The Economy

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We restricted cash payouts in the Royal Bank of Scotland in the last bonus round to less than £2,000. That is what we did when we had the opportunity. The hon. Lady was a Minister in the last Government. Perhaps in 30 years’ time we will discover that she was sending letters to the Treasury asking “What are we doing about transparency in pay in the City? Why do we not introduce a permanent bank levy?”, and saying “I am really worried about the regulation of Britain’s financial services.” We will just have to wait for 30 years to find out whether, when she held Executive office, she once raised the concerns that she now raises in opposition.

Both the slow repair of our banking system and the crisis in the eurozone were identified by the Office for Budget Responsibility as causes of weaker economic activity. They are also a reminder of why it is so essential for Britain to maintain its fiscal credibility as we deal with a budget deficit that is higher than almost any other in the world. A month ago I was told by the OBR, as part of the formal preparation for the autumn forecast, that weaker economic activity would give Britain a less than 50% chance of meeting the fiscal mandate and the debt target that I had set out unless we took further action.

I believe that at that moment the OBR proved not just its independence, but its worth. It forced the Government to confront the issues at hand, and to use the weeks available to us before the statement to come up with a credible response. We know that under the previous forecast regime, those weeks would have been used to fiddle the forecasts, to tweak assumptions about the output gap, and to pencil in over-optimistic numbers on tax receipts: in other words, to do all the things that my predecessor, in his memoirs, says were done during his dealings with No. 10 Downing street. It would have been a case of choosing economic figures to fit the Government’s policies, rather than choosing Government policies to respond to the economic figures.

I believe that the existence of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was consistently opposed by the shadow Chancellor in every position that he held in the last Government, has given the whole of Parliament confidence in the integrity of the forecast.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Did the Chancellor use those weeks to rethink his plan, because the OBR was telling him that the assumptions on which his plan was based were mistaken? We were told that employment would rise every year, but that has not happened, and it is not going to happen. We were told that the budget would be balanced in this Parliament, and that is not going to happen either. Surely the whole plan should have been rethought?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The number of young people out of work has topped 1 million for the first time. If nothing else, that must be a wake-up call for urgent action on the economy. Last June, the Prime Minister told the House that cutting the deficit faster would revive private sector confidence. That was the rationale for the strategy that was set out to us. There would be pain but it would be worth it. Private sector investment and jobs would surge. The increase in confidence would mean that growth in the number of private sector jobs would more than match public sector job cuts. We were told that employment would rise every year. In fact, in the past year, employment has fallen by more than 100,000. One thing we can say for sure, with no fear of contradiction, is that that key assumption about confidence underpinning the Government’s entire strategy was mistaken.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants’ latest business confidence monitor is headlined “UK business confidence has collapsed”. That is its assessment of confidence. The latest of its regular surveys states:

“Confidence has declined across all sectors and all regions.”

There will be different views across the Chamber about the reasons that the Prime Minister’s hope has proved ill-founded. The Chancellor took the view and his party seems to take the view that all the problems before the election were the fault of the UK Government and that all the problems since the election have been the fault of someone else. Whatever view we take of the reasons that the Prime Minister’s expectation was ill-founded, the fact that it was ill-founded is, after the autumn statement, not in dispute.

The Prime Minister told us that unemployment would not be too much of a problem because private sector job creation would exceed public sector job cuts. In fact, public sector job cuts are exceeding new private sector jobs on a ratio of about 2:1. The Office for Budget Responsibility has told us that more than 700,000 public sector jobs will be lost. The cuts are going too far and too fast. Young people and women are bearing the brunt. Moreover, the plan is not delivering, as far as we can see, the central goal of swiftly eliminating the deficit. That is now clear. Borrowing will be higher than it was under the previous Government’s plans.

When a plan goes so badly wrong and when the expectations underpinning it are shown to have been so mistaken, surely it is time to revisit the plan. Surely, when things have turned out so different from what the Government told us would happen, the case for a fundamental rethink is extremely strong.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Last week, Tata steel in my constituency mothballed a hot strip mill because of low demand for steel, which means that in the past month 185 job losses have been announced at Llanwern. Is that not further evidence that the Government’s economic plan is not working. We have heard nothing today that will do anything to save those much-needed steel jobs?

[Stephen Timms]

Unfortunately, nothing at all. This lack of confidence is one of the problems in the economy.

Another problem is that the Chancellor cannot change course because he has boxed himself in and cannot budge for fear of admitting that his judgment was wrong. That problem was well expressed by Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator for the Financial Times—the Chancellor quoted the Financial Times in his support—who warned after the autumn statement last week of the danger of a lost decade. He wrote that the Chancellor

“is wrong to ignore his errors. He is trapped by his own rigid fiscal framework. He might indeed shatter confidence if he were more flexible. But that is partly his own fault.”

It seems that we will all be trapped because the Chancellor cannot acknowledge that he got the fundamental judgment wrong at the start.

