Economy and Jobs

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). We do not always agree on politics, but we do agree on football, with the club given away, to some extent, by the name of his constituency. As a fellow London MP, I recognise some of the issues he always raises in a measured fashion. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who made a most powerful and compelling speech. I am tempted to say that I will adopt all of it and then sit down, but I will say just one or two more things.

I woke up on my birthday on 24 June last year to the most miserable birthday I have ever had, because my judgment was that my country had taken an erroneous step. It was, however, a democratic step and as a democrat I respected it—although I campaigned, as my hon. Friend and many others here did, for a different result. I support the Queen’s Speech because it seeks to give effect to that decision in a practical and measured fashion. That is our obligation now as Members of this House. That was well-encapsulated by the Chancellor’s speech which opened this debate. I share his analysis—both in his remarks here and in his Mansion House speech a short time ago—of the approach we should adopt.

I am tempted by the wording of amendment (g), as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), but like her I do not think it works in practical terms, and we must deliver within the framework of the Queen’s Speech. However, it is important that the Government recognise the need to be practical, business-like and above all pragmatic in the way we deliver our exit from the European Union. That is why the Chancellor is right to stress that Brexit must be based first and foremost on protecting Britain’s economic interests and jobs.

In my constituency, 36% of the voters are employed in the financial services sector and related industries, and the same is true for many London Members of Parliament. The financial services sector is sometimes maligned, but it is actually a source of great wealth for this country. It is a jewel in our national crown, and in my judgment it should be protected as our highest priority. Whatever sensible arrangements are needed to protect it, they must come first. We must take a practical approach, rather than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, a theological approach.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

If we are talking about protecting jobs in our constituencies, the major employer in my constituency is Ford. I am absolutely determined to protect the jobs at Ford, but the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has made it clear that retaining the benefits of the single market—and tariff-free and customs-free trade—is essential for those jobs. How will we have that if we carry on down the Brexit route laid before us so far?

[Robert Neill]

It happens that before I came into this House I contested the Dagenham constituency on two occasions. It rather fought back, but that experience gave me some knowledge of the motor industry. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and perhaps I can link her point to mine.

In relation to both financial services and manufacturing, particularly when there are complicated and cross-national supply chains involved, it is critical that we have sensible transitional arrangements that are, wherever necessary, as lengthy as they need to be. Many financial services contracts, be they derivatives, insurance or legal contracts, of various kinds or with an international dimension, are written over a period of years. Those who enter into them must have the certainty that the legal obligations that they are undertaking can be enforced right the way through the life of those contracts, otherwise they will not invest in or enter into them.

This is not just about avoiding a cliff edge at the time; it is about not having a disincentive to invest in those areas, be it financial services or cross-border manufacturing, that are important to us. Indeed, manufacturing is still a great asset to this country, but our financial services sector is one in which we run a significant surplus with the European Union. Although we will undoubtedly develop opportunities in other markets, it remains a key sector for our activity and we must therefore keep the closest possible access.

I do not think that we can leave the European Union and remain in the single market, simply as a matter of law, but the Chancellor is right to say that we should seek to remain as close as we can. That is what we need to achieve. That has to be the primary task of Brexit, in a pragmatic, business-focused, non-ideological way. I hope that we can try to find a way forward across the House to achieve that, because although the fact of leaving the European Union was on the ballot paper, the nature of our leaving was not and neither was the nature of our future relationship. That is where this House can constructively and legitimately play a role in assisting Government to deliver on the basic requirement to respect the will of the British people. That is what we must do.

There are other things in the Queen’s Speech that I want to touch on briefly. I welcome the fact that work is still being done on courts reform and mental health. In my 25 years as a barrister and more recently, when I had the honour for the last two years to chair the Select Committee on Justice, it has struck me forcefully that mental health is overlooked. That has appalling consequences for individuals and their families and creates real pressures on our social services, our local authorities, our police forces and our criminal justice and prison systems. The Prime Minister has emphasised that, which I welcome.

I am sorry that there is no legislation to introduce a statutory purpose for prisons, or to place the role of the prisons ombudsman on a statutory basis, but there may be time for that in due course. I am glad to learn that the Lord Chancellor, whose appointment I welcome, is committed to proceeding with much of the rest of the prison reform agenda. We must take our opportunities. Let me also say, as an unashamed one nation Conservative, that we must do so with a sense of optimism that means believing in aspiration and helping to pull people up and improve their lot. That is what the Tory party is about—that is what the party that I joined is about—and that is why I want to see this Queen’s Speech deliver.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. Unfortunately, as we know, many of the individuals affected by the scandal are deep into old age. They may be very vulnerable, and, regrettably, there are fewer and fewer of them every day. For every day that goes by without them receiving proper compensation, the scandal is maintained.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My hon. Friend just made an important point about the significance of London’s international reputation. That depends, in part, on the strength of our regulatory environment. Does it not follow, as a matter of both good policy and common decency, that when there is a massive regulatory failure, the Government should be seen to stand behind those who lose out as a consequence?

[Bob Blackman]

I absolutely agree with that comment. I want to say something about the commitments we have made, which are very important. As I have said, the former Chancellor accepted the reality of the situation at the Dispatch Box. He said:

“I accept the findings of the parliamentary ombudsman in full.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 960.]

Let us be clear about the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings at the time. There had been 10 years—a decade—of regulatory failure, which was responsible for the losses suffered by pensioners when Equitable Life collapsed. In her report, which was 2,872 pages long by the way, she recommended that the Government

“should restore complainants to the position they would have been in, had maladministration not occurred”.

I believe that we should ensure we honour the commitments we have made and honour the situation in law.

I note that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is a former member of the all-party group and a strong supporter of justice for the Equitable Life policyholders. I know him to be an honourable man, and I know he will want to do the best he can for the people who have suffered such losses.

The ask today is very simple. The pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who are the most vulnerable group—I am afraid that, every day, fewer and fewer are with us any longer—should be compensated in full, even though that is outside the scope of the legislation. Full compensation for those individuals would cost the Government less than £100 million. For the people who have received compensation for 22.4% of their losses, a plan should be set out to enable them to receive full compensation. I am not expecting that to happen straightaway—it may take time—but those people should receive compensation as the economy recovers. We could have a plan so that, in line with the recovery of the economy, much more money is paid out. That would fair, reasonable and—dare I say?— equitable.

