Banking (Responsibility and Reform)

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

May I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) for his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? I am sure that the whole House will identify with them.

I welcome the opportunity to debate business lending and the reform of the British banking system. As hon. Members are well aware, we face extremely tough economic circumstances as we weather the ongoing crisis in the eurozone and fix the underlying damage that the previous Government inflicted on the economy.

The UK banking sector in particular faces a long and difficult road to repair, unwinding the irresponsible and unsustainable excesses of the previous decade. In the aftermath of the worst financial crisis in almost a century, bank balance sheets are shrinking under market and regulatory pressure. It is absolutely right that we ensure that our banks build their capital and liquidity reserves in these turbulent times. It was because of that action that all our banks passed the European Banking Authority stress tests.

It is stability that we are safeguarding for the long term by discarding the shadow Chancellor’s discredited tripartite system and implementing the recommendations of the Vickers committee. It is this Government who are ensuring that we build a stable financial sector with the capacity and the market confidence to provide sustainable lending to our most innovative, ambitious and entrepreneurial private sector firms.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Given that the Minister feels that the industry is more stable, is he concerned to hear the chief executive of the National Australia bank, which owns the Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks, say today that the bank might have to consider selling, or at least restructuring, the business—partly because the UK Government’s austerity programme has contributed to the harsh business environment, which is why the bank is carrying out a review?

[Mr Hoban]

The reason we have to have the austerity programme in place is to tackle the mess left by the Labour party when it was in government.

As I was saying, we are seeking to reform the sector to ensure that it can lend to businesses in the long term, but we have also taken decisive action to stimulate credit in the short term. That is why the Government secured an agreement with the UK’s largest banks to provide £190 billion of new lending to business in 2011. By the third quarter of last year, those banks had loaned more than £157 billion to UK businesses, which is 11% above their implied target. That includes £56 billion of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises—10% higher than at the same point in 2010.

I noted that during the rather long speech of the shadow Business Secretary, he talked about lending but put forward no ideas about how Labour would tackle it, yet we in government have taken action to get the banks lending to businesses and to make sure that there is a supply of creditors to SMEs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

There are some basic questions of fairness that people in Britain feel strongly about, and we have to reinstate that fairness. In 1979, the top pay at Barclays was only 14.5 times that of the average pay. It is now 75 times higher. Did people not want to work at the top of Barclays then? Did they not want to work hard for their bank? I think that they did. The problem is that the top levels of pay have accelerated to a level that no one considers fair. The suggestion that, if we do something about that, people will go elsewhere and that we will be unable to recruit seems strange. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) spoke of a time when personal tax rates were higher, but people were still prepared to do those jobs here. We cannot go on accepting the mantra that they will go elsewhere—

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

They left the country.

[Sheila Gilmore]

They did not go, and the banks did not collapse. They recruited chief executives and board members.

In fact, in 1979, the inequality gap, as measured by the Gini coefficient, was at its lowest in the entire post-war period. Does that matter? I suggest that it does. If I were an employee of Barclays, working as a teller or in a back-room job, my motivation to work hard would go down as I learned about the huge disparities in pay. This is not about jealousy, or about feeling that people should not be able to earn. If we want people to accept, as we have suggested, that we cannot increase public sector pay in the way that we want to, and if we are all in this together, it has to be fair. That is primarily what the motion is about. Those who do not support it will find that, rather than wanting to dig in and be “all in this together”, people will be dissatisfied and demoralised, and our businesses simply will not grow.

Financial Services Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) referred to what he thought was the regrettable negative public opinion towards bankers, but we have to accept that over a considerable period the banking industry has changed so dramatically that perhaps it needs greater regulation.

My mother-in-law remembered that when as a student she went overdrawn, the bank would write to her father, and that when she got home for her summer holidays, she would be in big trouble. In contrast, my children were automatically given a £1,000 overdraft as soon as they presented their new student cards at the bank. Before I could say, “Hang on a minute, perhaps that isn’t terribly wise,” they found themselves unable to refuse this largesse. That demonstrates the change that has taken place over a couple of generations. To that extent, the banking industry has to look to itself, not just to external regulation, and ask where things have gone wrong.

At the beginning of this debate, when things were a bit livelier—they are often livelier at the beginning than near the end—much was made of whose fault it was, who did not regulate, and whether the Opposition would apologise for failing to regulate and for the financial collapse. That is rich coming from a party that, even when the financial crisis was beginning to crash around us, spent so much time saying that there was too much regulation. There are clear quotations to that effect, with the current Prime Minister saying in 2008:

“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that a significant part of Labour’s economic failure has been the excessive bureaucratic interventionism of the past decade…too much tax, too much regulation, too little understanding of what our businesses need to compete in the modern world.”

There are many other quotations like that. It is not just that the then Opposition were not standing up and saying that we needed more regulation; it is that they were going beyond that and saying that there was too much regulation.

We all have to reflect on that. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the last Government did not sufficiently regulate the financial services industry and should have done more. We have seen many of the difficulties caused by that. The FSA has been roundly criticised by many of the victims of financial collapses. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) talked a lot about Arch Cru and how it worked. Many of us in have had people come to us affected by the Equitable Life collapse, which was due to the failings of both the FSA and its predecessors. We know how people’s lives can be affected. It is extremely important that the new regulatory architecture, as it seems to be called, should grapple with the kind of situations that have arisen and how they affect people.

We also need regulation that looks at the most vulnerable, which is particularly important. Citizens Advice, which deals with a lot of people’s problems, has suggested that the FCA be placed under an explicit duty to be proactive in preventing and responding to consumer detriment, and to have particular regard to the needs of low-income and otherwise vulnerable consumers. Earlier we heard about high-cost credit and what it does to people, but Citizens Advice has suggested that the problem goes much further. It includes, for example, the way that cheques have been phased out of the banking system, with little regard for the needs of those with little choice but to use them, and the way that people have perhaps been encouraged to bank online and not otherwise, which could be to the detriment of those who cannot do so. Indeed, it might even include the way that banking itself works. Many of us think it is wonderful to have free credit for having a current account and not to have to pay fees. However, there is a downside to that, in that it is often funded by what those who become overdrawn—not necessarily because they are wholly irresponsible; rather they may simply be hard up and experiencing difficulties—have to pay for that. Those are all things that we should be considering, but if the new body does not have an explicit duty to consider such matters, they might simply not be dealt with properly.