We need to build growth in the economy and to create jobs for young people. That is the rationale for the five-point plan for jobs and growth advanced by the Labour party. We should repeat the tax on bankers’ bonuses to bring in another £2 billion and we should use that to fund 100,000 jobs for young people, getting them off the dole and building on the future jobs fund introduced before the election. I welcome the announcement of the young people’s contract—a watered-down version of the future jobs fund—and I look forward to seeing the details but it simply underlines what a misjudgment it was to shut down the future jobs fund in the first place.

We should introduce another temporary cut in VAT to rebuild momentum in the economy—that is what the temporary cut did last time—and we should introduce further investment in infrastructure, including in schools and other areas. We should also cut the increase in university fees. At a time when youth unemployment is at such a catastrophic level, the last thing that we should be doing is forcing young people out of education—we should be encouraging them to stay in. Yet, I am hearing reports from colleges that significant numbers of young people have concluded that, with fees at the level announced by the coalition, they have no chance of ever making it to university and that therefore they should not even bother staying on to study, including for A-levels.

We should also listen to the Federation of Small Businesses and give small firms hiring new staff a break from national insurance to encourage them to do so. The Government should heed that call. We need a strategy for growth but as yet we have no sign of one. I am pleased that the Government have retained the previous Government’s proposals for a patent box to improve the research-and-development environment. That was the right decision and it allowed the Prime Minister yesterday to make his welcome announcement about support for life sciences.

In closing, I want to draw attention to one seemingly minor measure announced by the previous Government. Its significance is much greater than the initial view suggested. I am referring to the tax break from computer games announced in the last Budget by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). We have some of the most creative computer design businesses and talent in the world and we should make better use of it.

Working Tax Credits

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is specifically the impact on people working in, for instance, the retail sector that has prompted me to apply for this debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I agree that we do not want to see anything that makes it potentially less attractive for people to go out to work.

Couples and single parents who currently work for at least 16 hours a week are eligible for working tax credit. According to the Government’s proposals, from April couples will have to work an extra eight hours in order to qualify. Failure to secure additional work will exempt claimants from the credit completely. The reality is that about 280,000 families in receipt of working tax credit currently work less than 24 hours a week. Under the proposals, they could lose up to £4,000 a year.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

This is a very important point. Will my hon. Friend confirm that they will lose not only their working tax credit, as he said, but their child care tax credits if they use child care, as many will? They could lose another couple of thousand pounds there.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Absolutely. They stand to lose even more when child care is taken into consideration. There is an internal tension between the Government’s stated ambition on universal credit and these actions. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on how those two aspects interplay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

Let me reiterate, first, the incontrovertible point that we are taking more from bankers every year than the Labour party did in one year of operation. Furthermore, I must point this out and, I hope, lay the matter to rest: the distributional allowances published alongside the autumn statement yesterday clearly indicated that it is the top 10% of the income band that is contributing.

Let me turn briefly to a summary of what was announced yesterday and previously. The Chancellor said that we will uprate the disability elements of tax credits in line with prices, and increase the child element of the child tax credit by £135 in line with inflation too. We will not, however, uprate the other elements of the working tax credit this coming year. Hon. Members have highlighted the fact that, given the size of the uprating this year, we will no longer go ahead with the planned additional £110 rise in the child element over and above inflation.

I must make a further comment, which is that of course the Government believe that the welfare system must remain fair and affordable while protecting the most vulnerable. We must also note within the figures I have just given that by April 2012 the child tax credit will have increased by £390 since last May, and that is of course per child.

A number of reforms to tax credits were announced in the June Budget and the spending review. The point is that the previous Government spent more than £150 billion on tax credits since 2003. This was unsustainable in many ways, and I will give an example before moving on. Under the previous system tax credits were available to families earning up to £58,000. If households had an increase in income of up to £25,000 in the year then they could have earned up to £83,000 and still benefited from tax credits. Taking on board the principles raised by hon. Members, that means to me that we had to act in a situation that appeared to be very unfair, in that people in the top income decile were eligible for tax credits. That is unjustifiable, unfair and very unsustainable in the current economic climate.

[Stephen Timms]

I know that the Minister was a member of the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, and so is very familiar with the advantages of universal credit set out to the Committee, which include it being available to people working just two, three or four hours a week. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions frequently draws attention to that advantage, yet with this measure her Department is moving in the opposition direction by limiting the availability of tax credits only to those working more than 24 hours as a household. That is the opposite of what her right hon. Friend is doing.

[Miss Smith]

Regrettably, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to respond to why higher earners would have received tax credits under the previous system, but I will come to his point in the bulk of my comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

The point I was about to make was that the introduction of universal credit is where the Government anticipate making the most major transitional arrangements, and I note the hon. Lady’s points—and those of other Members in earlier interventions—in particular in relation to retail sector work, for example. Everybody appreciates that the economic climate is hard at the moment—the ideal world is not out there for everybody. I take her point.

Moving on very briefly to the work incentives provided by the universal credit, the phrase has already been used that work must always pay and be seen to do so. One of the key features of universal credit—the hon. Lady will know this—is that it will be paid in and out of work, and that the hours rule will disappear to smooth the transition into work and ensure that that it pays.

