Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Stella Creasy and Mike Gapes

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

At times of economic crisis, historically and all over the world, we have seen people moving towards blaming scapegoats, attacking weaker and poorer communities and trying to damage the interests of those who are not in their own environment. Today the potential for this global economic crisis can be seen in Europe with the rise of neo-Nazi groups in countries such as Hungary and Greece in the EU, and potentially in some other countries. We have to remember that it started in 2008 in the United States with the Lehman Brothers collapse, not with a policy determined and decided by the Labour Government in this country, as some Government Members would have us believe. It was a global, western European, north American economic crisis, with terrible consequences that we are still dealing with today.

In the 1930s, at the time of a similar global economic crisis, bold measures were eventually taken by some countries in an attempt to solve the problems. Unfortunately, it was the rearmament and the second world war that led to more people being in work in some other countries. We face real dangers today, and unless the Government and the politicians—not just in this country, but in the rest of Europe—adopt a different approach, we will see some very nasty developments over the coming years. The Government still claim, I think, that we are all in it together, but from references made by other hon. Members here today, we know how the poorest people in this country are being damaged and scapegoated while millionaires get tax cuts.

I do not have time to talk about all the issues I would like to, but I will say one positive thing about the Chancellor’s Budget. I support the Enough Food for Everyone If campaign and am pleased that we still have, at least on paper—it will be interesting to see if it happens in practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) mentioned, quite pertinently—the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on international development and aid projects. Over the past couple of years we have seen some fudging at the edges, as items previously funded from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget have been redefined and rebadged so that they now come out of the aid and development budget. Nevertheless, I take the Government’s commitment at face value and hope that over the next two or three years they will resist the pressures from the far right of their party, and from some newspapers, to cut the budget for helping the poorest people in the world’s poorest countries.

I want to touch on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in what I thought was an absolutely fantastic contribution. She highlighted the problems that are coming out of the Department for Work and Pensions employment service in her constituency. I, too, am a north-east London MP. Some of my constituents have come to me with interesting information in recent weeks. I understand that the DWP staff in north-east London who deal with my constituents have now been told to refer to them no longer as “clients” but as “claimants.” There is apparently an instruction to that effect. That clearly changes people’s attitude. The approach is no longer about customer service; it is about dealing with supplicants who are asking for help.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that one of the people mentioned in the leaked e-mail about the conduct in my jobcentre is a regional manager who also covers his part of the borough of Redbridge, which might explain why the issue of sanctions and targets is emerging. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for not explaining in my earlier contribution that, owing to a previous commitment, I will unfortunately be unable to stay for the wind-ups, but the Minister can be assured that, even if Members are not here in person, we will all be listening very closely to what he has to say.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, which also gives me the opportunity to speak for another minute.

I have been pursuing a number of cases on behalf of my constituents in recent months, and for several weeks now we have received no written responses to any representations we have made to the DWP. The reason was not clear. We received telephone calls, but nothing in writing. We have begun to receive some responses by e-mail, but they are late and do not contain much detail. I do not know whether that is a policy position, because under the previous management of the Department’s services in my area I used to receive detailed written responses to the representations I made in respect of individual cases. The responses are no longer so detailed and they are delayed. I wonder whether that is because of the pressure on staff because of the cuts within the Department, or whether it is because of an attitude that says, “We don’t want MPs to have the information because then they can make effective representations about the inadequacies and failures of the Department.”

I also want to highlight what is happening with levels of unemployment. At a superficial level, because more people are in work the Government are claiming that everything seems to be fine. We have the paradoxical situation in which real living standards and real wages are falling, yet despite the double-dip recession and the flatlining economy more people are in work. However, if we dig into the statistics for the Ilford South constituency this week, we see that between February 2012 and February 2013, although the number of young people unemployed and registered for the claimant count is down, the number over 12 months of people out of work has gone up by 44%. The number of over-25s who have been claiming for more than two years in my constituency has gone up from 140 to 420—a 200% increase in one year. It seems to me that the organisations being used by the Department are concentrating on getting people into low-paid jobs quickly but not on those who might have mental health or alcohol problems, poor work records or a lack of confidence. The difficult cases are there, and they will add up in the future. That is really worrying.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Mike Gapes

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and his eloquent description of the problems facing us as a country. I rise to speak to clause 72 and amendment 9 because this debate is about the bank levy and whether it is being applied in the right way and to the correct extent.