We have heard, too, that some of the things that the Office of Fair Trading does on consumer credit—things that most of us probably feel it has not done very well over the years—will be transferred to the new organisation. Again, we need to know as much about that as possible, and as soon as possible. It is not good enough to say, “That will all come along in due course.” There have been clear failures in the system to look at the issue in enough depth, to act quickly enough and to ensure that people are not faced with poor banking and credit practices. Basic bank accounts is another area. The current Government appear not to want to place an obligation on banks to provide a right to a bank account, for which the previous Government had proposed to legislate. I hope that the Minister might take this opportunity to reconsider the position that he expressed when I had a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject some months ago, and to decide that he will go ahead with such a proposal, because the position on basic bank accounts has deteriorated since that debate.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a clear and powerful case for regulation in appropriate places, and I would be grateful if she continued her exposition.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Although it is widely believed that regulation for the poorest is particularly important, those of us who have witnessed the kind of financial failure that so many people have had to put up with are aware that it is important not just to the poorest, but to a number of those with reasonable incomes. Our Work and Pensions Committee has been discussing pension auto-enrolment. One of the fears expressed was that people would not want to save because they did not trust the financial services industry. If we want people to save properly we must ensure that they feel that trust, and it could be re-created through proper regulation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The levels of interest that businesses in this country pay are determined by the credibility of our fiscal policy. If interest rates rose as a consequence of diverting from the fiscal plan the Government have set out, we would see higher interest rates and that would have a huge impact on families and businesses across the country.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

6. What estimate he has made of the likely effect on the level of child poverty of the fiscal measures in his autumn statement.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

8. What estimate he has made of the likely effect on the level of child poverty of the fiscal measures in his autumn statement.

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

When measured against previously announced policies, there will be an estimated increase of 100,00 in children living in households with less than 60% of median income in 2012-13.

[Sheila Gilmore]

We are constantly told by the Government that the way out of poverty is work and that work must pay. Is the Minister prepared to reconsider the decision not to uprate working tax credits this year in terms of inflation while at the same time uprating out-of-work benefits by inflation?

[Miss Smith]

The reason for that decision was to prioritise the resources we have available on those perhaps least able to deal with the difficulties of the cost of living.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I will not condemn my right hon. Friend for taking a job. I am talking about the reality of the challenge that people in our constituencies face. More and more people are out of work. We should listen to them. They are saying that they are getting degrees, A-levels and vocational qualifications but that they cannot find work. As I have said, many would be shocked that many MPs say, “That’s just inevitable—it’s just what happens, and nothing can be done about it.” That is not acceptable. Our constituents see unemployment rising. The House should be taking action to address that challenge.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I would have intervened earlier, but I was trying to work out the arithmetic of Government Members. We are constantly told that 500,000 jobs were created last year, but we have been told about them for the past 20 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members cannot constantly refer to those same jobs, which were largely the result of the stimulus applied by the previous Labour Government?

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to look only at the forecasts from, for example, the independent OBR, which says that unemployment will continue to rise this year, or at the OECD numbers, which say that unemployment will continue to rise into 2013. That is the reality.

I am sure we will hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others defend the Government’s inaction and talk about their various half-baked and half-hearted solutions. We look forward to hearing a report on the progress of those initiatives, and in particular what difference the Government expect them to make to future unemployment. As I have said, the OBR has said that there is no reason for it to revise its unemployment projections as a result of the Government’s measures.

The Government’s response is inadequate for the scale of the challenge. When the Prime Minister was challenged last week on his performance on unemployment, all he could do was admit with regret that youth unemployment is a problem. However, the Opposition are asking the Government not simply to acknowledge they have a problem—we all know that—but to do something about it. The Prime Minister says he takes responsibility for everything that happens in our economy, but taking responsibility means taking action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

McDonald’s, which is apparently getting £10 million a year for training people in the things that it normally trains them in and calls the process apprenticeships, said in The Sunday Times yesterday that it had not created a single extra job with that money. What is the Chief Secretary’s response to that?

[Danny Alexander]

I have visited companies around the country, in Scotland and England, that have created a significant number of new jobs and new apprenticeships, providing a significant increase in skills. That is the right way to go about it, and that is what we are trying to do with the increase in apprenticeships. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome that. It is fair to say that the apprenticeships programme and the youth contract complement our Work programme, which is the biggest payment-by-results employment programme that this country has ever seen. The Work programme will provide personalised support to around 2.4 million people over the next five years, helping those most at risk of long-term unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

That makes it all right, does it? Is it okay to encourage the culture of corporate greed and excessive behaviour as long as people pay their taxes? Of course, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), reduced the rate of income tax that those people were paying. All that Labour promised for shareholders was an advisory role to rein in such behaviour, whereas the Government have today announced binding votes for shareholders so that they have some control over the executives who are supposed to report to them for the value of their companies.

Youth unemployment needs to be set in the overall context of unemployment in the United Kingdom and in other developed economies. The overall unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is 8.2% of the work force. In the United States it is 9.1% and in the eurozone it is 10.1%. In many eurozone states, the rate is much higher than the average. Youth unemployment tends to follow the same trend. It tends to be roughly double the rate in each country. What is happening in this country is not unique among our main competitors.

Youth unemployment is also not a new problem. At least the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who was with us earlier, has had the grace to acknowledge that under the Labour Government youth unemployment rose, even during times of strong economic growth and the longest sustained boom since the second world war. In the more than 20 years since 1992, the rate of youth unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds has remained stubbornly flat and has barely changed, whatever the underlying economic conditions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) is shaking her head. I suggest that she looks at the Library’s statistics on this matter, specifically for 16 and 17-year-olds.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In the early years of the Labour Government, did not youth unemployment fall far below the level inherited from the previous Conservative Government because measures were taken?

[Stephen Williams]

Before the hon. Lady intervened, I repeated that I was talking specifically about 16 and 17-year-olds. The Library’s youth unemployment statistics show that from 1992 to the current year the rate of youth unemployment has remained stubbornly at about 200,000, whatever the underlying economic conditions. For 16 to 24-year-olds, the broader group, the unemployment figure did not fall below 600,000, even at the height of the boom.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Stephen Williams]

I will not give way again because the time would count against me.