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister’s Department is making the hours rule worse now. It will be better in the future; why is she doing the opposite in her Department?

[Miss Smith]

We need to move in one direction in this economy, which is to tackle the deficit. I made that point very strongly up front. We must also look to major reforms such as the universal credit, and perhaps before that the Work programme in some cases. There are a number of examples that I look forward to the Government delivering. I have given some; let me give some more that will also answer the points made about what people might get in return.

The Government are investing a further £380 million by 2014-15 to extend the offer of 15 hours of free education and care a week for disadvantaged two-year-olds, which will cover an extra 130,000 children. That is only one element of what the Government will do to help working families. Support has been focused on those on out-of-work benefits—this is a key point that I have no doubt the right hon. Member for East Ham will appreciate. They need greater protection against rising prices than people on working tax credit who are, of course, not solely reliant on this income; they also have income from work, which is key. I do, though, take the points made regarding the difficulty of getting a job in the palm of one’s hand before asking for it.

The Government, however, remains committed to making work pay. As the Chancellor made clear yesterday, the best way to help working people is by taking them out of tax altogether. In April 2012 we will make a £630 increase in the income tax personal allowance, taking it to £8,105. This is in addition to the £1,000 increase in April this year. Together, these increases will benefit 25 million individuals and take 1.1 million low-income individuals out of tax from April 2012.

As I started to articulate, there is then the reform to which I look forward. Universal credit will unify the complex current system of means-tested out-of-work benefits, tax credits and support for housing into one single payment. The award will be withdrawn at a single rate, with the aim of offering a smooth transition into work and encouraging progression into work.

For parents currently on working tax credit, and in the future, the Government continue to provide support for 70% of child care costs—I am conscious that hon. Members have mentioned child care today. That goes up to a weekly limit of £175 for families with one child and £300 for two or more children. Under the universal credit this support will be extended to those working fewer than 16 hours, which will allow 80,000 additional families to receive help with child care costs. That will give second earners and lone parents, typically women, a stronger incentive to work, and I am proud of all those measures.

I shall deal briefly with child poverty and the way in which the Government see it before concluding. Poverty is about more than income; it is about a lack of opportunity, aspiration and stability. We are keen to tackle its root causes, and ensure that children born in low-income families realise their full potential. I have suggested measures that will help, both in the short and long term, but policy in this area has been distorted by a preoccupation with counting the number of children below a certain line, rather than moving families over a real line, as opposed to an imaginary one.

Bank Account Fraud

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting this debate, and I am delighted to see the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury in his place, upholding as always the high standards set by previous occupants of his office.

The debate arises from troubling recent constituency cases, in which constituents who have been the victims of fraud have found themselves seriously disadvantaged by actions taken by the banking industry in response. They have suffered what seems to be arbitrary and draconian punishment without even an explanation, still less any opportunity to challenge what had been done to them. No one can object to the banking industry taking every step it can to protect itself and its customers from fraud. It is absolutely right that it should do so, but those measures need to be taken in a way that treats customers fairly, and such a requirement has not been met in the cases to which I shall refer. I hope the Minister will agree that we need a better way of protecting against fraud, which does not cause its victims such hardship.

I will put to the Minister a series of points, to which he is likely to be sympathetic and to which I will be grateful for his response. First, if customers are to be denied the opportunity to have a bank account, they should be told and not, as in my constituency cases, be left to find out for themselves, submit numerous applications to different banks and be rebuffed each time for reasons that have not been made known to them. They should be told for how long they are likely to be unable to open an account. They should be given accurate information about what alternative courses of action might be available to them. If the only account they will be able to open is with a credit union, they should be told so. My constituents have been provided with no such information and been left completely in the dark.

Secondly, there should surely be at least some allegation of wrongdoing before someone is deprived of a bank account. In the case of my constituents, as I am about to explain, no such allegation was made, but the inter-bank machinery of the financial services industry organisation, the Credit industry fraud avoidance system, was triggered anyway. Thirdly, someone who is to be denied the opportunity to have a bank account should be provided with a reason. Such people should have someone in their own bank, in CIFAS or somewhere with whom they can discuss the matter—someone who understands what is going on. Fourthly, they should be given the opportunity to challenge the refusal of an account. Being unable to hold a bank account is too serious a handicap for there to be no practical way at all to challenge what is being done.

I will set out the experiences of my constituents, which have given rise to my concerns. I first became concerned when my constituent Miss Josephine Dolor came to see me in July. She had a Halifax bank account, with a bank card, which she had last used in early November last year; she was 17 at the time. When she next tried to find the card, she could not do so. At that point, as she accepts, she made a mistake. Thinking that the card would turn up, she did not report its loss and took no action for some weeks. She recognised that the card had really been lost only when she could not find it after Christmas. She then reported its loss at the East Ham branch of Halifax on 29 December last year, some six weeks after it first went missing.

