the damage done by poor or overcrowded housing confirms. Housing matters to educational attainment. Kids are held back at school because they live in damp or overcrowded housing. That is why urgent action on housing matters. That is what we did in 2008, after the bankers’ collapse, with our kick-start programme, which had 110,000 homes built, creating 70,000 jobs and 3,000 apprenticeships. That is why we are absolutely right to say that we need a repeat of the bank bonus tax to build tens of thousands of homes, to create jobs for unemployed building workers and to create apprenticeships and hope for the young people of my constituency. I see the consequences of the Government’s actions every day, and I know what my constituency wants. It wants to put people back to work to build that which the community so badly needs—homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

All three main parties agreed that the 50p tax rate was to be a temporary measure. Also, we must ensure that any tax that is imposed actually raises the required revenue for the Government coffers. If it does not do so, it would be irresponsible of a Government to carry on with that tax just because it is good politics. It is right for the Government to set that tax at a rate that discourages avoidance and encourages people to pay.

Fairness must not be the only test of this Budget. Economic growth is also very important. In truth, the Chancellor has very limited room for manoeuvre, and it is good that we have nevertheless done quite a lot for hard-working people, giving back to them more of their hard-earned cash. However, only economic growth will lift the prosperity of all of us. Today, we focus on who are the winners and losers from this Budget, but growth is the most important theme.

I was therefore encouraged to hear the Business Secretary talk about access to finance from the banks. My party colleagues and I know that more borrowing, spending and debt is not the way to get economic growth and to create jobs. We believe that the way to achieve that is through encouraging a spirit of enterprise and adventure, but we cannot encourage that unless we ensure that finance gets into the real economy.

One of the biggest challenges we face in coming out of the 2008 financial crisis is the concentration in our banking system. Some 90% of small business lending is concentrated among five banks. No matter what they say, that means that there is little price competition and it is important that the Government do a lot to ensure that we can get money into the real economy. That is why I welcome credit easing, because by using the Government’s balance sheet to enable banks to borrow and lend to businesses, we enable a situation whereby even if a business had a 1% interest rate discount, it could refresh loans that may otherwise not be refreshed.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is talking about credit easing and the use of banks. Does he not also think there is scope for considering alternative mechanisms to provide financing to our small businesses?

Living Standards

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right. Government Members would do well to listen to her point. We also know that because of the changes to working tax credits, many families will be in the crazy situation whereby they would be better off on benefits than in work, as the Government’s own figures show.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is moving on to some of the complexities of the benefits system. Does she support the coalition Government’s policies for a universal benefit as a way of simplifying this process? Did she vote for that?

[Rachel Reeves]

This has nothing to do with universal credit. Those changes take effect in about one and a half years. In the meantime, families will be £74 worse off a week because of what the Government are doing, and would be better off on benefits. That is totally inconsistent with what universal credit is supposed to do, which is to ensure that everyone is better off in work. This policy goes in totally the opposite direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

That is a very good example of the problem one can get into, and that is why I wish my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench every success in dealing with what we can all see is a problem, but I am not recommending to them that they give up and say that somebody on £200,000 a year should still be able to get full child benefit. That is not the right answer, and I should hope that Labour might sympathise with that proposition and agree, but I am grateful that some Opposition Members are now coming round to my view that high marginal rates of tax and of benefit withdrawal, at all levels of income, are a disincentive.

Just as Government Front Benchers are rightly trying to tackle the very serious problem at the lower end, perhaps with some support from Labour, they should have some sympathy for people in the middle of the income scale, where the situation can be equally unpleasant and difficult for families struggling to meet their bills. Sometimes Opposition Members forget that, although people in my constituency tend to have a higher average income than many of the average incomes in their constituencies, my constituents’ housing costs, their travel costs and other factors in their cost of living mean that they need higher incomes in order to have the same living standard as those whose houses are half the price or less, because housing is a very big component.

The Labour party has rightly said that it would be wonderful if we could tax the banks more, and I again find myself in agreement with that. It is an immediately attractive proposition. We all know that banks are pretty unpopular, and we like to think of them as very rich, so it would be good if we could tax them more. Unfortunately, Labour is wrong to suggest that the Government have just offered another tax break to some banks by cutting the marginal rate of corporation tax. The reason we are getting so little tax out of them is nothing to do with a small drop in the corporation tax rate; it is that two of the biggest banks, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds HBOS, are loss-making, so it does not matter what corporation tax rate we set, because they are not going to pay a penny of it. That is a disgrace, but it is where we have got to because of the disasters and problems in bank management over recent years.