Youth unemployment is a long-term problem and we need long-term reform to tackle it. That is why the coalition Government are right to introduce the pupil premium, which will enable young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are on free school meals, as I was, to get a leg-up in life. It is right that the coalition Government are embarked on a programme of welfare reform. We already have in place the Work programme, which offers assistance to people who are unemployed after nine months or, for 18-year-olds, after six months. It is right that we are raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax. It is when people enter the jobs market for the first time that they are likely to be on the minimum wage or on low average earnings if they are working part time. The rise in the income tax threshold will disproportionately affect young people who are entering the labour market. It is also right that the coalition Government are massively expanding the number of apprenticeships. However, we also need short-term help for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed because of the economic circumstances. I am therefore pleased that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced the youth contract, which will start in April, with 410,000 places over the rest of this Parliament, 160,000 of which will be wage subsidies of £275 per new job created.

What will help the young unemployed most is economic stability and recovery, together with the confidence that this coalition Government are putting in place the policies to deliver those two things. The low rate of interest that we currently have helps not only households but businesses that are seeking to expand. The Government have a clear focus on stable finances and growth. We should contrast that with Labour’s somersaults, U-turns and ever-elastic bonus tax, which has no credibility as it seems to have funded every single promise that the party has made since the general election.

As the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, unemployment is a tragedy for every young person who has experienced it. I grew up in a community scarred by youth unemployment. I witnessed it among my friends—I even experienced it myself at one point in my career—and I do not want another generation to be blighted by it. The Government are taking action, and credibility is a key part of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Let me start by making it absolutely clear that tackling unemployment and youth unemployment is right at the top of the Government’s list of priorities. I share the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) at some of the comments from Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, to whom I pay tribute, is firmly of the view that the decline in the teaching of history in this country is a lamentable failing in our education system, and we realise precisely why when we listen to the Opposition. They have forgotten the history not of 10 or 100 years ago, but of two years ago: the mess they left behind for us.

Someone listening to Opposition Members tonight might think that youth unemployment had been created in the past 18 months, but the truth is that when Labour left office 18 months ago youth unemployment stood at 940,000. It has since risen by 100,000, which we wish had not happened. Half of that increase has come from students in full-time education looking for part-time work. The Opposition talk about surging youth unemployment, and I get increasingly frustrated by their use of figures, because they keep up the spurious claim that long-term youth unemployment under this Government has rocketed, but that is utterly untrue. A like-for-like comparison that removes all of the ways in which they massage the figures reveals that long-term youth unemployment today is actually lower than it was two years ago. There is one other fact that they do not mention: fewer people in this country are on out-of-work benefits today than were at the time of the general election. Let us hear nothing about the failures of the past 18 months, and let us never forget the failings of 13 years of Labour government.

We have had a thoughtful debate and heard some sensible contributions, including those from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). We have also had a snapshot of the past, present and future of the Labour party. On the future of the party, I must say that the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made some thoughtful contributions on things the Government might do, and I listened carefully to what she said. We also had a bit of a throwback from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who talked about bankers’ bonuses while conveniently forgetting that the bankers’ bonus pool in the City of London was twice as big under Labour as it is today.

I was also struck by the lack of ambition among Labour Members. When they went through their plans yet again—we have to bear it in mind that the money from their proposed bankers’ bonus tax has been announced for nine different things so far; another bit of history they have conveniently forgotten—we realised that the reality is that they are talking about creating 100,000 places in a replacement for the future jobs fund. I see that as rather unambitious, because the package of support we have put together will help, and is helping, far more young people into employment.

We have a clear strategy to support the creation of jobs in the economy and provide help for those people, older and younger, who are looking for work. We have set out some of those measures. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury team set out in the autumn statement a range of proposals to do everything we can to stimulate and support the growth of business. I am particularly pleased that in the last quarter private sector employment in the economy increased at a time when we face huge economic challenges that were described recently by the Governor of the Bank of England as probably the most difficult in modern peace time history, if not ever. Yet against that background we are determined to give business every opportunity to grow and develop through investment in infrastructure, measures in the tax system and the measures we are taking to deregulate—for example, in relation to health and safety—in order to support business growth. There is no other way of securing the future of our work force or job creation in the economy.

We cannot go back to the uncertainty and instability under the previous Government and under the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who is chuntering away on the Front Bench and forgets the severe damage that he and his colleagues did to the economy when they were in office.

Alongside the work that we will do and are doing to ensure that business has the best possible opportunity to grow and to create jobs, however, we have put in place a package of support for the unemployed that I believe is more ambitious and more successful than anything that the previous Government did.

Let us start with our work experience scheme, which will double in size under the youth contract and is already helping large numbers of young people to move into work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am sure the Minister agrees that work experience programmes should give people skills that they do not already have, and perhaps confidence if they have not worked for a long time, so why has it been made compulsory for people who have already done the work or had the training to go into jobs such as shelf-stacking, on which I know the Conservative party is so keen? Why is that relevant to people who already have such experience?

[Chris Grayling]

I simply cannot understand the view that Opposition Members have of our retail sector. Our larger retailers are national and international businesses, with hugely varied career opportunities for young people. The manager of a single supermarket can run a £100 million business, so let nobody say that giving an unemployed young person the opportunity to show to a supermarket chain their ability to contribute to that organisation is nothing but a possible footstone for a long-term career.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, because more than half the young people who are going through our work experience scheme are moving off benefits quickly afterwards. When we make a comparison with the future jobs fund, from which about half moved off benefits immediately afterwards, we find the total cost of that scheme was between £5,000 and £6,000 per placement, whereas the total cost of our work experience scheme—of achieving a similar result—is about £300 per placement. Which do Opposition Members think represents better value for the taxpayer?

Alongside that, we are also delivering 170,000 wage subsidies, through the youth contract, to employers who take on young people, and that is the big difference between our philosophy and that of the Opposition, who simply want to recreate another scheme with artificial, six-month job placements in the public or voluntary sectors. We are trying to create a path to a long-term career for young people. That is what the wage subsidies in the youth contract will do, and it is also why we have expanded by so many the number of available apprenticeships. They are not about short-term placements; they are about building long-term career opportunities. Since we took office, we have increased massively the availability of apprenticeships in the economy, precisely because we believe that our young people are best served by creating a path that they can follow to a long-term career opportunity.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked about the Work programme, which is providing much better and more intensive support for the long-term unemployed than previous schemes, and about the flexible new deal, which we inherited last year. Let me, however, give him some statistics about that. It cost the Department for Work and Pensions £770 million, and it achieved 50,000 job outcomes in six months—at a cost of £14,000 per job outcome. Does that represent good value for money or a programme worth keeping? Does anybody seriously believe that that programme had the effect he describes?