In conclusion, I look forward to my hon. Friend giving us some commitments and clear guidance on what the Treasury will do to assist people who invested and did the right thing. This House owes a debt of honour to those individuals, and those of us who support these honourable people will not rest until such time as they receive every penny piece of the compensation to which they are entitled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), both of whom deserve great credit for the work they have done. My hon. Friend also deserves credit for securing the debate. I would call both of them friends outside this Chamber. They have worked tirelessly on this issue.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East just said, the vast bulk of Equitable Life losers were modest people who had bought in to what successive Governments of all parties had told them was the right thing to do. They were told to save for their retirement, to put something aside, and that they would benefit thereafter. Why did they lose because of catastrophic errors by the company and a catastrophic error of regulation? The Government create the regulator and the regulatory system. The Government, ultimately, must bear the responsibility for that failure. I do not mean that in a partisan sense, but morally they must be prepared to do so.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I have hitherto resisted the case for full compensation on the basis of two arguments. One of them was that if the returns were too good to be true, investors ought to have spotted that. However, I have begun to wonder whether that argument is sustainable, because if the benefits were too good to be true, the regulator should have spotted it. This is a regulated market in which ordinary investors ought to have had confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend is spot on about the gravity of the regulatory failure. It was not just the process—the nuts and bolts—that went wrong; there was a fundamental failure to see that something that had been put into the market should have been ringing alarm bells. That is a very important point. That is why the case that the Government should provide proper compensation is all the stronger. The superficially attractive argument that it was too good to be true so people acted at their own risk was put about quite early. It was also claimed that all those affected were lawyers—barristers and solicitors—consultants and the comfortable middle class. I have dozens of victims of Equitable Life in my constituency and most are modest people who had jobs that enabled them to put a little bit aside, which they did in good faith and were let down by the system. A Government-regulated system let them down. That is why the obligation is very strong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred to EMAG’s work. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the matter. I particularly pay tribute to my constituents, David Truran and Richard Collins among others, who galvanised our local group of Equitable Life victims. They work hard to keep people in their area, many of whom are elderly and quite frail, in the loop about what is happening. That is a valuable local service. As has been said, the information about the compensation scheme and the way it worked was less than user friendly, to put it mildly. There was a lack of transparency and it was sometimes difficult for people in difficult circumstances, in the latter years of their lives, to navigate the information. EMAG’s work, nationally and locally, to help them is important.

The moral case is overwhelming and I think that the Minister, given his background and experience, knows that. The coalition Government were right to move when the previous Government had sadly done nothing, and it is a fair point that something is better than nothing. However, that is not really a sound basis for policy, morally or in terms of good governance. Something was given, and circumstances now permit the Government to give more.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that policyholders do not regard what they are entitled to as compensation? They simply want back the money that they saved—their own money, which they put in to their long-term pension savings, believing it would be given back, with a reasonable return, when they retired and needed it.

[Robert Neill]

That is an entirely fair and proper point. We use “compensation” only in a technical sense rather than to reflect the morality of what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East was right to describe the scheme as effectively a Ponzi scheme. In other jurisdictions, it would undoubtedly have been regarded as a fraud on the investors. They put in their money, lost out and the regulator that was supposed to protect them failed abysmally.

When the coalition Government introduced the compensation scheme, finances were difficult. Things have improved and it is not unreasonable to expect those people to be recompensed by more now. The distinction between pre-1992 and post-1992 annuitants was at best arbitrary. Although the case is made in a legalistic, dry, desiccated-calculating-machine way, it does not hold water for anyone who examines it. I hope for a measure of human decency and a broad view of the impact on public confidence. The Government let themselves down somewhat with that arrangement, although it was better than nothing. Now we can do better and I urge the Government to do that.

As well as the moral case, there is a case to be made for the importance for this country of good governance in our financial services sector. I am a passionate advocate of Britain’s financial services; 36% of my constituents work in the financial and professional services sector. It is a massive earner for this country and a jewel in our economic crown. However, it succeeds because of its reputation for integrity, which is based on the strength of its regulatory structures. When there is a failure, which is not followed by proper redress for those who lose out, confidence in our financial sector is dented and damaged.

As we emerge from the European Union—hon. Members know I regret that, but that is where we are—the financial services sector’s international reputation will be all the more important. It is in our national self-interest to ensure that we are seen to be 100% behind those who invest prudently and sensibly in our financial institutions. Britain is a world leader in the insurance sector, but this failure has the potential to damage us and it will always be held against us unless we do something to get it right. Given the national benefit that the sector brings, doing justice to the Equitable Life losers would be a drop in the ocean financially. Perhaps even for that reason, as well as for our long-term national economic self-interest, if not out of moral decency, the Government will think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

I start by associating myself with the earlier comments about yesterday’s terrible events. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate. It is fair to say that their tireless work on this issue and their involvement in the all-party parliamentary group for justice for equitable life policyholders are of great importance to many of our constituents up and down the country. Hon. Members from across the House have done a great deal for their constituents on this matter. It has been a thoughtful debate, and I have listened carefully to the individual cases that have been mentioned. I am also grateful for the opportunity to set out what the Government have done to address this long-standing issue.

This topic has a long and well-documented history, which I do not propose to go over in my limited time. Instead, I will focus on the action we have taken to make payments to the people affected, and these figures are well known. The ombudsman’s findings assess the loss from Government maladministration to be £4.1 billion, and it is worth noting that that is significantly more than the evaluation commissioned by the then Labour Government. That report, known as the Chadwick report, rejected some of the ombudsman’s findings and concluded that only £340 million should be paid to policyholders.

This Government, in contrast and despite the constraints facing the public purse, have agreed that £1.5 billion will be made available, tax free, for payments to eligible policyholders. We consulted carefully on how that £1.5 billion should be paid out and reached the conclusion that we must pay the with-profits, or trapped, annuitants in full. As a result, that group will receive an annual payment for life, with the total cost of those payments assessed to be around £625 million. The £100 million contingency fund, which is often referred to, is to ensure provision for policyholders who exceed the life expectancy forecast. On the advice of an independent commission, the remaining £775 million of available funding was distributed pro rata to other policyholders, representing a payment of some 22.4% of their relative loss. I recognise that, for many, that was disappointing, but it is about striking the right balance while also taking into account the position of the public finances and fairness to all taxpayers.

The point about affordability was raised explicitly by the ombudsman in her report, in which she stated that it was appropriate to take into account the impact on the public purse when considering the funding of the payments. Indeed, the ombudsman has written to the all-party parliamentary group on Equitable Life about the level of funding and said that the Government’s decisions on affordability cannot be said to be incompatible with her report. I also understand it has been suggested that, as the economy improves, further funding should be made available to the payment scheme.

[Robert Neill]

I accept that the decision on funding is not incompatible with the ombudsman’s report, but that is not to say that the decision follows the spirit of the ombudsman’s report or that it is right.

[Simon Kirby]

I repeat that this is about striking the right balance between the position of the public finances and fairness to all taxpayers, and I will cover that point in more detail as I proceed.