By that time, all Miss Dolor’s education maintenance allowance payments, amounting to about £100, had been withdrawn from the account. In addition, in late November, £1,000 was transferred into her account from somewhere else, and another £600 was transferred in on 9 December. By 18 December, those funds had all been withdrawn. The transfers in have since been confirmed as fraudulent and remain the subject of a fraud investigation by the bank. On 7 February, Miss Dolor was interviewed by a Halifax officer, and she explained what had happened and that she had no knowledge of how anyone else could possibly have known the personal identification number for her card—although they clearly did—and the officer said that she believed Miss Dolor’s explanation.

At that point, it would be difficult to criticise Halifax. Miss Dolor had had the opportunity to explain what had happened, and her version of events had been accepted. However, at that point things started to go badly wrong. In response to an inquiry about the closure of the account from Miss Dolor’s mother, she received a letter from Halifax customer relations dated 29 March. The letter was rather unclear. It included an apology to Miss Dolor, a reimbursement of the £100 that had been taken out of her account and a £50 payment

“for any distress our process has caused”.

It appeared that, as the Halifax officer had stated, the bank accepted that Miss Dolor was innocent of any wrongdoing. But the letter also said:

“No explanation has been provided as to how a third party may have access to your PIN. Regrettably we are not going to offer you any more accounts as a result of the fraud. This is a business decision.”

That blunt termination of the account was only the start of Miss Dolor’s problems. She subsequently found out the hard way that it was impossible for her to open an account with any other bank, because Halifax has registered her with CIFAS. Lloyds Banking Group, the parent of Halifax, tells me that that is a requirement of its membership of CIFAS. CIFAS, though, says that it is not a requirement and that it is up to the bank how the case is registered. Lloyds certainly did not warn Miss Dolor of the consequences of the “misuse of facility” registration that it had made of her. In my view, Lloyds should certainly have explained that to her. I understand why Lloyds registered my constituent: because the withdrawal from the account was carried out using her card—that is not in dispute—and her PIN. Miss Dolor told me that she has no idea how anyone could have known her PIN. It is not written down anywhere, she has not told anyone what it is, not even her mother, and she is not aware of anyone ever watching her use it, although of course fraudsters have some clever techniques for obtaining such information. There is certainly no dispute that someone had the PIN. On one occasion, a fraudulent withdrawal was apparently made in a branch using a signature that did not to me look very much like Miss Dolor’s.

CIFAS told me yesterday, however:

“If Halifax had considered that Miss Dolor was a victim of fraud they would have filed her case as such. If she had been filed as a victim, Miss Dolor’s ability to hold bank accounts, or indeed open new ones, would have remained unhindered...Halifax chose to register this case as a ‘misuse of facility’ which identified Ms Dolor as being a fraudster”.

At the same time as apologising to Ms Dolor and issuing her with compensation, Halifax was registering her with CIFAS as a fraudster, and that registration was subsequently supported by the Financial Ombudsman Service. As a member of CIFAS, Halifax is required to register the details of all proven fraud cases, but I understand that that is not a legal obligation, simply a condition of CIFAS membership. Being the subject of a misuse-of-facility registration with CIFAS has had disastrous consequences for Miss Dolor. Her account with Halifax was summarily closed, and she has since been unable to open an account with any other bank or the Post Office.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the matter for me is that no one explained to Miss Dolor that that was going to happen. Halifax gave the impression that it accepted that she was the victim, and it gave her compensation. It did not inform her that she would no longer be able to have a bank account. She had to find out the hard way. The other banks told her not that that was because of her registration with CIFAS, but simply that she did not meet their criteria for opening an account. There was a real danger in the summer that, because Miss Dolor had no account into which to pay her student loan cheque, she was going to have to give up her university place. In the end, she was able to open an account with a local credit union. She cannot access that account from her university home, so it is awkward for her, but it meant that it was at least possible for her to commence her course in September.

One letter from Halifax suggested that she should open a basic account somewhere. She has tried but has been rejected twice, because that is not possible given her registration. Surely her bank should understand the consequences of its action against her, and inform her of those consequences. That did not happen, and when I pressed Lloyds, its response was:

“Our letter of 29 March 2011 went into detail about CIFAS.”

That was simply untrue. The letter of 29 March should have explained that the misuse-of-facility registration with CIFAS would make it impossible for Ms Dolor to obtain a bank account anywhere. What it actually said was that

“extra checks will be made for you when you are applying for financial products...your credit file has not been updated to hold negative information”.

It reads as though Lloyds was doing her a favour. In fact, Lloyds almost prevented her from starting her university course. Surely customers are entitled to expect their bank to be straight with them.

When a person applies to open a bank account, each bank runs that person’s details through the CIFAS database. If they are found to have a misuse-of-facility registration on CIFAS, it seems that they are told that

“further checks have shown you do not meet the bank’s criteria for an account”,

and that is the end of the story. There is no appeal and no further recourse. Miss Dolor inquired at just about every High street bank, and at the Post Office. She has never had the opportunity to discuss the position with anyone. She has simply received the same automated response every time. My constituent, who is an enthusiastic, intelligent, young woman who aspires to a career in law, has been placed in limbo. As far as one can tell, she has not even been accused of any wrongdoing, let alone found guilty of anything. She is the victim of a fraud, yet she is still, one year after her card was stolen, unable to open a bank account anywhere.