I am confident that, by contrast, the Work programme will deliver results because it is based on payment by results, and because we have created an environment in which the organisations, large and small, that are delivering the programme are paid only when they succeed in getting somebody into long-term employment. Having now been around the country and visited almost all the providers, I have seen a team of people who are motivated, determined and succeeding in getting the unemployed back to work. I meet people who have not worked for years but who have got back into employment, and people who did not believe they could get back into work but are getting back into employment.

When we publish the figures, and we will, I look forward to demonstrating that that approach makes a difference to the prospects of the long-term unemployed in this country—

Public Service Pensions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I agree that, while we are securing very good pensions for public service workers, we must not neglect the fact that many millions of private sector workers have no pension provision at all. That is what the NEST scheme is intended to address. The opt-in arrangement for a new basic pension scheme, which will be rolled out over the next five or six years, will enable those millions in the private sector who currently have no provision to build some up for themselves. I hope that, in due course, my hon. Friend will join us in promoting that scheme to constituents.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Would not the negotiations have proceeded more quickly and smoothly had the Chief Secretary’s party not colluded in the constant denigration of public sector workers, and the setting of one group against the other? The Chief Secretary is still doing that today in seeking to create a huge divide between public and private sector workers, and to make one group envious of the other.

[Danny Alexander]

Opposition Members seem to be making increasingly desperate attempts to find new ways of saying that they do not agree with what we have offered. It would be simpler for them to say that they welcome the agreements that we have reached in many areas.

I said in my statement, but will happily repeat for the hon. Lady’s benefit, that the contribution made to the country by public service workers such as teachers, civil servants, nurses, local government workers, firefighters and prison officers is enormously important. That is why one of the Government’s objectives has been to ensure that they continue to receive better pension provision than any other work force in the country, which is absolutely right. I hope that, on reflection, she will choose to welcome that.

The Economy

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The OBR was also very clear in its analysis of why there had been weaker growth. Over the past seven days the shadow Chancellor and others have paraded around the TV studios citing the OBR’s numbers while refusing to accept the OBR’s analysis of what lies behind those numbers. The OBR is very clear; it gives three reasons for the deterioration in the economic forecasts. First, it attributes the primary reason for the weakness since its last forecast to the external inflation shock of the high oil price. Secondly, it attributes the current weakness in the economic position to the lack of confidence caused by the eurozone crisis. Thirdly, it says its assessment both of the boom before 2007 and the subsequent bust and of the impact of the repair of the financial system is greater than it had previously estimated. That is its independent analysis. The Opposition cannot agree that we should now have an independent body and accept the figures it produces, only then to reject the analysis on which those figures were arrived at.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The OBR does not say that the cause of reduced growth is that the recession was found to be deeper. It does say that the recession was found to be deeper but, crucially, it also says the recovery during 2009 was stronger than previously forecast and that the further decline in growth happened only in the latter part of 2010.

[Mr Osborne]

The OBR is very clear that the cause of its downgrade of the trend growth rate is the—[Interruption.] Is it any wonder that the economic credibility of the Labour party is falling week after week? The shadow Chancellor has backed it into the incredible position where only Communist parties in western Europe agree with it. The reason he has done that has nothing to do with the future political prospects of the Labour party. Rather, it has everything to do with his own personal record. He cannot be the Labour politician who admits that his party made mistakes in the run-up to the 2007 crisis, because he was the Labour Government’s chief economic adviser. That is the position the Opposition find themselves in, and Labour Members know it. They are all going around telling anyone who will listen that that is their problem. Until they face up to the reality of the economic situation confronting this country—a reality they helped to create—they will not be listened to by anyone in this country.

The choice we faced when we saw the OBR’s first-round forecast was not whether to fiddle the figures; instead, it was whether we should take action to respond to the changed economic circumstances. We could have done nothing, but given international events I thought that was not a risk worth taking. It may have seemed to be the easier option, but not when we considered the possible consequences for the credibility of our country in the credit markets and the risk of a rise in interest rates of the kind that so many of our neighbours have experienced. The other option was to take further action to ensure Britain was on course to meet the fiscal commitments we have made, and that was what we chose to do, with a package of measures designed to tighten policy in the medium term while using short-term savings in current spending to fund one-off capital investment in our country’s infrastructure.

As I explained last week, we have put the total managed expenditure totals for 2015-16 and 2016-17 on a declining path. We have made changes to the tax credit entitlements. We set pay increases in the public sector for the two years after the freeze at an average of 1%. We have recalibrated overseas aid spending so we hit 0.7% of national income in 2013. We have also increased the state pension age to 67, starting from 2026.

That money saved in the short term has been used to fund the youth contract, new nursery provision to two-year-olds, new free schools and school places, and a major programme of road and rail building, and to help with the costs of living by extending the small business rate relief, keeping rail fare increases low, and freezing petrol duty next month, but the permanent savings—

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is speaking from a sedentary position. I shall come to her remarks, which are pertinent to my constituency, particularly her comments on the habitats regulations and how they impact on the local economy.

Opposition Members have put to one side the seriousness of the debt situation. The other issue that has not been spoken about at all—certainly not by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) or by the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)—is the underlying competitiveness of the economy. When we look at the debt situation and the world economic crisis, which are grave and severe, we should also consider that our economy may not be as fit and competitive and as able to grow the sort of jobs that we will need in the future as we thought it was.

Statistics showing how this country has fallen behind in the competitiveness league tables published by the World Economic Forum are often brushed aside. From being seventh in 1997 when the Conservative party left office, we fell to 13th last year and are 10th now. That means that in 1997 we had the most competitive economy in the European Union. We find ourselves today behind Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark on competitiveness.