I was talking about further funding being made available to the scheme, but with debt at its highest level since the second world war, tackling the deficit and getting debt falling are challenges that call for long-term discipline, which is why we have no plans to reopen the payment scheme or to review its level of funding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until next week to find out what my proposals are, but let me be clear that we have no plans for further welfare reforms in this Parliament. However, the reforms that we have already legislated for must be delivered, and Parliament’s original intent in legislating for those reforms has to be ensured.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

T3. In constituencies in London suburbs such as mine, ordinary family homes are caught by the upper levels of stamp duty land tax, and estate agents regularly tell me that that is creating cirrhosis in the market. If people are not moving at that level, people are not moving further down, meaning that others are unable to get on to the housing ladder. Is it not time to look again at the unintended consequences of the upper levels of that tax on home ownership and mobility?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

It is worth noting that the SDLT reforms in the 2014 autumn statement reduced the tax for the vast majority of homebuyers and that all transactions up to £937,000 now pay the same or less in SDLT. As a London MP, I am obviously aware of the phenomenon to which my hon. Friend refers, but from the available data we do not yet have a clear consensus on the market impact of the higher rates of SDLT for additional residential properties or those at the upper end. We will continue to look carefully at that.

Leaving the EU: Financial Services

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The clock is back. The excitement! The hare is running!

I should briefly declare an interest. I have at times worked in the financial services industry. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Like so many other hon. Members, I am here to talk about financial services outside the capital. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who spoke very powerfully about that. In my constituency, I drive past the Fidelity asset management centre, which is based in Hildenborough and employs nearly 1,000 people. Financial services also support economies such as the legal economy, accountancy and various other innovators. As we have discovered from the success of start-ups in the United States, access to financial services is often a trigger for improvements in the tech sector.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier because of Select Committee duties. Does my hon. Friend concede that it is important that we link access to financial services with access to other professional services including legal services, which are critical to building the infrastructure backing up the financial services sector?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and I will let it rest there.

Access to financial services is not just about the financial services industry but about all industries. Finance greases the wheels of the whole economy. It is important that we maintain the access we have in the UK. I therefore urge hon. Members to see Brexit not just as a threat, which sadly so many people do, but also as an opportunity. The United Kingdom used to be extremely good at taking the opportunity to innovate. Too often we have limited ourselves. Many people will look at the potential loss from the eurobond clearing and various other elements, but we should also look at the potential openings in financial technology, where we have already seen such innovations in the UK, to which I hope we agree we can add.

Services here in the UK are built on the foundation of skills that support the current industry and that will support future growth. Tomorrow’s growth will be based on those same skills, which come from a highly educated, highly literate and highly open population of people across our islands, whose languages, ethnicity and cultural links tie them around the world. They are able not only to do deals but to finance and enable entrepreneurs and businesses around the world. That is why I am less concerned than some about the potential closing off in markets in the European Union. We must remember that the EU itself depends on the City of London and that the depth of asset pools in the City gives the industries of Germany, Italy and France a reach they would not get from their own domestic markets. It gives them an opening to other financial sources around the world, including east Asia, that they would not get from Milan, the Paris Bourse or the Frankfurt exchange. I know that the Minister, who is in his place, will see this as a good deal for both parties, as all good deals should be, because the EU and Britain have a common interest.

Having that common interest requires us to remember who we are. It requires us to remember that we, here in the United Kingdom, are in so many ways more than the sum of our parts. We define ourselves not by the nations we come from, but by what we give together. I mean this very seriously. In so many countries in the world, people define themselves as a “something-something”. In the United States, for example, people often define themselves as a Polish-American or an Irish-American. I, who am the son of a French woman, the grandson of an Austrian man and an Irishwoman, do not define myself by that. I define myself as British, as so many people here do. It is that openness and inclusivity that has made Britain the home for so many and the centre for so much.

That is why, when we look at the financial industry, we must not look at it alone, or indeed just consider the legal and accountancy aspect. We should not even consider its enablement of other industries. We should consider the ethos it requires. That ethos is the ethos that we have promoted on these islands for a thousand years. It is one that defines people by the breadth of their experience, skill and knowledge, and not in a narrow sectarian definition of origins or passports. It is much greater than that.

I will leave it there and urge the Minister, as he takes the negotiations forward and sits around the Government table, to see that the financial services around our whole country, particularly in the great kingdom of Kent, are not just a simple route to enrichment, but an avenue to openness, growth and the support of what the UK has always been: a beacon to other nations, an island of safety and in many ways an example to all to enrich all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Members may be surprised to discover that I am not going to focus on what happens outside the City of London. It is important to talk about the City of London, and not just the areas outside it. What happens in the City of London benefits the whole of the UK’s economy. Whether or not Scotland is independent by the time that Brexit happens, it will still be really important for us that there is a strong financial services structure in the UK.

[Robert Neill]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Not right now; I do not have much time.

I have a couple of points to make, starting with the issue of capital flight and passporting, which has been widely mentioned. As the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said, passporting is important because banks have to make these decisions now. They have to make them today. They cannot wait for the Government to mess about while they come up with deals on Brexit. The structural decisions have to be made now, because it takes a number of months and years for these things to happen. Banks do not have the luxury of being able to wait until two years down the line when the Brexit negotiations are concluded to discover whether or not there is a cliff-edge at that stage. They need to make those decisions now. When we hear that the Government are not going to give a running commentary, it means that banks have to take those decisions now, and it is disadvantaging the whole of the UK as a result.

I understand that it is difficult for the Government to provide certainty. They do not yet have certainty even on what language the negotiations will be conducted in, let alone anything else about them. It is unlikely that we will reach a position where we have certainty by the end of the two-year period. That is why organisations such as the London Market Group are suggesting that what the Government need to do as a matter of urgency is to agree transitional arrangements. It represents insurers, who generate over 20% of the City of London’s total income. What it says they need is financial regulatory certainty and transitional arrangements for five years post-Brexit in order not to severely disadvantage the insurance industry. Five years post-Brexit is a very long time, and the Government have not given them any certainty at this point in time.

Clearing is the other really important issue that I want to talk about. The London Clearing House is a huge success story for the City of London, and it has become very important. Clearing is the process through which risk in the financial markets is managed. It catalyses growth by helping to manage that risk, and it is central to the UK’s delivery of the G20 post-crisis legislative framework. Our financial markets are less risky and better regulated as a result of having so much of the clearing house function based in the UK.

There are conversations about euro-denominated currencies moving from London, but we will lose not just euro-denominated currencies. The London Stock Exchange Group and the London Clearing House work in 17 currencies, and the only reason the London Clearing House has such a large market share and is so successful is its access to all those currencies. If euro-denominated clearing is moved from London to New York—and let us not kid ourselves that it will move anywhere else—we, the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe, will lose out. As a matter of urgency, the UK Government need to secure agreement from the European countries that euro-denominated clearing will not be removed from London. The clearing house function supports 100,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. It is not true that, as the Chancellor said recently,

“in terms of…jobs and value…it is a relatively small part of the total.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2016; Vol. 626, c. 149.]