Another constituent, Mr Ravi Borra, contacted me last month on finding himself in a similar situation. He is an MBA student at Coventry university’s London campus. To support himself he has worked full time as a waiter at St Pancras station during his vacation. For that he received just over £1,000 for a month’s work, and he was paid by cheque. After paying that cheque into his bank account in good faith, he was contacted by his bank—again, it is Lloyds—which informed him that the cheque had been flagged as being fraudulent, his account had been suspended, and he had been registered on CIFAS. Like Miss Dolor, he cannot open an account elsewhere, and when he attempted to do so, he was told repeatedly that his application did not pass the qualifying tests. He filed a complaint with Lloyds in September, and was contacted by the fraud department a few days later and was told that, although it could not reopen his old account, it could set up a new account for him. Mr Borra was happy with that compromise. He received his PIN number and debit card for his new account, but the very next day he received a letter from Lloyds saying that

“recent risk assessment on your accounts has highlighted concerns and as a result we have taken the decision to close all the accounts you currently hold with us in two months time...in the meantime, I have placed a block on all your accounts which stop all transactions”.

Mr Borra finds himself in a complete nightmare. He did a month’s work for which he has received no payment. He cannot open a bank account. No one will tell him what is going on. He cannot even apply to extend his student visa and it seems that he may be unable to finish his studies.

Late yesterday, CIFAS told me that Mr Borra’s registration with it was cancelled by Lloyds last month, but no one has told Mr Borra that, and the new block on his new account was imposed after the deletion. He has told me today that he still cannot open an account anywhere, for reasons that are at the moment unknown. Lloyds says that it is simply complying with its obligation as a CIFAS member, but CIFAS says that when someone is registered with it, it cannot delete that data. The prerogative for doing so lies with its members—the banks—and the registration remains on the database for a minimum of one year. One year without a bank account seriously disrupts a person’s life. There seems to be nothing my constituents, who have not been accused of anything, can do to open a bank account and resume their lives.

The Minister will recognise that being without a bank account is a serious disadvantage and may mean not being able to start a university course or take up a job. People should not lightly or accidentally be deprived of the chance to have an account, but that is what seems to have happened in these cases. As far as I can tell, no one decided that my constituents should be denied the chance of having a bank account. Rather, actions by their bank triggered a response from the machinery that has been put in place, with the effect that they cannot have a bank account for at least a year. Surely that is too serious a sanction to allow it to happen by accident. Being denied a bank account is appalling for anyone, and contrary to Government policy. As we move towards the introduction of universal credit, this Government, like the previous one, are encouraging people to have bank accounts, but in arbitrarily closing accounts the banks are undermining Government policy as well as causing hardship to their customers.

I hope the Minister agrees that people such as those I referred to should not be treated in that way. Perhaps he can offer some hope that those who find themselves in that nightmarish situation may be offered a means of finding a way out.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate.

I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, whose experiences he described so vividly. He knows that it is difficult for the Government to comment on specific cases, but it is clearly unacceptable that individuals who have been victims of fraud—that seems to be the case that he set out—should be systematically denied access to a bank account. As far as I am aware, there is no legal or regulatory reason for this to happen.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the consequences in this day and age of someone being denied a bank account are considerable, and I entirely agree with him that that should not lightly or accidentally be denied. It is worth making the wider point that the Government want to ensure that we improve levels of financial inclusion, as indeed did the Government in which he served with such distinction. We believe that banks should serve the economy, and we are committed to improving access to banking and the transparency of financial products for consumers.

Having access to appropriate banking services is an important element of modern life, and it can help to alleviate some of the problems faced by low-income families. A bank account enables individuals to make and receive payments through a variety of channels, have a more secure place to keep money and reduce the cost of household bills. The number of individuals without bank accounts has fallen in recent years, but the Government remain keen to see the situation improve further, and in particular to identify groups who may have specific difficulties in accessing a bank account.

While the situations described by the right hon. Gentleman are clearly invidious, it is not clear how many individuals are affected by this sort of difficulty. This is the first time that I have personally been made aware of this issue. As far as the Treasury is aware, it is not widespread. The right hon. Gentleman may have identified a growing problem that we need to look at. His industry and dedication as a constituency MP have highlighted not one but two cases that happen to have occurred among his constituents.

The issue falls within the remit of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He is not available to attend the debate, but he will be asking officials to investigate how this matter may have arisen and how many consumers may be affected. We will write to the right hon. Gentleman to explain the findings, and I am grateful to him for highlighting this particular issue. Clearly, we need to understand whether the problem is widespread.