On the broader question of infrastructure, which is so important to the competitiveness of our economy, we find that Britain lies in 28th position, according to the latest figures, not rubbing shoulders with France, which is third, or Germany, which is 10th, but instead between Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am fascinated by the comparisons that have been given. Virtually all of the first group of countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have a very large public sector and a very comprehensive welfare system. It would appear that they have a competitive economy as well. Perhaps we should be looking more to the Scandinavian model.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we are also behind Singapore, the United States and Japan, so there are more countries ahead of us than there used to be, and more than there should be. When we consider trying to create jobs in the economy, Opposition Members seem wilfully to ignore the fact that our competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world matters. To them, competitiveness is not worth talking about and is irrelevant to creating jobs. If we are serious about doing what President Clinton has called getting back in the future business—his criticism of the US economy can be applied to the UK economy over the past 10 to 15 years—we must recognise that we have not invested as we should have done to make our economy as competitive as it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I certainly accept that growth and the protection of the economy will be difficult because we are escaping from a debt crisis in which we had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. Certainly there are some very important domestic causes of our problems. The massive boom was funded by borrowing—both by the Government and in the banking sector. I also accept that inflation, and especially commodity price inflation, has had a negative impact on the economy as set out by the OBR. Moreover, the Greek crisis broke in the weekend after Labour had lost the election, but before the coalition was formed. The then Chancellor set out that Britain should participate in bail-outs, a position from which this Government have extricated themselves. The euro crisis certainly has had an impact and it broke in May 2010.

My first specific point is that I have not yet had an answer to a question that I have been posing on TV, on the radio and in this House, which is how can spending more money lead to lower borrowing?

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

Let me set out my point and then I will take the intervention. The conditions under which that can be true are highly specific so as to be utterly extraordinary. The Lafferites on the right argue that in the case of very high marginal personal taxation rates, they can pay for themselves if they are cut, but there is little evidence of that. Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with the Laffer curve is that one does not know where one is on it.

The idea that spending can lead to a Lafferite consequence—that borrowing is lower because of more spending—has absolutely no force in economic evidence or logic.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It has more force in economic theory. That was precisely the point that was made during the 1930s and subsequently by Keynes. It was said that the time one should be borrowing is during a recession. We should borrow to build houses, create construction jobs and to keep people in work and not, as this Government are doing, to keep people out of work.

[Matthew Hancock]

I will come on to that point a little later. That is the argument that is put. The question that has to be answered is how can the extra tax that the Government get from employing people exceed the cost of employment when it is the Government who are paying the tax? It does not make sense.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

No, I will make the point in another way. If a person borrows money to employ somebody and then claims that they will get back more than the cost of employing that person through tax and lower unemployment benefits, the Government would have to pay more to themselves in tax than they spend in tax. That cannot be true in logic let alone in economics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am pleased to be the first to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make a few remarks about economic impacts on the households and families that find it the hardest to make ends meet. Some call them the strivers; some call them hard-pressed families; I have even heard them talked about as alarm-clock Britons. Many families with children find it very hard to make ends meet, so it is worth underlining the strong action that the Government have taken to help people in that position.

First and most important of all is keeping interest rates low. I noted with interest the intervention of the shadow Chancellor on the Chancellor to point out, “Well, there is a liquidity trap; interest rates are too low; it is a bad sign; we need higher interest rates.” I think that that will ring very poorly with Britain as a whole. For people who are striving and finding it hard to make ends meet, having to pay higher mortgage interest is not in their interest. The shadow Chancellor and the Labour party are wrong if they are entertaining a policy that is about raising interest rates. That was my understanding of the drift of the shadow Chancellor’s speech. I regret it; I do not think it is the right thing to do. Let us bear in mind that a 1% hike in interest rates would mean £10 billion more in interest payments—about £1,000 extra on the average mortgage. People are finding it hard to make ends meet because of rising global commodity prices and the current difficult situation. Higher mortgage interest rates would be a massively retrograde step. One of this Government’s most important achievements has been to keep interest rates low by providing stability, clarity and a positive deficit reduction plan to get our finances in order. That is helping millions of families up and down the country and millions of businesses with lower interest rates are far better off than they would be otherwise.

The other really important thing is the help the Government are providing with child care. For a long time it has been difficult, particularly in deprived communities like parts of Dover and Deal in my constituency, for joint working parents to juggle child care. The announcement to help those deprived areas with extra help for child care places was one of the most important in the autumn statement.

[Sheila Gilmore]

At the same time the Government reduced the amount of child care tax credit last year, so far from helping working families, that did exactly the opposite. These provisions for nursery care, though important, are not really a substitute for the kind of costs people face if they want to work.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thought that child care tax credits had been protected. Indeed, I believe they are going up £135 next year, so I am not sure that the hon. Lady has that right.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Like others who have spoken today, the hon. Gentleman is confusing several different issues. The purpose of child care tax credits is to pay the cost of child care. The Government reduced the proportion of the cost that was paid from 80% to 70%. Child tax credits are a completely different entity, and yes, they are being increased. Earlier, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) suggested that tax credits had not been frozen, but they have been, and that is another hit suffered by working families. It would help if Government Members understood more about the benefit and tax credit system.

[Charlie Elphicke]

As the hon. Lady well knows, she and I debated the issue at length during the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform Bill. I know that Opposition Members sneer at this, but I think it important that child tax credits are rising by £135 next year. That is a move in the right direction. It is good that the lowest paid in the public sector are being protected from the pay freeze because they are disproportionately women, just as it is good that 1 million people are being taken out of the income tax system because they are disproportionately women. We need more action of that kind. The hon. Lady’s party had 13 years in which to take such action, but, as we know, child poverty sky-rocketed during the last Parliament. At least this Government are trying to take positive action in difficult times.

Hard-working families need to see stable finances, a stable Government and a stable fiscal position, because that is the only way in which we will bring back real growth. If we had continued to pursue the policies of the past, what would have happened to our country? We would have ended up as a basket case, like Greece, Italy, Portugal and Ireland. However, we had a credible plan, and we took firm action to control the deficit and sort out our national finances. We have made tough decisions that hit the least well-off, but also the most well-off. We are all in it together. Everyone is sharing the pain, more or less equally, and I think that that is the right direction of travel for the Government.

Members on the rowdy Opposition Back Bench may not agree with what I am saying, but the figures make it clear to me that we are working to create fairness. For instance, unlike the Opposition, we want to create fairness for motorists. By the end of next year, those who experienced such difficulty as a result of Labour’s fuel duty escalator will save £144 on the cost of filling up the average car by the end of next year. That is an important example of progress. The apprenticeship scheme has also been a real help to our young people after youth unemployment rocketed, particularly under the last Labour Government. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

This debate is not about denying the deficit, and nor is it about never reducing public spending: it is about if and how we reduce the deficit and how we use public investment to grow the economy.