A huge amount of the market, and City of London services, rely on the clearing house function, and the Government must prioritise it.

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

That was beautifully and eloquently expressed. We are all, I hope, democrats first and foremost, and whichever side of the referendum debate we were on, we in this House and those more broadly across the country have to respect the democratically expressed will of the British people.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am glad to see the Attorney General in his place on the Treasury Bench. Does the Minister agree with these propositions put forward by Sir Paul Jenkins, QC, the former head of the Government Legal Service, and many others: first, that article 50 is the only lawful route for exiting the EU; secondly, that that is a matter for the royal prerogative; and, thirdly, that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 is not, of itself, adequate in law to constitute notice under article 50? Finally, does he agree that to repeal unilaterally the European Communities Act 1972 other than through the article 50 process would be a breach of a treaty obligation, which is something that no Government have committed in 300 years and would be wholly unconscionable?

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend asks four questions, and the answer to the first three is a straightforward yes. The only gloss I would add to his fourth question about how we might either amend or repeal not just the European Communities Act, but any other measures that need to be amended as a result of Brexit, is that that will inevitably require primary legislation, which of course will be brought forward when the time is right.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about the impact of this Budget on local government. The Budget should be welcomed by all in local government with self-confidence and belief in their own communities. The opportunities offered by the devolution of business rates and other financial measures are real and should be seized.

The business rates devolution is particularly welcome. I note that in opening the debate the Secretary of State properly recognised that where, as a result of national policy, the tax base is reduced by increasing the reliefs on small businesses, that will be compensated for by the section 31 grant. I hope the Minister replying to the debate will take on board the importance of that being uprated on any future changes of Government policy, so that the tax base of thrifty and effective local authorities is not thereafter eroded.

The second point I want to make is on the setting of the baseline for the retention of the business rate, on which the Department is currently conducting a six-month consultation. That is a complicated matter. It is nonsense to suggest, as one hon. Member did earlier in the debate, that business rate-rich areas such as Westminster will retain everything. There is always an element of redistribution, but we have to get the system right, because we do not want too frequent resets—there has to be a long-term run to give local authorities a real incentive to invest.

I hope we will use the ability to calculate the baseline to do greater justice to authorities such as mine in Bromley that have a long record of efficiencies. In the past, we have tended to calculate local government finance settlements on the basis simply of a needs-versus-resource matrix. That does not take account of the fact that some local authorities have been more effective and efficient than others in using their resource. When we look at the baseline, I hope we will find a measure that recognises and rewards councils with records of historical efficiency. It is perfectly possible—indeed, it has already been demonstrated—that we can achieve comparable unit costs for services in similar authorities. We need to look at that carefully in setting the baseline, because it will give a further incentive to authorities that use their money well. That is an important step forward.

Finally on business rates retention, I welcome the news that the Greater London Authority will have 100% retention advanced to 2017. The logic is surely—I hope the Minister will confirm this—that that should apply to the London boroughs too, because they are the collecting authorities for both tiers of business rates, and they often participate together in funding the kinds of ambitious devolution project in London that we are keen to bring forward. The logic, therefore, is that all of London should, rightly, have 100% retention at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I want to speak about two issues: the northern powerhouse and devolution. Neither of those initiatives is perfect, and I have some thoughts and suggestions on both, but they are an awful lot better than anything we have seen for the last 20 years. The Opposition might want to remember that.

I also want to talk about the direction of travel of the Budget. When we came into office, £1 was being borrowed for every £4 that was spent. We are trying to fix that. Labour Members are right; it has taken us longer than we thought. Perhaps they wanted us to cut harder. This evening, however, we have heard that as well as the bedroom tax being wrong, every single cut that has been made was wrong. The NHS apparently needs more, and the police need more. We have even heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne)—this is a new one—that the pension age should not have been changed. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has told us that the schools funding formula is wrong. I was waiting for an intervention, but it did not come. The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) talked about the need for credibility. Labour Members would be credible if they occasionally said, “That cut is reasonable,” instead of just saying, “It is all wrong.”

[Robert Neill]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real lack of credibility is in the failure to recognise that some public services can be based only on sound economics, and that unfunded costings and more and more debt constitute cruelty, not compassion?

[David Mowat]

It comes back to credibility. The hon. Member for Copeland made a plea for credibility from his Front-Bench team—a plea that, I fear, has fallen on deaf ears. It is true that we have had to make cuts, and I do not think that anybody likes to do that. I do not think that the cuts are ideological, but they are necessary to get from that 4:1 ratio to something close to balanced. It looks as though we made a mistake in this Budget; that has been acknowledged, and it will be fixed. The Labour party’s contribution has not been to say, “That was a mistake,” but to say, “Everything is a mistake.” That is an extraordinary position.

We had a lecture this evening from the Scottish National party, which was particularly interesting, because it is the progressive party in this place. We heard about what the Scottish Government are doing on homelessness, and how much better that is than what we are managing in England. If the SNP was progressive, and if it really cared about homelessness in England, its members would look at the Barnett formula and say, “We will go for a formula based on need. We will not just take everything that we can get, as our major policy initiative, and still call ourselves the progressive party.”

Before I move on to talk about the northern powerhouse, I have a point to make about tax cuts. “Tax cuts for millionaires”—we have heard that, have we not? Capital gains tax has been cut from 28% to 20%. I do not particularly approve of that, but at 20% that rate is still 2% higher than it was for the entire period of the last Labour Government. One could not make it up.

I said that I was going to talk about the northern powerhouse. I will not talk about it for very long, other than to say this. The problem that the northern powerhouse is trying to fix is the difference in gross value added between the north of our country, the English regions, and London, in particular. We are very London-centric. That difference reached a peak in 2009, in the last year of the previous Labour Government, when the City was allowed to run berserk. It is right that that has been fixed. I see that the Secretary of State is in his place, and I have got time to make one final point. I would like clear metrics to be assigned to the northern powerhouse initiative for GVA and transport infrastructure. It is rather hard to equate the money being spent on Crossrail 2—£28 billion—with any sort of real intent around the northern powerhouse.

Equitable Life

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear statement.

There are three sets of policyholders: the pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who were to get not a single penny under the compensation scheme; the with-profits annuitants, who were to get 100% compensation; and the pension holders, who got 22.4% of their relative losses, as my hon. Friend said. The coalition Government set up a compensation scheme, which I was pleased to support. However, it is a scandal that if someone purchased their policy on 31 August 1992, they got nothing, but if they purchased it on 1 September 1992, they got 100%. The rationale was that if the pre-1992 trapped annuitants had looked at the regulated accounts, they could have seen that there was a problem and that it was a scam. The reality is that when people sign up to such schemes, they do not expect to have to do that. I applaud the Government for taking steps, following the legislation, to partly compensate the pre-1992 trapped annuitants.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has done great work with the other members of the all-party parliamentary group. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fact that, as you know, for a number of reasons I will not be able to stay for the whole debate. Many of my constituents were victims of this scam. Does he agree that when there has been a failure of regulation, as there was in this case, the Government essentially stand behind the regulator, so the moral responsibility ultimately falls on the Government, regardless of party? Although the coalition did something, the financial constraints that enabled it to argue that it was not able to do as much as we would have wished at that time are beginning to ease. Do not decency, honesty and equity demand that we revisit the amount of compensation that is due to these people, who saved and did the right thing, and who, frankly, have been let down by Government agencies as much as by Equitable Life?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear conclusion.