Worse still, we are in the position whereby, if those banks do start to make money—it is true that the losses have been much reduced in the past year and they might start to make money—they will not be about to pay any tax, because they have such huge inherited losses from the period under Labour when they plunged into massive deficit and got into a disastrous position.

[Richard Fuller]

My right hon. Friend is making very good points about the importance of companies being profitable so that they can pay tax, but when it comes to bankers and high earners paying taxes does he think that it is more important that the tax take is as high as it can be, or that we have a headline-grabbing marginal tax rate? Which is more important: the take or the rate?

[Mr Redwood]

I am very much of the view that we want a higher tax take, and I favour taking the tax from the people with the money, the rich, and from the companies with the money, rather than from the people who do not have it. That is what I believe, and I would hope that that again was common ground. The way we do so is by charging a rate that people are prepared to stay and pay, because the danger is that if we set the rates too high, people do not stay or they do not pay; they find clever accountants and lawyers, do less, invest less, risk less or go. It is the same with banks: if we get the rate wrong for banks, instead of getting more money out of them, we get less.

In 1979 when Labour had had a strongly socialist Government, they left office with a marginal income tax rate—in which some current Opposition Members would take pride—of 83p in the pound. In those days the top 1% of income tax payers contributed just 11% of the total income tax take, because the rich had either gone or had clever arrangements to avoid paying tax. When the Conservatives brought the rate down to 40%, not only did the amount of money paid by the rich go up, and the real amount that they paid go up significantly, but the proportion of total income tax that they paid more than doubled. Surely that is a desirable outcome, and it is the same with banks: we need to find a way of taxing them.

My first recommendation to the Chancellor for his Budget is to sort out the banks. We need to create some working banks out of the RBS framework, get them out there in the market, sell them off, get them into a profitable state without all the back history of tax losses, and create new entities that can trade properly and lend money for the recovery, and then we can get some tax revenue out of them. I hope that Labour Members might agree with that proposition. We then need to tackle the problem of inflation, which has been rising too rapidly.

I am glad that those on the Front Bench have done something about council tax bills—I hope that Labour councils will join Conservative councils in keeping those bills down, because they are very difficult for many people to afford—and have started to do some work on fuel prices, although they are still extremely high. We could do more to get water and energy bills down. I recommend that we allow more competition in those industries, particularly water. In the energy industries, we need more private sector-led investment, with an emphasis on cheaper power, which is needed to tackle fuel poverty and inflation and to secure an industrial recovery. The Government need to recognise that energy is now usually the biggest cost in many industries and, instead of favouring dear power, follow competition and private investment policies that will promote cheaper energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Sitting in this debate on living standards has taken me back to the campaign trail in 2010, when I was explaining to my constituents—as I am sure many of us were—that the problems that we would be inheriting from the then Government were long-term problems, and unfortunately there were no short-term solutions to those problems.

I represent a constituency where unemployment was above the national average even in the so-called boom period of the last Labour Government. Unemployment has gone up, and I am sure that both the Government’s proposed changes highlighted in the motion will impact on many people in my constituency. What guides me and this coalition Government, and what enables us to look the British people in the eye, is that we are taking steps that will be better for our country’s future generations. They are steps that will alleviate the burden on the next generation of children and on our grandchildren. We do not think that it is appropriate to pass on debts to cascade down the generations; we think it is right to cascade down opportunity, which is something that the last Government failed to do.

There are two things that I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on when she sums up. First, when it comes to the long-term solutions, I hope that she will maintain a commitment to ensure that work must pay. That is incredibly important—in reality, the cultural idea that it is easier to live off benefits arose under the last Government. As with the benefit cap and their work on tax thresholds, this Government have to demonstrate that they are committed to the notion that everyone, given the opportunity to work, will always be better off working than on benefits.

The second thing that is important to living standards, but which we have not really touched on—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) mentioned it briefly—is the importance for this Government of keeping inflation low. We heard some Opposition Members say that inflation is continuing to rise, but we have not yet confronted the question of what will happen when this period of quantitative easing comes to an end. When that happens, there will be a corresponding rise in interest rates, which will put further pressure on living standards. I should say to my hon. Friend the Minister that in three or four years’ time, it is unlikely that the private or public sector will be able to pay working people pay increases. We therefore have to ensure that when we unwind quantitative easing, we do it in a way that is not inflationary, or that at least minimises the inflationary impact.