I intervened on the Chancellor earlier in this debate and asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a question at Question Time because they ignored an important part of the OBR report, which they have quoted extensively—indeed, the Chief Secretary is still ignoring this point. He argued that we do not have growth because the OBR discovered that the recession was deeper than previously thought. However, the OBR also said that the recovery had been quicker and stronger in 2009 than previously thought and that the decline in growth came in the latter part of 2010.

That is when the famous oil tanker that people have talked about threw out its anchors and started moving backwards. The 2009 recovery did not happen by accident or because the sun was shining; it happened because the previous Government took steps to stimulate the economy. Such steps can be taken. It is not true, as has been argued, that if we simply use Government money, we will never pay off the debt.

The National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations, has made a small but helpful suggestion. It says that if the Government put £1 billion towards shared-ownership housing, the housing association sector could put £8 billion towards it. That would grow 400,000 jobs and build the 66,000 shared-ownership houses that are hugely needed by many low-income families, and at the same time reduce spending on jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit. Many who would live in shared-ownership houses would previously have lived in high-rent private sector housing, which causes the housing benefit bill, which the Government say they are worried about, to escalate.

That is just one small example. When we create jobs in that way, we create not just that one job. It is not a question of saying, “We spent all that money creating those jobs. Okay, those people will pay more tax and will not be on benefit, but that is not growing the economy.” Those people exist within local communities. If people have jobs and incomes, they will buy goods from other businesses.

It is no accident that many of the businesses in difficulty during the recession and after are related to the housing world. I know of one firm in Edinburgh that not only sold furniture but built it. The furniture-building side of the business has closed because the market has declined. People are not buying houses and they are not moving into new ones or redecorating, and they are not buying furniture.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is the height of discourtesy for an hon. Gentleman, who has just made a speech in the debate and who is fortunate to have done so, then to sit there, wittering away at other Members, completely ignoring another hon. Member on her feet. That hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of his behaviour.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The ongoing effect of creating construction jobs would ripple far beyond the jobs themselves. That is what we mean by investing to grow the economy. We will not always borrow money for such things, but if we borrow on a short-term basis, we would still be borrowing for a purpose. Borrowing is not always bad. Many Government Members and others bemoan the fact that small businesses cannot borrow to expand. The Government can quite legitimately borrow to grow the economy. That is what we should be doing, but we have not been doing it for the past 18 months.

[Sammy Wilson]

There is an additional ingredient that is needed in the hon. Lady’s proposal. Not only do the Government need to borrow, but banks need to be willing to lend to people the mortgage side of the purchase of the house so that the shared ownership can be effective.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Indeed. Despite the fact that the Chancellor has assured us that he has entered into arrangements with the banks so that they would provide loans, we still have this mystery of why that has not been happening. If we do not do these things, we will see ourselves going further and further into decline. What the previous Government did to help us climb out of recession is worth repeating. That is why we are urging this Government to invest, to grow and to spend the money that is needed to get people back to work. We are talking about real people and real jobs that can be created. We should not be placing families in such hardship. Those who think that because we have high-end restaurants expanding in central London the economy is doing okay should move themselves out of central London and see the real world.

Autumn Statement

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have not made an exact estimate of the number of jobs that will be saved, but I am certain that these measures will help to keep such industries in the United Kingdom. It is important that we do not price our industry out of the world market. That would do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, but it would damage our economy. We have worked with the energy-intensive industries and the business organisations to develop our package, and I think that it achieves the right balance between ensuring that those industries remain competitive and meeting our international environmental obligations.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Government have made a virtue of wanting to make work pay. How does it make work pay first to reduce child care tax credit, and then not to upgrade working tax credit in the same way as out-of-work benefit?

[Mr Osborne]

We are uprating the child care element of child tax credit, along with other elements of child tax credit, in line with September CPI inflation, so it is not true to say that we are not uprating child tax credit. We had to make a difficult decision on working tax credit, but we think that one of the best ways of supporting low-income working people is to take them out of the tax system altogether.

Fuel Prices

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I welcome this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing it. I also welcome some of the very good actions that the Government have taken to date, most notably the suspension of the fuel duty escalator, the cut in fuel duty, and the rural rebate that is being considered, which we hope will be piloted in the Isles of Scilly, not far from my constituency. I agree with the many Members who have said today that fuel tax is a regressive tax that tends to hit the poorest, and rural areas, hardest.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I find interesting the discovery by Government Members, including the hon. Gentleman, that taxes on spending are regressive. When that argument was about the increase in VAT, it seemed to be ignored, so has he changed his mind on VAT, too?

[George Eustice]

The issue of VAT has been covered widely by others. I would just say that I think all Government Members regret the fact that the Labour party made such a pig’s ear of running the economy that we had a £150 billion black hole in our finances.

I would like to focus on a separate but linked fact: fuel tax has a disproportionate impact on areas that are geographically peripheral. I come from Cornwall, and there is no doubt that fuel tax is a regressive tax that hits Cornish businesses far harder than businesses in the main population centres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), I want to talk about some of the issues that affect people in my constituency. I feel a little out of place in this debate: so many Members from rural constituencies have talked about either the rural idyll or the rural hell that I feel, as I represent an urban constituency, that I should perhaps not venture into the discussion. However, fuel prices do of course affect urban as well as rural areas.

I wish to develop points about issues such as community transport, which is essential for a lot of elderly people to be able get to activities such as lunch clubs, and to get out of their own homes instead of being housebound. The local organisation in my area is struggling because of the reductions in grants, which are a result of local government cuts. Its core funding, which allows it to be run and administered, has been cut, and at the same time fuel prices are increasing. If it increased its charges to the organisations that use it, that would just bounce the problem on to another set of voluntary organisations—the ones that provide lunch clubs and other activities.

[Mr McCann]

Does my hon. Friend accept that as well as the austerity cuts in the United Kingdom Parliament, with the Government going too far, too fast, which is having a disproportionate effect, the Scottish National party Administration in Scotland are making unsustainable spending decisions? They are placing the burden on local government, which in turn has to make tough decisions about local spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

We have had the experience of four years of a council tax freeze, which people no doubt think is a wonderful thing on one level, but which is presenting huge problems to voluntary organisations.