The Government allocated £1.5 billion of compensation to policyholders who had lost money. Some £45 million was then promised and delivered to the pre-1992 trapped annuitants. The Chancellor accepted at the Dispatch Box in November 2010 that the total loss was some £4.1 billion, so the shortfall in compensation is £2.6 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Some of these answers require a bit of practice, because they suffer from the disadvantage of being not just a bit long, but far too long—hopelessly long.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure as many policy holders as possible are identified before the Equitable Life payment scheme closes to new claimants on 31 December 2015.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

The Equitable Life payment scheme has already gone to great lengths to find policyholders, including checking against credit histories, a national advertising campaign and sending letters to last-known addresses. Thanks to that, almost 90% of policyholders have been paid. Where possible the scheme is now tracing all those remaining who are due £50 or more against DWP, national insurance numbers and address records.

[Robert Neill]

I accept that this Government and their predecessor have done much—more than anybody before did—to right an injustice that was done, but Equitable Life policyholders were victims of a regulatory failure, for which ultimately Government is responsible. As the economy grows, is it not time, out of decency and fairness towards that diminishing group of elderly people, to revisit the amount to be paid in compensation?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his excellent summer Budget, did in fact announce that all eligible non-annuitant policyholders in receipt of pension credit will see their lump sum payments doubled.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I say to those on the Government Benches that they are simply out of touch with the lives of working people up and down this country. Of course we want an economy in which people are highly paid and highly skilled, but the course towards such an economy has to be charted before the support is cut off.

Let us deal with the crucial issue of devolution. We urgently need to rebalance our economy to drive growth and prosperity in all parts of the country. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. London dominates our economy, and its growth surpasses that in all of our major cities, which is not the case in either Germany or France where other cities beyond Berlin and Paris are true engines of economic growth. I agree with what the Chancellor said last week—that we will not achieve a better settlement by pulling London down. We should be proud of the dynamism and success of our capital city—and long may it continue. We must, however, reverse the long tradition of British politicians of all parties and of civil servants who have hoarded power in Whitehall and failed to trust local government.

There is a huge political and economic imperative to devolve power as close as possible to local communities. As ever, the Chancellor’s Budget speech on devolution was heavy on rhetoric, but rather light on substance. This Government boast about bringing about a “northern powerhouse”, but their rhetoric rings hollow, given that no part of the country has faced bigger cuts to local authority budgets over the last five years than those in the north of England. Indeed, the shelving of the electrification of the Manchester to Leeds trans-Pennine railway means that the Government’s plans are closer to a power cut than a powerhouse. We need a settlement for every part of the north, but as one of my hon. Friends pointed out to the Secretary of State earlier, there was barely a mention of the north-east in the hour-long Budget statement or in the 123 pages of the Red Book.

Ahead of the Budget, we know that there were briefings about which deals would be announced, and we know that the Secretary of State did what some might call a frenetic round of local government speed-dating during the Local Government Association conference two weeks ago. We welcome, for instance, the extra powers that the Government are planning to devolve to Greater Manchester. We also welcome the progress that three combined authorities—Sheffield city region, Liverpool city region and Leeds, West Yorkshire and partner authorities—are making towards a devolution deal, and the progress that Cornwall is making. As a Wolverhampton MP, I particularly congratulate the leaders of the local authorities that are working so hard to create the West Midlands combined authority. We are proud of the fact that Labour leaders in local government are making the weather on devolution.

While we welcome that progress, we also believe that the Government should not impose a one-size-fits-all approach to devolution, and should stop putting obstacles in the way. In his first major speech after the election, the Chancellor said that he would not impose the mayoral model on anyone, but in the very same breath he said that he would not settle for anything less. Why are the Government running scared of letting local people decide, and when will they clarify exactly what different areas and combined authorities can expect to achieve from devolution if they do not opt for a mayor?

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I know that the hon. Lady has a good memory. Does she recall regional spatial strategies? What were they but an imposed one-size-fits-all policy from above? Has she forgotten that so quickly?

[Emma Reynolds]

It seems from the details of the Government’s productivity plan, which were published on Friday, that the hon. Gentleman’s party is introducing a nationalised spatial strategy.

Our amendment to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is being debated in the other place today, would ensure that areas that did not want a mayor would not get a second-class deal. A Labour amendment that was passed in the other place earlier this afternoon proposes the introduction of a “devolution by default” test for every new Bill that the Government introduce to Parliament. If the Government did not push down as much power as possible to local level, they would have to give and justify their reasons. I hope that they will agree to retain that new provision, because it will be a test of their commitment to devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I normally regard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as one of the most generous-hearted men in politics. When I listened to the opening of his speech, I thought he was being a bit harsh on the Opposition, but having heard their reaction, I think he was, if anything, over-generous. When one of the more thoughtful Members of the shadow Cabinet is reduced to tripping out every stereotypical canard in the socialist book and attempts to take refuge in the same view that was adopted by the last Bourbon King of France, Charles X, who was wholly and genuinely convinced that the French revolution was a terrible aberration, and that people would wake up one day and realise that they had got it wrong and that the divine right of kings was the only answer, I realised the difficulty that any Blairite on the Labour Front Bench faces. If it is any help for the historians here, Charles X lasted three and a half years before he was got rid of. I shall be interested to see how long the next leader of the Labour party lasts.

I also felt genuinely sorry for the current leader of the Labour party. After trying to inject a modicum of realism in relation to benefits and welfare reform, she was entirely disavowed by her own party. It is rather sad when the official Opposition of this country take as their role model the ostrich. They expose their thinking parts to us and bury the realities in the sand, and the country deserves better.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend heard anything today about the Opposition’s current view on the welfare cap? Has he learned anything interesting about what their actual position is?

[Robert Neill]

Not at all. As there are probably something in the order of 230-plus different views, we could not cover them all in time. It is also rather remarkable that the Opposition have adopted an entirely different stance to elected mayors from that which I remember when I was the leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly and facing the first ever elected mayor in this country—the first Mayor of London. I am glad to say that things have improved since then. As some may remember, the office of Mayor of London came into being as a result of legislation introduced by the Labour party. It comes back to the same trope. Why does the Labour party now regard any elected mayor as anathema? Because it was an idea of Tony Blair’s, and must therefore be cast into utter darkness.