One way of doing that is to look at quantitative easing not as a way of providing short-term stimulus—many Government Members are sceptical about the Government’s ability to stimulate the economy in the short term—but as a means of long-term infrastructure investment. We have that opportunity, but we can do that only if we take our understanding of our debt obligations to embrace not only the treaty debt but the debt obligations of our public pensions liabilities. Those are long-term liabilities, and there is an opportunity for the Government to use quantitative easing for investment, if they can match their investment in long-term assets with reductions in those long-term liabilities.

The only other option for a short-term stimulus—to invest to improve living standards in the short term—would involve significant tax cuts, matched or exceeded by further cuts in public expenditure to pay for them. I doubt that the Opposition intended that to form part of the debate today, but it is one option that they could look into in the short term. My main messages to those on my Front Bench are that they should keep their focus on the fact that long-term problems require long-term solutions, and that they should ignore the representations from the Opposition.

Banking (Responsibility and Reform)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. The Walker review proposals are the start, not the end, of the reform needed, but my hon. Friend makes a strong point about the culture in the financial services sector. On the proposal to have an employee on the remuneration committee, would not the RBS board be in a stronger position if it could say, on matters of pay, that an employee representative had been involved in the decision making?

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s extended exposition on the failings of the previous Labour Government. It is nice to see him joined by so many for such an extended mea culpa. [Hon. Members: “Where’s the question?”] My question is this: does he think that the objectives of a company executive should be to maximise shareholder value for his business, to do the Government’s bidding or to do the bidding of a broader range of interests?

[Mr Umunna]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Ultimately, of course, a director’s duty is to shareholders, but I take issue with those who suggest that the Labour Government did not introduce reforms, because we did introduce reforms, one of which was the Companies Act 2006, which changed the nature of company law so that other stakeholder interests could be accounted for. In some respects, though, shareholder interests are not necessarily completely separate from those of wider society. My strong view is that business and society are mutually dependent, and that goes for our banks as well. Banks rely on society to provide talent, skills and custom, and we rely on banks not only to perform a social utility function for individuals and businesses, but to provide growth and jobs. How does that relate to the hon. Gentleman’s point about shareholder value? If a bank fails its customers—as happened, for example, in the payment protection insurance scandal—that has a knock-on impact on reputation, which can ultimately have a knock-on impact on profit, which is against the shareholder interest.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I gave the hon. Gentleman the figures earlier. As I said, by the third quarter of last year banks had exceeded their Merlin targets for lending to businesses as a whole, and were about 10% ahead of their lending to SMEs in comparison with the same point last year.

Let me say a little more about the credit-easing measures that we are introducing. There will be a £1 billion business finance partnership to co-invest in funds that can lend directly to middle-sized businesses and further stimulate non-bank lending channels for SMEs. Those schemes capitalise on the Government’s commitment to tackling the deficit that the last Government left behind. Unlike the Opposition, we are determined to safeguard our economic stability and protect our credibility in the world market—credibility which has secured our triple A rating and kept our interest rates at record low levels, and which allows us to pursue innovative credit-easing measures to reduce costs for businesses and ensure that more money goes where it is needed.

[Richard Fuller]

In referring to the “non-bank” ways in which credit easing could be used, my hon. Friend has identified one of the best ways of establishing responsibility and reform in our banks: through the creation of powerful alternative mechanisms enabling our small and medium-sized businesses to raise finance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It has been interesting to sit in this debate and hear such an extended series of mea culpas from Opposition Members for the failings of the last Labour Government on this issue. Let us not forget that that Labour Government presided over the decline of British manufacturing, under which the concentration of banks about which they now complain took place and the meaning of the word “bonus” became so debased. There is so much for them to say sorry for, and so little time in a three-hour debate for all of them to come forward and repent.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

I see we have a new repenter.

[Chris Williamson]

I am not repenting, but the hon. Gentleman might like to repent for the fact that the real origins of the problems that we are facing can be traced back 30 years to Margaret Thatcher’s Government. [Interruption.] I can hear hon. Members cheering, but it was Margaret Thatcher’s Government who undermined the manufacturing industry, used financial services as an alternative engine of economic growth, ran down the mining, steel, shipbuilding and car-making industries and totally destroyed manufacturing in this—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Shorter interventions, as I have already expressed, are the order of the evening.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) for what will appear in print as a helpful intervention.