The other organisation that I wish to mention briefly is a social enterprise—a laundry service—operating in my constituency. It not only provides a valuable service but tries to be commercial and turn a profit so that it can reinvest. It employs many people with learning difficulties, for example, and provides them with valuable training. However, that laundry service goes round collecting sheets and towels and so on from hotels and other large organisations, which involves transporting them to and from the people contracting with it. That organisation, which will certainly not benefit from being able to reclaim VAT, for example, is struggling in this financial climate, yet it is an important organisation, because it provides not just a useful service but valuable employment opportunities for people who otherwise might not be able to get them. We cannot contemplate it ending.

[Mr David Hamilton]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Many people employed in the voluntary sector work across the city, but they do not have access to buses to enable them to do so, and therefore require vehicles. This issue has a direct effect on those workers, many of whom are part timers, and raises costs for them.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I wholly agree.

One of the fascinating things about this debate—I mentioned this in an intervention—is the rediscovery, it would appear throughout the House, of the fact that taxes on expenditure are indeed regressive. I would ask that this rediscovery be carried into the further debates that we will no doubt have on VAT, in the autumn statement and into the next Budget. We made the point over and over that the increase in VAT would particularly harm those on lower incomes. Some Government Members try to argue that it did not really do that, because richer people spend more and therefore pay more VAT. However, as a proportion of income and in terms of the effect on family income, it is indeed those who earn least who are affected. I am therefore pleased to see that we all apparently now agree on the regressive nature of such taxes.

Finally, we should not see this debate and our environmental ambitions as an “either/or”. We should not appear to be saying that we no longer want to make our country a greener place. We need to invest in green manufacturing industries, which will enable us to get out of this position. It is interesting that the motion refers to the tax take going down, which many people have simply put down to increased fuel costs. However, many other things could have reduced the tax take, such as fewer people working, fewer people paying tax and fewer people travelling, not just because of cost but because they do not have jobs to go to.

Again, this comes down to what we have said about the economy. If we let it run down and down, both demand and income to the Treasury will be reduced, and we will not cure the deficit, as is becoming increasingly obvious, as this Government are having to borrow more.

Eurozone Crisis

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We would, of course, have been laughed out of the summit. We would not even have been able to sign up to the Council’s conclusions. The Labour party policy has no plan to reduce the deficit—[Interruption.] Well, if there is a plan, let us hear it. Let us hear one example. The Labour party has no plan to reduce our deficit, which is higher than that of almost any of the countries we have talked about. It has a plan basically to pull us out of the International Monetary Fund and a plan to join the euro—such plans would be treated as slightly bizarre at some of these meetings.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

More constituents have contacted me about the financial transaction tax than ever contacted me about Monday’s debate. They will be pleased to have heard the Chancellor say that he supports this in principle. Will he go to the G20 to argue vigorously in favour of this tax?

[Mr Osborne]

What I would say about the financial transaction tax—[Interruption.] I am not sure that it is Labour policy. There is a debate about this tax, but attached to it is a serious red herring. People would like a financial transaction tax to be used to pay for the aid commitments into which big western countries entered. That is what all the non-governmental organisations that contacted the hon. Lady and others are arguing for. Britain is meeting its international aid commitments out of its own resources, and we do need a financial transaction tax across Europe for other countries to meet the aid commitments they entered into. When it comes to the principle of the financial transaction tax, one cannot oppose it, as we have a stamp duty on shares, but I would say that if we impose such a tax in Europe, all the business would disappear overnight to Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere. We know that because that is what happened when the United States imposed a form of transaction tax on the euro-dollar market—it moved to London—and when Sweden introduced a financial transaction tax in the early ’90s, its entire business moved to London almost immediately. We have many case-studies. I understand why people are emotive about this issue, but surely the question is, “Are you meeting your aid commitments?”—and this country is. We should all be proud of that.

Jobs and Growth

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I remind the House of my interest recorded in the register.

There is some common ground on both sides of the House. Growth is the key, and although the Government cannot create jobs and businesses, they can set the conditions for sustainable growth through sound money, a fair and competitive tax system, an infrastructure in which businesses can flourish and, above all, keeping control of their side of the economy—the public finances. The previous Government clearly failed to do that. They failed to balance their budget for nine successive years after 2001 and they doubled then redoubled the national debt, leaving us with the largest structural deficit in the G20. Worse still, for the longer term, they left us a rate of growth that simply was not sustainable because it depended on ever-increasing public expenditure—now, I note, more than 50% of GDP for the third year running—on a boom in commercial and residential property prices that simply was not viable in the longer term, and on an over-blown banking and financial sector. We are now dealing with the consequences of the collapse of that sector.

In the end, it was all an illusion. The previous Government created a pyramid of debt and called it investment. They spent all our money on an unreformed public sector without bringing the improvements in productivity that we saw over the same period in the private sector. On the capital side, they spent it on a whole series of expensively engineered, private finance arranged schools, hospitals and the rest. Above all, as was sadly confirmed yet again today, they left us a lost generation of nearly 1 million youngsters under the age of 25 who were under-educated, underskilled and under-equipped for the needs of modern business. That is why I support a Government who are now laying the proper foundations for genuine growth on top of their fiscal consolidation plan by encouraging bank lending, cutting taxes on business and cutting regulation.

I particularly welcome the announcement made by the Chancellor in Manchester, which he repeated today, about reforming the rules regarding employment tribunals, which will make employment easier. That is one reason why I support it—another is because it will reduce the huge cost to business not only of the awards themselves but of the time taken to manage and handle cases that businesses would prefer not to get to tribunal. I also support it because it is fundamentally, as the Chancellor has emphasised this afternoon, a deregulatory measure that recognises the rights of non-workers—those who are currently frozen out of the labour market but would be prepared to work if businesses found it easier to take them on.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

We are being asked to accept that all small businesses that might take on employees have as their first consideration the possibility of being faced with an industrial tribunal, but, of course, if they are good employers, that is most unlikely to happen. Surely, the fact that they cannot sell their products if there is no demand for them because so many people are unemployed or feel at risk of unemployment, rather than whether they might be faced with an industrial tribunal, is the most important consideration for an employer in deciding whether to take on another employee.

[Michael Fallon]

Employers in my constituency tell me that they will do almost anything to avoid taking on any single additional member of staff. The hon. Lady has to recognise that the number of cases jumped to a quarter of a million in 2009-10. I welcome the change.