I support the amendment, because it seeks to address the challenges of any new legislation and answer the question of how we as a Parliament ensure that the legislation that we pass is effective at doing what we want it to do. The amendment would meet the challenge of asking whether bankers pay their fair share of the cost of dealing with the global financial crisis, just as we as taxpayers have paid more than our fair share, some might say, in trying to support them. That goes to the heart of today’s debate about clause 72 and what the Bill will do for the financial future of this country, so I support the amendment because it highlights the need to address the adequacy of the bank levy.

I also pose a wider question about how the clause will work to ensure that all those who have benefited and, indeed, continue to benefit from the financial crisis that this country has endured pay their fair share in helping the economy out of recession and back into growth, not least because I am deeply concerned, as many Members know, about this Government’s policy of reducing the national debt by increasing private household debt, and about what that might mean for many of our constituents.

I spoke at length on Second Reading last week about the impact of that policy on families throughout the country, and I do not propose to repeat the measures that I put forward, but, on the adequacy of the bank levy, the clause makes an omission that I hope the amendment will address. High-cost lenders are benefiting disproportionately from the impact of the Budget on our people, and from the fact that mainstream lenders are not lending because of banks paying out more in bonuses than they do to the people of this country, who need that money. Indeed, perhaps the omission calls for a new clause to deal with that issue and, therefore, to make sure that that money benefits our economy.

The industry has certainly benefited greatly from this Government and from the events of the last year alone. Of the £216 billion of unsecured lending in this country, £8.5 billion comes from that market, which has increased by £1 billion in the past year, and £8.5 billion is the same amount of money that it would cost to repair all the schools in England—a cause dear to many Opposition Members. It is also the entire budget of the Department for International Development; we are talking about a substantial amount. The market is growing not least because of the lack of regulation—the lack of Government action to deal with the high-cost credit industry—and the amendment could deal with that omission.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend refers to schools, and she knows from her constituency and borough how the coalition parties’ drastic, ruthless and unplanned cuts to Building Schools for the Future have caused great grief to her constituents, yet she says that they could have been compensated for by the measures to which she has just referred—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr James Gray)]

Order. I have been quite generous so far in not picking up hon. Members on what they have said, but we have to focus on the bank levy, how much it should be and whether it should be reviewed annually. Debating the way in which the Government might spend the proceeds from any such levy is not in order during discussion of this amendment.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Mike Gapes

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

Allegedly, we are all in this together. If so, why is it that those of us in east London, along with people in the 21 authorities in the Thames Gateway, which include authorities in Kent, where there is not a single Labour Member of Parliament—they are only Conservatives—and those in Essex, are excluded from the package that we are discussing? We heard earlier today about the Maoist chaos of the Government’s regional policy. That is not the responsibility of the Treasury; it is the responsibility of its close allies and partners, and the Business Secretary. However, as we are all in this together, presumably the Treasury is also involved up to its neck.

We have also heard that, apparently, the Government are refocusing regional policy. Well, that regional policy refocus includes, in today’s measures, discrimination against poor people in poor communities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) spoke from the Front Bench about a number of boroughs and constituencies that have high unemployment—higher than the national average—and where, at the moment, there are also high levels of public sector employment. Those areas will take a disproportionate hit because of the measures announced in the comprehensive spending review and the Government’s policy to reduce, for ideological reasons, the size of the public sector so drastically and quickly.

So, we are not all in this together: some of us are in it much deeper than others. I suppose that we are a bit like the residents of Brisbane, Australia. When the tsunami or flood comes in, we hope that it will meet a certain ceiling point before going back down, and that the next day it will go no higher. Some people have a little footbridge or step to get them above the water, but others are pushed down below it. People in the small business sector in my community—in Ilford and Redbridge, which is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat borough—will not benefit from these measures. When it comes to benefits, we are not in this together with those in Tatton or elsewhere. We will lose out.