I turn to the mishmash of observations that the Opposition have called a motion. It might, to them, make a motion, but it certainly does not make a policy.

On the key issues, the coalition Government have already taken sensible steps towards reform: they have found an answer to the mess of regulation by centralising it under the Bank of England; they will implement the recommendations of the Vickers report; and they are introducing changes to the compensation culture so that it can get back to supporting enterprise and rewarding merit, which is what we all want.

The shadow Business Secretary did a good job of holding back the hostile anti-business rhetoric. I just hope that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury can restrain herself in her usual anti-business rhetoric when she winds up for the Opposition.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I would like to give way very much, because the hon. Lady did not get a chance to comment earlier.

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman is much more generous than his colleague the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). With long-term unemployment up 157% in Bedford since the start of 2011, does the hon. Gentleman think that the priority should be a tax cut for the banks this year or a programme to invest in youth jobs?

[Richard Fuller]

That is a very good point. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be interested to know that I am leading the establishment of an enterprise investment scheme fund in Bedford to get local people to invest in jobs and create businesses in Bedford. Government Members believe in practical action to support entrepreneurs and jobs, not the empty rhetoric that we get from Opposition Front Benchers. I invite her to Bedford to see the successes that we are having and from which perhaps her party can learn. The shadow Business Secretary made some interesting points, and I only wish that he had had time to speak more about his idea for moving forward with a UK equivalent of the small business investment company in the United States. That is an interesting direction of travel from the Labour party.

It is always hard in a free society to explain or justify why some people earn more—sometimes fantastically more—than other people. That justification can be secure only when clearly based on merit—the merit that comes from taking a risk that works out or from delivering exceptional performance. It is clear, however, that throughout large swathes of the economy, those two forms of merit have been losing hold in the setting of compensation in our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) spoke eloquently about that disconnect between the financial sector and our entrepreneurs. I know that the Government are committed to changing that.

It is sensible to look for measures that focus remuneration more on merit, but that is precisely what the Government’s recommendations seek to do. The problem with the speeches from Opposition Members was that they could not define the problem that they were trying to solve. Were they trying to solve the problem of compensation in state-owned enterprises? Were they trying to solve the problem of compensation in banking? Were they just hostile to high compensation generally in the economy? They could not define the problem owing to the different points of view among Opposition Members. Some call for a return to the rhetoric of the 1980s, attacking people for earning too much money and trying to draw false and upsetting comparisons between people who get paid a lot and those who cannot find a job.

In this country, we need to support the risk takers and the entrepreneurs to create the jobs that people in my constituency and constituencies around the country want. The promotion of an anti-business rhetoric will be harmful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said, the reaction to Mr Hester’s bonus sent the unwanted signal to business that this country was anti-business. As many have said today, Members on both sides of the House have a responsibility to make it clear that that is not the case and that we all want business to be strong in our communities.

Strengthening shareholders’ responsibilities will be central to that. One of the perhaps unintended consequences of the raid on pension funds by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was to weaken the ability of shareholders, particularly pension fund holders, to hold boards to account over remuneration. There was a change in the ownership of shares, which increasingly went offshore, while those custodians of long-term interests—our insurance companies and pension funds—had their voices and representation weakened on boards. It is right, therefore, for the Government to consider in detail how to strengthen shareholder representation and control over compensation in general.

Several speakers made the connection between banks and support for small business. I ask the Government to be bolder in looking for alternatives to banks in meeting the challenge of financing our small businesses. We need to consider ways of growing bond markets for small business, and we need to go even further than we already have by adopting innovative schemes for promoting equity financing for our small and medium-sized businesses. There is no more honourable a thing for people with money today to do than putting it into equity and our small businesses, and the Government have already provided tax incentives for them to do so. I only encourage the Minister to do more.

On credit easing, will the Minister be cautious about the ability of Governments to stimulate the economy in the short term? By the time that Governments get round to deciding what to do, often the problem has passed. However, credit easing presents another opportunity, which is to use financing, through a credit easing facility, to reduce some of the long-term debt obligations in this country. As the Minister knows, I have spoken before about the possibility of using either some or all of the credit easing financing to create a future fund and unburden the next generation of taxpayers of some of the tax that would otherwise be needed to meet the unfunded public pension liability. We must look to the long term when considering how to fund our small businesses, and not always think that the Government have the answer in the short term. They rarely do.