I hope that there might be agreement across the House on my next point. The two things that seem to be missing at the moment in our quest for growth are cash and confidence. I fully support what the Government are doing to encourage bank lending. It beggars belief that there was no agreement in place with the banks to stimulate lending to small businesses before the Merlin agreement was concluded this year. I support that agreement, but I also share the scepticism of the Chancellor and the former Chancellor about the stimulus that the first round of quantitative easing may or may not have given to bank lending. The jury seems to be out on that, but what it does seem to have stimulated is inflation. The Bank now admits, I think, that it may have added between 0.75% and 1.5% to consumer price inflation. Two years ago, consumer price inflation was 1.1%, whereas today it is four times that. I hope that the Bank will be mindful, if there is an inflationary effect, that inflation is already higher than we would like. If there is a squeezed middle, inflation is doing quite a bit of the squeezing, and I hope that the Bank will not forget its core task of getting inflation back on target.

In the end, confidence is the key. I hope that the Government will do everything that they can to back the companies that are successful, and to learn from their success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, I do not have time. I was highly sceptical that the pledges would translate into real action if the Conservative party got into Government. Sadly, my scepticism has proved well founded. The IFS warned yesterday that the Government’s tax and benefit changes will push 400,000 children into relative poverty by 2015. The number of children in absolute poverty will rise by 500,000 to 3 million. Instead of us eradicating child poverty by 2020, the Government’s policies mean that 3.3 million children—one in four children in the UK—will be in relative poverty. Labour when in government lifted nearly 1 million children out of poverty; this Government will put another generation of children right back there. It is little wonder that the chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group described it as a “devastating report”. She said:

“Ministers seem to be in denial that, under current policies, their legacy threatens to be the worst poverty record of any government for a generation.”

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on top of the benefit changes, one of the big things that will cause increased child poverty is the increased level of women’s unemployment, particularly because of the huge cuts in the public sector, which will affect women and then affect their children and plunge them into poverty?

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is another sign of the devastating impact of the Government’s policies. As I said, everything mounts up together; taken individually, it might not seem that they are doing much harm, but people are beginning to feel the pain and beginning to realise how much more pain is round the corner, not just for them, but for their children.

In the limited time available to me, I shall talk about unemployment, which in my constituency has risen by almost a quarter in the past year. Bristol was fortunate to be chosen as the site for one of the Government’s new enterprise zones. Unlike the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), I can just about remember what they are called. The council says that that has the potential to create 17,000 new jobs, which is good, but that is over a 25-year period. We need jobs now.

A report by the Work Foundation concluded that

“evidence suggests that Enterprise Zones…are likely to be ineffective at stimulating sustainable economic growth in depressed areas.”

A Centre for Cities report found that the cost of each new job created in enterprise zones over 10 years would be £26,000, which compares with £6,500 to creating a job for a young person under the future jobs fund and just £3,500 for the new deal for young people.

I left school in the 1980s and nearly all my friends spent years on the dole, their prospects of employment bleak, with long spells of unemployment interspersed with the occasional futile training scheme that did nothing to land them a job at the end of it. They thought they would never work, never own their own homes, never be able to afford to have a family. This Government seem intent on recreating that Thatcherite nightmare, with nearly 1 million young people now unemployed. We cannot consign another generation to the scrapheap. Labour’s plans to create 100,000 jobs for young people are what is needed now. That is why I support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

This has been a very good debate in which we have heard 31 contributions from Back-Bench colleagues on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) made clear his continuing support for paying our subscriptions to the IMF. We heard particularly passionate speeches by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), who made strong pitches on behalf of their constituents, as did many other hon. Members.

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury on her appointment. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a pitch for her job, but I think she is quite safe. She has a tough job to do in controlling the free-spending instincts of many of her colleagues. The Chancellor referred to the £11 billion cost of a commitment made in amendments that she tabled to the Pensions Bill on her last day as shadow Pensions Minister, and I hope that others will not follow her example.

The shadow Chief Secretary will have to think carefully about whom she asks for advice. Perhaps she could ask the shadow Chancellor, or perhaps not. Perhaps she could ask my predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who left a message for my predecessor saying that there was no money left. That is not the only message that he has left recently. [Interruption.] Calm down. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) received a message yesterday on her answering machine from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill saying, “Could you put in to speak tomorrow? The shadow Chancellor needs all the help he can get.” It is to be assumed that he had confused my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North with the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who is next to her in the House of Commons telephone directory. Perhaps the shadow Chief Secretary could turn for advice to her former boss, the Governor of the Bank of England, who last year backed this Government’s strong and powerful deficit reduction plan, and who last week reiterated that this Government have a credible plan to repay our debts. In the end, the test for her and her party will be whether they have plans that are in any way credible. On today’s evidence, the answer is no.

I will answer a couple of the questions that have been asked about Labour’s plans. It has set out plans today for the Pensions Bill that would cost an additional £31 billion of debt. Somebody asked what the interest on that would cost. It would cost £1.2 billion a year or £3.2 million a day. That is just on the spending commitments that Labour has made this week.

Likewise, the shadow Chancellor seems somewhat confused about his own policy on the switch from RPI to CPI. As I understand it, he will support the switch, for which I am grateful, for three years. That means that he will seek to reverse it in 2014-15. That would cost an extra £6 billion at the end of this Parliament. The shadow Chief Secretary has her work cut out with the shadow Chancellor, as well as with everyone else. That is why I say that only the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have a credible economic plan.

As many speakers in this debate have recognised, when we came into government we inherited the largest peacetime deficit this country has ever faced. We were borrowing one pound for every four that we spent. We were on a completely unsustainable trajectory, which compelled Standard & Poor’s to put the UK’s triple A rating on negative watch. We had to take the difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions to pull the country out of that hole. We are taking action not because it is easy, but because it is the right thing to do in the national interest. We are already seeing the benefits from our plan.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will apologise to all the people who voted Liberal Democrat having heard his party say in the election campaign that to cut too fast would be detrimental to the economy.

[Danny Alexander]

No, I will not because our plan for deficit reduction is necessary to restore the credibility of this country’s finances. If there is any apologising to be done, it is from Opposition Members.

As I was saying, we are already seeing the benefits from our plan. Standard & Poor’s took the UK’s rating off negative watch and reaffirmed our rating in its latest report.