The right hon. Gentleman set out four points, and I shall try to respond as best I can. I will take his first and third points together. He asked whether individuals should be informed if they are going to be denied a bank account and, if so, whether they should be provided with a reason. Those are eminently sensible and reasonable points. Consumers have the right to ask for a reason if they are denied a bank account, as set out in the Money Advice Service’s guide to bank accounts, which is available on its website. Consumers may also complain to the specific firm if they are unhappy with the outcome, and they can take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The decision to offer a bank account is ultimately a commercial decision. Current account providers are not obliged to provide a specific reason for not offering an account. However, it is worth highlighting the Financial Services Authority’s principle that financial institutions are required to treat their customers fairly, which is relevant in these circumstances.

The right hon. Gentleman questioned whether consumers should be denied a bank account where there has been no allegation of wrongdoing. Again, decisions as to whether to offer a bank account are a commercial matter for the financial institution concerned, and the Government do not intervene in such decisions. However, there is no legal or regulatory reason for victims of fraud to be denied a bank account. The circumstances that he set out appear to be of some concern.

The fourth question asked by the right hon. Gentleman was whether consumers should be given the opportunity to challenge the refusal of an account. If consumers are unhappy with the decision taken, they may complain to the specific firm concerned, and if they are unhappy with the outcome, they can take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I reiterate the point that if a financial institution, or more specifically a bank, has been in breach of the FSA principle of treating customers fairly, the individual customer can raise that with the bank and with the Financial Ombudsman Service. If the explanation that is given to a customer is wrong—for example, if there is misleading information about how CIFAS works and its impacts—without wanting to be drawn too much into specific cases, it seems there is a case that the customer is not being treated fairly.

[Stephen Timms]

Part of the difficulty arose when the banks to which an application was made simply said to Miss Dolor, “You do not meet the criteria for an account.” I do not know whether that meets the terms of providing an explanation, but it clearly did not shed any light on the matter for her. If she had been told that she had been registered in such and such a way with CIFAS, she would have understood what was happening. The whole process was opaque. Does the Minister agree that some effort should be made to provide some illuminating information rather than a kind of stonewall response? It might meet the letter of the requirement, but in practice it does not help the customer at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would have been better if the Labour party had welcomed today’s growth figures rather than talking our economy down.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

When we embarked on the economic course that the Government have set, Ministers told us that because they were tackling the deficit aggressively, there would be a surge of private sector confidence—and, therefore, investment and jobs. Many people agreed with them. Now that we know that expectation was mistaken, surely there must be a change of course.

[Mr Hoban]

Every reputable international organisation that talks about what is happening in the UK economy now recognises that the Government need to stick to the course, rather than throwing away the valuable credibility that we have gained as a consequence of tackling the mess left behind by the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Opposition remind me of the very good election slogan that we had—although it was not particularly successful—which was “Save the Pound”. We have managed to save the pound on the Eurostar—or rather, the company itself has anticipated questions such as the one from my hon. Friend. I am glad to hear that, as he travels to and from Brussels and Paris, he will continue to be able to buy his meals in pounds sterling.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Before the Chancellor meets the head of the IMF on Friday, will he recognise that in warning that slamming on the brakes too quickly will harm the recovery, she has a point? Does not Britain’s experience illustrate that?

[Mr Osborne]

The point that the IMF has made consistently over the last two years is that countries with fiscal space can of course use it, but that Britain does not have that fiscal space. It made that point in its article IV assessment of the UK just a few weeks ago, and that is also the view of Christine Lagarde. As I say, she is coming to this country on Friday and we will hear what she has to say.

Global Economy

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We do debate the European budget in this Parliament, and they are often quite lively debates. We are fighting hard for a real-terms freeze in the European budget not just for next year but for the coming new financial perspective from 2014, and we have enlisted a number of allies. There is now an understanding across Europe that, with very tough public expenditure decisions at home in every European country, we also need to get control of the European budget.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The momentum for growth in the UK economy has clearly now run out, and I am glad that the Chancellor will make announcements on growth in the autumn. As he plans for them, will he take account of the International Monetary Fund’s view that if there is the prospect of a lengthy period of weak growth ahead, he should be willing to consider temporary tax cuts?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course we bear in mind advice from the IMF and others, but it makes it clear that that is not its central view at the moment. It asked itself a specific question, and it says this:

“The weakness in growth and rise in inflation raises the question whether it is time to adjust macroeconomic policies. The answer is no…Strong fiscal consolidation is underway and remains essential”.

That is what the IMF says in its article IV report into the United Kingdom published on 1 August this year.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

I am pleased that I caught your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope that there is still time for many other Members to speak on this important issue. We only wish that the Government would find some guts.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the telling case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for a bank financial transaction tax, but I wish to focus my remarks on how the proceeds from the bank payroll tax suggested in amendment 13 should be used to create new jobs and tackle unemployment.

We have argued that £600 million of the proceeds should be used to establish a fund to create 90,000 good jobs for young people. That would not be identical to the future jobs fund, but it would certainly have striking similarities to it, so it is important to consider the lessons from the future jobs fund.