I find it truly bizarre that a normally thoughtful party that wants to talk about devolution objects to the opportunity to take up city deal models with an elected mayor. The idea has not been forced upon Labour; it is Labour’s choice whether to have it or not. It was Labour that imposed more central control over local government, not just in planning, not just in terms of whether there could be a committee structure or not, not just in terms of whether a very strict and rigid standards regime was imposed, not just in terms of the comprehensive area assessment, not just in terms of planning policy, and not just in terms of financial policy and the cap. After all that, Labour had the gall to complain about an offer—take it or leave it—put forward by my right hon. Friend.

[Emma Reynolds]

I always enjoy debating with the hon. Gentleman. To clarify, we are not anti-mayor. We believe that local areas and local communities should have a say over whether they have a mayor or not. We are in favour of true localism, not imposing structures on people.

[Robert Neill]

That is useful and I regard it as a step forward. I hope the hon. Lady is able to remain in place after the leadership election. Let me explain why. With all respect to her, being on the campaign team of a Blairite in the Labour leadership election probably makes the prospects of the ostrich pretty good in terms of species survival, so I wish her well for the future.

The Labour party has ducked the real issue, which is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have offered genuine devolution of power to local authorities. The issue is not so much about the badge on the top of the tin, although there is a good reason for a single focal point in city areas. It is hugely important to remember that we have offered that to Cornwall too, and we are starting to see the good work of city deals rolled out to the shire counties. That should be applauded. The ability to join up adult social care, one of the principal cost pressures on top tier authorities, with the health service should be applauded by everybody in the House, not greeted with the rather curmudgeonly response that has come from Opposition Members.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Gentleman has moved on, but may I extend an invitation to him to come to Leicester where we have an elected mayor? The opponents of that are members of the Leicester Conservative association.

[Robert Neill]

I believe there is a Blairite in Leicester. It might be too difficult for me to go up there.

It is sad that the key issues are being missed. We ought to be prepared to work across the House on opportunities to improve the offer available to local government. Whether Opposition Members like it or not, a good deal of work was done under the coalition Government and more is being done now to hand power down to local communities. That is a good thing in itself. It must be right to give significant economic drivers—London and the other major cities—the power to raise revenue and invest it more for themselves. Could we go further? I think we should, but we should recognise this as a very important first start.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I must be careful with the number of interventions I take, as other Members want to get in, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He referred to some excellent legislation introduced by the previous Government. There is no finer bit than the Localism Act 2011, but in Herefordshire we are seeing brakes put on the powers of local people by the local authority. Does he find that happening elsewhere?

[Robert Neill]

Sadly, it does happen. One of the disappointments I have had is, I am sorry to say, that local authorities have been slower than I would wish in putting in place up-to-date local plans. There is a good deal more movement on that than previously, and I hope that the political certainty we have since the general election will encourage local authorities to move forward on that. I hope we can do more to encourage the uptake of neighbourhood plans, which my right hon. Friend pioneered and which offer a chance to give granularity to local communities’ involvement.

We should look again at the sort of fiscal incentives we can offer local authorities to support growth. The new homes bonus is important, as is the ability of cities like Manchester to retain 100% of the uplift in business rates. Personally, I think we should aim by the end of this Parliament to make that the norm across the country, rather than the exception. Those are the things that we ought to be talking about, rather than re-running history.

We need to offer other incentives in the housing field. A great deal more needs to be done. There is an issue with skills in the construction sector. When I talk to people in the sector, they tell me that as well as the planning side, which we can tackle, we need the skilled trades—the carpenters and the bricklayers, the supply systems. The Government are tackling that through their apprenticeship schemes, and we need to push that forward with great rigour. We need to ensure that the planning system deals not only with housing issues, but with the need to supply aggregates and other materials that are critical to the building trade. I hope we all recognise that we should be ruthless in prioritising building on publicly owned land. Today we had—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) on this—the first meeting of the London Land Commission, which is bringing forward something that has been mooted for a very long time.

I shall say one more thing about London. Devolution to other cities is welcome, but I hope that the Government do not think that means London has had enough devolution. I say that not only as a London MP but as joint chair, alongside the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), of the all-party group on London. The truth is that London, as a major powerhouse, can and should have further fiscal devolution. I commend to hon. Members a thoughtful piece in today’s Financial Times by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, in which he writes that it is important that our major cities and powerhouses have devolved powers. I am very happy for them to have elected mayors, but the developer will ask not only “Have you got a mayor?” but “Can you give me a tax incentive? What breaks can you give to make it attractive?” I hope that we can build on that, too.

The Budget presents great opportunities for local government. Let me end by pressing one final reform upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have done a great deal to boost the structural arrangements and we have started on the right track in relation to fiscal devolution. I hope that we can do more to encourage the supply of housing through the various initiatives I have suggested. The final thing we need to do is deliver infrastructure planning more effectively. One thing we could do is have a serious reform of compulsory purchase legislation, which is overdue, and which I have talked about before. It will be the work of a Parliament, but it is worth starting now. I think we could achieve cross-party consensus on that, because delivering the underpinning roads, rail and other infrastructure will speed the sustainable delivery of housing, which is critical.

My constituency was once represented by Harold Macmillan. I can tell hon. Members that he would have been very proud of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and of this Budget.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I have made it abundantly clear that it is not a living wage; it is a rebadging of the national minimum wage, and it is not good enough. [Interruption.] Would Government Members give me a break?

Long tenancies give a degree of certainty and reduce costs to housing providers, who know that a tenant is there for the long term and do not constantly have to manage the turnover of stock. That is costly for housing associations and local councils to manage, so knowing that a tenant will stay reduces their costs. The Government should think very carefully about this policy’s impact on well-established and strong communities.

This Government seem to be making a further attack on the social rented sector and its tenants, following the distress caused by the bedroom tax. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that only 6% of affected tenants were actually able to move, and that 50% of those who did not move fell into arrears. I am glad that the Scottish Government were able to mitigate that, but it is another example of a policy built to deal with a London problem that did not exist in Scotland, and which simply punishes people for their circumstances. The Scottish Government should not exist simply to mitigate the policies of another Government. That is unfair and unsustainable.

The Government are also in real danger of undermining their own work on city deals. One of the intended outcomes of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal is to help long-term unemployed people back to work, and if the actions of this Tory Government undermine that by slashing benefits and making life harder for people who are looking to work, that will undermine the potential success of the deal. We must co-ordinate and work together. We need job-creating powers in Scotland and more than the simple power to mitigate the wrongheaded approach of this Government.

Although I say that, the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) will be glad to find that I welcome the further development of city deals in the Budget. They will go some way to redressing the imbalance in the UK economy, and not before time. Looking at the rhetoric about the northern powerhouse, I would suggest that it is perhaps a final admission of the fundamental failure of the UK economy. London is indeed the giant suction machine that the former Business Secretary spoke of, and the map on page 67 illustrates that investment in the south and east of England is focused through the prism of how best to serve London rather than to build up those areas in their own right and advance the economy.