Other Members represent poorer communities than mine, but I have wards in my constituency with very high unemployment. I also have a very diverse community. One of the interesting features of excluding London from the proposals is that it is not only discriminatory geographically; it could also be discriminatory ethnically. That needs to be taken into consideration, given the way in which the measures disproportionately affect different communities in different parts of the country.

I do not want to delay the House for long. I spoke on Second Reading in November. I hoped at that time that the Government would come forward with some changes to their proposals. I hoped that they would listen to the logic, but they did not. We have already had Committee stage and Report brings us to today.

The Thames Gateway Partnership for London, Kent and South Essex recently wrote to Members, urging us to make representations to the Minister—[Interruption.] He might wish to listen to this. It wanted us to write to him to point out the discriminatory nature of the proposals and to urge the Government, even at this stage—I say again, even at this stage—to see what they can do to help the Thames Gateway authorities. The partnership pointed out that there are 3.5 million residents in the Thames Gateway local authorities area and that it believes that in

“excluding London and the South East from the regional freeze on National Insurance contributions the government is failing to take proper account of local economies, particularly the challenges faced by the Thames Gateway growth corridor.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has already referred to that.

The Bill is damaging to a potential growth sector of our economy. The Thames Gateway is part of the future of London as a global city. It is vital to the prosperity of our nation, yet this short-sighted, quasi-Maoist Government are operating in such a chaotic way that they cannot see the damaging consequences of what they are proposing. Next year, I hope, they will come seriously to regret what they are doing. I urge all local authorities in the Thames Gateway area to look very closely at the Division lists for today and to register which Members from Essex, Kent and London went through the Lobby in favour of such discrimination against London, Kent and Essex and which Members voted against it. Then, hopefully, those local authorities, councillors and communities will hold those Members to account.

[Dr Creasy]

I want to talk about three things in my comments on the amendment, the first of which is the test set by the Opposition about what this policy is designed to achieve. Secondly, I shall explain why the amendment is needed to ensure that the policy achieves what is intended. Thirdly, I shall say a little about the evidence base for the policy, which was a matter of great concern to me in Committee—and the Bill is still found wanting in that respect. I shall show how the amendment addresses some of those challenges.

The test we set for this policy and, indeed, for this Government, given our concerns about their economic approach, relates to jobs. At the heart of what we do as a Parliament must be the concerns of our constituents, and I know that one of the main concerns of my Walthamstow constituents and those of many other Members is jobs. How are people going to keep a roof over their heads, keep their families fed and ensure that their families stay together? Those concerns relate to the jobs people have and the support we can give to them in their jobs. Job creation is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) ably set out, absolutely key to how we judge this policy.

In that context, the symptoms are not good. We know that unemployment is rising and that it has hit 2.5 million—it has been suggested that it is likely to increase further, especially in areas currently excluded from this policy—so job creation is a critical aspect of what the Government can and should be doing. Six people are chasing every vacancy in this country; if there were ever a time when we needed to create more jobs for which people can apply, it is now. We cannot have a jobless recovery; that is not sustainable. Indeed, the cost to the public purse of doing so would be tremendous. It is worth noting that every extra 100,000 people on the unemployment register is half a billion pounds of welfare expenditure that has to be found. There is a great cost to us of not doing something about rising joblessness.

We therefore look at this policy and ask how it will meet the test that the Minister set. In Committee, he said that the purpose of the policy was specifically “the creation of jobs”. It was to

“help the wealth-creation sector in regions currently reliant on the public sector”. ––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 2 December 2010; c. 47, Q167.]

That is the second test that we put: does this policy affect not the regions but the people it is designed to help? If we look at the people test, we see that, as currently constructed, the policy does not meet it; it fails on that basis.

Many Members have named areas in which some of the public sector workers most affected by the Government’s cuts are living. My constituency is already among the top 100 in the unemployment league. Our current unemployment rate is 8.5%, and it is rising as we speak. About 24% of people living in Walthamstow work in the public sector. They are losing colleagues, and they are worried about themselves. My surgeries are full of people asking for help after receiving redundancy notices. I ask the Minister what I should tell those people. What will this policy offer them? The task of Government is supposedly to support people and create jobs in the economy. What can I tell those people in Walthamstow who work in the public sector and risk losing their jobs, or have already received redundancy notices?