As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the scrapping of the future jobs fund was announced in the emergency Budget just after the general election. In opposition, the then shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the current Home Secretary, whose assurances ought to carry some weight, promised that it would not be scrapped. She wrote to the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations on 28 April, just a few days before the general election, to say that the future jobs fund would be reviewed to ensure that it delivered long-term, sustainable work. She stated:

“I welcome this opportunity to clarify the Conservative position on the Future Jobs Fund, which I feel has been misrepresented by certain groups in the media.”

Unfortunately, far from misrepresenting the position, those certain groups in the media were right. The fund was scrapped, without even the pretence of a review, which was a terrible mistake.

The future jobs fund was a £1 billion fund, set up to get 100,000 18 to 24-year-olds into work. It was set up quickly—certainly—to minimise the scarring of long-term worklessness on young people in the wake of the global crisis. We saw serious scarring during the recession of the 1980s, and we are still paying the price for that in today’s labour market, almost 30 years later. Rightly, the previous Government wanted to ensure that there was no repeat.

It is worth reflecting on anecdotal evidence on the future jobs fund. A strikingly large number of people, with a lot of experience in such matters, have made the point that in their view the future jobs fund was the most successful welfare-to-work programme in which they had ever been involved. I noticed the remarks made about the programme to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions by Jackie Mould of Birmingham city council. She said:

“The benefits that they have identified are about the fact that they’ve had a job. I can’t say that enough; it’s come out in every interview that we’ve done, with every single person. Some of them didn’t even know they were on a programme; they just thought they’d got a job. The other benefits have been the confidence and self-esteem that people get from having a job, from feeling valued—that they’ve got something to offer and that they can do it.”

We can all understand how big a breakthrough it is for a young person who has been out of work for some time to get a job. The price of keeping that young person out of work for a long period is huge. It is in that context that the costs of the fund proposed in amendment 13 need to be assessed.

The future jobs fund provided proper jobs when they would otherwise not have been available. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is currently the Government’s adviser on child poverty, said that the future jobs fund was

“one of the most precious things the last government was involved in, a lifeline”.

Ministers in the present Government have criticised the future jobs fund essentially on two grounds. In considering amendment 13, their criticisms need to be addressed. The first ground is value for money, and the second is that the jobs created were largely in the public sector.

First, on value for money, the maximum price per job offered to bidders to the future jobs fund was £6,500. That is a higher cost per job than most welfare-to-work schemes, but—this crucial difference is often overlooked—unlike other schemes, participants in the future jobs fund came off benefits and were paid a wage. We therefore no longer incurred the cost of benefits to support them. That is not always reflected in cost comparisons, but once it is taken into account, the difference between the Work programme approach and the future jobs fund is much less than is frequently stated.

The Department for Work and Pensions produced statistics showing that of the people starting the future jobs fund between October and November 2009, just over 50% were not claiming benefits one year later—well after their placement on the future jobs fund had finished. The Prime Minister used that figure to criticise the future jobs fund, saying that 50% is not a large proportion, but that comparison is not a valid one, because the young people whom the future jobs fund helped were precisely those who were furthest from the labour market, and therefore most in need of support to get back into work.

In evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, Tracy Fishwick of the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion described participants in the future jobs in this way:

“the vast majority of people who are coming forward for Future Jobs Fund are the young people who have less than an NVQ level 2, and sometimes no formal qualification at all.”

In that context, having more than half of such people still in work a year after their placement with the future jobs fund ended is no mean feat. I think that the assessment we are expecting of the fund will show that it provided good value for money by avoiding unemployment.

The second criticism is that none of the jobs created were in the private sector. In fact, that was not the case. It is true that only a small proportion of the jobs were in the private sector. There was an issue about the state aid rules making it harder for private firms to benefit, but with a little more time to plan next time and with the benefit of the report proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) in amendment 13, we could increase that proportion. I noticed that Neil Carberry from the CBI told the Work and Pensions Committee:

“I suspect that the speed of the timetable greatly restricted the number of private sector companies that could get involved”.

I think that he was probably right. This was an emergency response to avoid what otherwise would have been a rapid escalation in youth unemployment.

Having said that, there were examples of private firms benefiting from the fund. In Oxfordshire, 33% of the jobs under the county council’s future jobs fund programme were in the private sector, and the council pointed out in its evidence to the Select Committee that it had been disadvantaged by the loss of the future jobs fund—that is the county council for the Prime Minister’s constituency. Other councils reported a smaller but nevertheless still significant proportion of jobs in the private sector. The Select Committee is right that this issue needs to be tackled in the report. Amendment 13 proposes that care should be taken next time to ensure that private firms can benefit from the new programme when it is introduced.

It is not the case, as Ministers have sometimes carelessly asserted, that all the jobs were in the public sector—many were in the voluntary sector—so when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appeared on the “Today” programme on 12 May to claim that the

“Future Jobs Scheme created only jobs in the public sector and once the money ended those poor young people crashed out of work straight away”,

it was clearly untrue. Indeed, Dr Peter Kyle, the acting chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, which represents more than 2,000 third sector organisations, wrote to the Secretary of State that day to reply:

“I feel obliged to point out that within the voluntary sector it has been widely perceived as a success in delivering vital vocational skills to potentially vulnerable people whilst unlocking potential within non-governmental organisations.”