I have attended Adjournment and Westminster Hall debates on city deals for Aberdeen and Cardiff and I listened with great interest to the debate on elected mayors. I have also followed discussions on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in the other place. I am keen to see the development of deals that meet local needs and have been disappointed in some of those debates to find that the wishes of local people seemed to rank behind the pet project of some local authorities and the requirements of business. If more powers come to cities, it should be to serve the ambitions and priorities of local people to raise their opportunities in life and to make things better according to local demands. They must also be the devolution of funding to match those powers, as devolution and the reform of local government cannot be a cover for passing on cuts.

I am of course delighted to see continued commitment to the city deal for Glasgow and Clyde Valley, which the UK Government established in partnership with the Scottish Government, each putting in £500 million, with £130 million coming from the eight local authorities involved. I hope, too, that the deal will involve listening to local people. It is early days and the work of the joint board is just getting under way. I commend the fledgling city deals for Aberdeen and Inverness, which are mentioned in the Red Book, and ask that attention be paid to potential deals in Scotland’s other cities.

In considering city deals, we must also consider how we support areas outwith large conurbations. Rural areas should not be left behind, and if they are it will only exacerbate the difficulties of rurality. The approach in Scotland has been about collaboration through the Scottish Cities Alliance rather than cutthroat competition, and I believe that that is more productive. Setting regions against one another and failing to seize the opportunities to make links will only waste money in the long run. I note with interest that an Oyster-type system is being considered for Manchester. That is of course welcome, but it should not operate in a way that builds barriers between different regions. There is much opportunity for interoperability rather than running in entirely different directions and I note with some concern the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about incentives for businesses. If we are not careful, that could lead to a race to the bottom on standards in different areas.

I would also guard against the temptation to reach for shiny prestige projects at the expense of more sustainable projects that benefit local communities and urge that further attention is paid to the importance of community benefit policies within public contracts. They were used effectively in Glasgow during the Commonwealth games and on other projects and are a simple way to ensure that local people get jobs, training and investment in every large or small infrastructure project that comes along.

A Westminster Hall debate last week touched on the fact that elected mayors had been rejected in some areas in local referendums. It would seem to me to be unwise to overrule that democratic right, but the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), said:

“I reiterate that where there is a request for the ambitious devolution of a suite of powers to a combined authority, there must be a metro mayor, but no city will be forced to take on those powers or to have a metro mayor, just as no county will be forced to make any governance changes.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 187WH.]

That seems to make no sense and to disrespect local democracy. People can have the funding, but only if they have the mayor. If people do not want a local mayor and think that the power is better vested in their local authority and local democracy, the Government should respect that. Members might also like to note that there is no such obligation for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley plan to come with an elected mayor.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting point, but if she trusts local authorities in that regard it is legitimate to trust them to vary certain levels of taxation within an area and to increase their prudential borrowing against a revenue stream. Would she support us on such measures?

[Alison Thewliss]

Having come from local government, of course I trust it to do those things, but it should not be forced with a gun put to its head.

I will close by asking the Secretary of State to reflect on the purposes of power being devolved, and on how best we support local communities. People will be unsurprised that we in the SNP reject the austerity agenda, and the people who voted for us support our policy. That austerity agenda has already led to so much damage to the fabric of our communities, and there is only so much that people can take.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Robert Neill Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend care to note that the London Land Commission, which he has delivered with the current Mayor, reflects the need to assemble and deliver building on brownfield land in London, which the Labour Mayor of London was talking about years ago but never delivered while he or a Labour Government were in charge of London?

[Mr Pickles]

I do not really understand why that was. Labour’s solution to this brings to mind their solution of garden cities. They promised five but could not deliver five, so they promised 10 and never delivered 10. The London Land Commission is indeed a good thing.

The resale of shared ownership properties will be streamlined, and will make it easier for tenants in the private rented sector to sublet or share space. We will also extend our support for home ownership, which has already helped more than 200,000 households to buy or reserve a home. Buying our first home appeals to the very British sense of aspiration and self-reliance. It is a reward for hard work and an investment in the future—a place to settle down and to raise a family. A new Help to Buy ISA will give a much needed boost to people saving to get on the housing ladder. The Government will contribute an additional 25% of their savings up to a total of £3,000. In other words, if someone saves £12,000, the Government will give them an extra £3,000, making £15,000 in total.

We will also help those who want to rent an affordable home. By 2010, the net loss of affordable rented housing under Labour had reached the astonishing figure of 420,000 homes. By contrast, this Government will be the first since the 1980s—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen to this, because it is important. This Government will be the first since the 1980s to end their term with a larger stock of affordable housing, and I think that is a remarkable achievement. Our affordable housing programme will achieve the fastest rate of affordable house building for 20 years and will deliver more than 500,000 new affordable homes by 2020.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pickles]

I am always happier when I am on the same page as my right hon. Friend, who was an immensely distinguished Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government. He should take considerable credit for keeping us focused on affordable houses, and he should share in the triumph.

We are considering ways to deliver private rented accommodation for homeless families, so that councils can help those who are in most need, while reducing the reliance on expensive temporary and bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

This Government have put councils and communities back in charge of housing and planning. We have adopted the same approach to boosting economic growth. Local areas now have the breathing space and support they need to find their own economic solutions. We have ended the failed attempt by Labour to run the economy through regional quangos and have devolved powers and funding to enterprise zones and local enterprise partnerships. We have trusted local people, and they are now delivering jobs and growth in their communities.

Twenty-four enterprise zones across England have created a whopping 15,500 jobs, attracted more than 430 businesses, secured more than £2 billion of private sector investment and built world-class business facilities and transport links. These enterprise zones are gaining momentum as local centres of excellence—whether with biotechnology in Nottingham, advanced engineering in Lancashire, creative industries in Bristol or aerospace in Torquay.

We will now create two new enterprise zones at Plymouth and Blackpool, subject, of course, to business cases, and extend up to eight existing zones, so that more communities can benefit from these local engines for growth. We will also support the creation of a Croydon growth zone to create 4,000 homes and 10,000 jobs.

The message is clear: where cities grow their economies through local initiatives, we will support and reward them. Starting next month local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Greater Manchester will be able to retain 100% of any growth in business rates, so that they can support businesses and reap the benefits. Unlike what the Labour party is proposing, we are not raiding the budgets of local authorities to pay for this.

[Robert Neill]

May I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend, because I honestly believe that this is one of the most significant steps towards devolution for local government that we have seen in 50 years? Will he confirm that the principle of 100% new business rate retention and the opportunity to pool health care funding will be available to other parts of the country if local authorities produce appropriate collaborative arrangements?

[Mr Pickles]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend was a distinguished Minister in my Department. Right from the very beginning, all this was envisaged under the Localism Act 2011. Rather than trying to move all local government at the same speed, we will of course devolve this power to those councils that are capable of managing larger budgets and delivering a deal. I envisage that within the next five years most local authorities will use such a system. For those that do not, the Prime Minister made it clear in a speech a couple of weeks ago that it will be our intention to get the retention up to 66%. I shall be disappointed if we cannot exceed that, but for most local authorities self-sufficiency and being able to raise their own finance locally and to spend Government money sensibly, and so on, is the future. I have great hopes for what is happening in Greater Manchester, and it shows that people of good will right across the political spectrum can work together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

There is indeed the web, but the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, having studied the market, that some companies make a special effort to market properties elsewhere and do not make a similar effort to market them in this country. He surely does not agree with that. Everyone in Britain should have the same right and opportunity, and companies should not make a deliberate effort to try to sell to people from other countries before those in London have a chance to access such properties.

[Robert Neill]

Given that this is a completely new policy that, as far as we can see, is being made up as we go along—

[Mr Pickles]

Changed.

[Robert Neill]

And it is being changed, so will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what the policy is? What will the policy cost, how many bureaucrats will be needed to enforce it and what will be the impact on London as an international financial centre?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. There is no cost. The principle is very simple, and I would have thought that it would command support right across the House. The advertising and marketing of properties should be done in the capital at the same time as it is done elsewhere, so that people in this country have the same opportunity to buy. I would have thought that he would support that policy.

[Robert Neill]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

No, I will not. I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.

There is another policy that the Government—actually, the Conservative party—have said that they will put in place if they are re-elected, which is to sell homes at 20% off. To go back to the chairman of the Conservative party, he was recently asked several times on Sky News how exactly that would be funded. He was not able to reply, but others have said that it will be done by exempting such sites, first, from the requirement to build social housing, and secondly, from the zero-carbon homes standard. I would tell the Secretary of State that the consequence will be that other people have less of a chance of getting a home they can afford, and people who move into houses built to a lower energy standard will end up paying higher bills than they otherwise would.

I have another question for Ministers. In talking about that plan, the Prime Minister said the homes

“can’t be bought by foreigners”.

I would be grateful if the Minister who responds clarified what exactly the Prime Minister meant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to the consequences of a global recession. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, it was a global recession. The Secretary of State made specific promises about what the Government were going to do and they have comprehensively failed.

The Lyons review says to communities, “In return for taking responsibility for building the homes that you need, we will give you the powers that you need when you identify sites.” I have listened to debates in this House in which Members, particularly Government Members, have said, “We don’t understand it. We’ve identified sites, but the developers come along and say, ‘I don’t fancy building there. It’s not viable for me. I’m going to put in a planning application for that greenfield site over there.’” Up and down the country, that is happening. It is a great frustration for local authorities and citizens, because if they identify sites, the deal in return has to be that that is where the development will take place. If we are just dependent on the big house builders, we will never get to the figures that we need and it will undermine the public consent that, we all agree, is fundamental to making progress on house building.

We must say to local authorities, “Here’s a range of tools that you can use to ensure that the kind of homes you want get built in the places you have identified and go to the people who need them.” That is why the one other thing that we will do is to give local authorities a planning power to say that in housing growth areas a percentage of the new homes that are built for sale should, in the first instance, be reserved for local first-time buyers. If we do that, we will turn quite a few nimbys into yimbys, because they will realise that their son or daughter, or their neighbour’s son or daughter, will have the chance to get one of those houses.

If we are to get to the target that we have set of 200,000 homes a year by 2020—I say to Ministers that surely their experience over the past four years has taught them that we will not do it by trying to put a bit more petrol into the old house building engine and cranking it up—there has to be a fundamental change in the way the house building market works.

Let me turn to economic evolution and growth. I acknowledge what the Secretary of State has done with deals for some cities—it would be churlish not to—but there is an unanswered question: if he and the Government are so committed to devolution, why has progress been so slow, patchy and piecemeal? Manchester aside, why have such limited powers been offered to a small number of large cities. Why, as the Local Government Chronicle put it yesterday, has DCLG

“almost seemed peripheral, a bystander to the devolution debate”?

Why has Lord Kerslake, now free from the responsibilities of office, said—again in the Local Government Chronicle—that

“it was only well into its fourth year that the government woke up to the benefits of devolution”?

I suspect there is plenty more where that came from. Why has the right hon. Gentleman stepped aside while the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister have had a row about whether powers can be devolved and whether we need a metro mayor? Perhaps he is not actually in charge of the policy.

What about the great counties of England? Until the Chancellor got up on Wednesday and finally adopted Labour’s policy on 100% retention of business rate income growth, which he said he would apply to Cambridge and Greater Manchester, the counties of England had frankly been ignored. The Secretary of State will be only too well aware of how angry his colleagues in the counties have been at his failure to stand up for them. It was noticeable last year that at the meeting of the County Councils Network—the great annual gathering of county councils—not a single DCLG Commons Minister could manage to clear their diaries to turn up to address what was mainly their party colleagues.

It is not a very long journey to Marlow—about an hour in the ministerial car—and I think the real reason is what happened to the Secretary of State the previous year at the 2013 conference. LocalGov.co.uk reported it thus:

“Mr Pickles received a hostile reception at the conference…During questions, the Tory leader of Leicestershire, CC Nick Rushton, asked the secretary of state: ‘Why are you always so rude to us?—

I am sure the Secretary of State remembers that well—

“It’s about time you spoke up for us in Government.’”

I sympathise with the Secretary of State because with friends like that who needs us on the Opposition Benches? It is the unfairness that makes people angry. The truth is that his Conservative colleagues in the counties know that they will get a better deal from a Labour Government than they have got from the Tory Government, and the same is true for the city regions.

[Robert Neill]

In what ways does the right hon. Gentleman intend to alter the operation of the formula grant to address sparsity in rural areas? How will he deal with adult social care, which it seems his Government want to nationalise and which is one of the principal cost pressures on top-tier authorities such as councils? How will that help the county council?

[Hilary Benn]

I will come on to that very point in just a moment if the hon. Gentleman is willing to be patient. He will have seen what Councillors Keith Wakefield and Peter Box have said about the new Leeds city region deal. Peter Box described it as “disappointing”, which I would call one of the kinder comments. What has really got up the noses of the existing combined authorities is that Labour’s offer of 100% retention of business rate income growth has been made to Manchester and Cambridge but not to the other existing combined authorities. Why is that?

For all the Government’s rhetoric about the “northern powerhouse”—now running a close second to “long-term economic plan”—the truth is that the most deprived parts of the country have faced the biggest cuts in local authority funding. Yes, Labour will change the formula because what the Government have done is unjustifiable. There is nothing empowering about taking a load away and then giving a little less back.