Later that same day, the Secretary of State claimed:

“The Future Jobs Fund was six times more expensive than anything else that they were doing and actually created jobs only in the public sector”.

That was simply untrue, as Martin Sime, the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, pointed out. There are lessons to be learned from the future jobs fund about how to ensure maximum private sector participation from this approach to creating jobs for young people at a time when those jobs are desperately needed, which they most certainly are at the moment. The value of voluntary sector participation—the contribution and enthusiastic support of those whom Ministers want to be their partners in the big society—must not be overlooked.

The Opposition’s amendment would put back in place the support that the future jobs fund provided with lessons learned through the proposed report to improve the programme further. It is important that Ministers, when evaluating the proposal in amendment 13, reflect on what people have widely said about the future jobs fund and on the enthusiastic response from local authorities, businesses and participants. A young woman from Rochdale told the Select Committee how her time with the future jobs fund opened up many avenues for her, boosting her confidence in the workplace, providing her with training and supporting her with her interviews. She said that being in employment with the future jobs fund helped to get her full-time employment subsequently.

As the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) acknowledged, youth unemployment remains unacceptably high. The Government cannot simply point to the Work programme. We wish it every success of course, but the future jobs fund created jobs where none would otherwise have existed. Given the long-term damage of extended youth unemployment, for both young jobseekers and the economy more widely, it was undoubtedly an investment worth making. Indeed, it is an investment that we should make again. I hope that the House will agree to amendment 13, as moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie).

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

A year ago the Office for Budget Responsibility was projecting growth in the UK economy of 2.6% this year. Now the forecast is down to 1.7%. What has gone wrong?

[Mr Osborne]

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are very significant global headwinds of the high oil—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members live in a complete vacuum but, according to the most recent growth figures for this first quarter, the British economy posted a higher quarterly growth rate than the United States of America. Of course we have the high oil price and the ongoing problem in the eurozone, but what is required above all is a credible deficit reduction plan that keeps Britain out of the financial danger zone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The figures underline that the economy is not out of the danger zone. Does the Chancellor know of the concern expressed by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation about a new lost generation of unemployed young people of the kind we saw in the ’80s and ’90s? What assessment has he made of measures the Government can take to avoid that problem?

[Mr Osborne]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that unemployment went up by 1 million under the previous Government. We know that even in the good years, the problem of youth unemployment increased and that we as a country were not able to do much about it. This Government are determined to tackle that head-on with reform of the welfare system so that it always pays to work and, at the same time, with the new Work programme, which will give young people the skills and opportunities they need to get off those unemployment rolls.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham]

We have expensive houses in High Peak—I have seen something on my BlackBerry today about house prices being expensive. We have issues, but it is not grim up north. Speaking as someone who is technically the Member for Royston Vasey, as the programme concerned was filmed in my constituency, I implore all southern MPs to come to High Peak. It is not grim. [Interruption.] It is beautiful. Thank you; we agree on something.

I reiterate the point that there are challenges to setting up businesses outside the south-east—for example, slower broadband. That is another hobby-horse of mine. The measure is an incentive. It will get local people setting up local businesses in the north and outside the south-east, which will rebalance the economy. I hope that more businesses will flow up north to High Peak and other constituencies. The measure is an excellent policy. We hear all about the cuts, but they are having to be made because of the economic carnage left by the Labour party. If we acknowledge that, we might get somewhere.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for tabling the amendment and for the fact that he has already referred to the Thames Gateway. I want to refer to issues associated with the Thames Gateway area and the borough I represent, Newham, together with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) who is in her place.

It is clear that the Government have simply got this wrong. If we consider the criteria that the Government have said should be applied to choosing where this incentive is available, as my right hon. Friend has said it is in those parts of the country where the proportion of public sector dependence is high that we need to encourage new businesses to start up and take on employees. Of course that is exactly the situation and is what is required in the Thames Gateway area on the east side of London. It is absurd to omit from the scope of this initiative areas that the Government have themselves identified for the promotion of new business growth.

I put it to the Minister that he is not being invited to support the policies of the Labour party or, indeed, any other institution; he is being invited to support the policies of the Prime Minister. It is extraordinary that the one area of the country where the Prime Minister has called explicitly for the creation of Silicon Valley-style economic regeneration based on high-tech start-ups is being missed out from the initiative. Let me refer the Minister to the speech that the Prime Minister gave in east London on 4 November—his east end tech city speech—and point out some of the comments he made. The Prime Minister said:

“Only three years ago, there were just fifteen technology start-ups around Old Street and Shoreditch…it’s clear that in East London, we have the potential to create one of the most dynamic working environments in the world. And I believe we can really turn this vision into a reality.”

I agree with the Prime Minister. I am baffled by the fact that in this Bill the Prime Minister’s initiative is being undermined, and I want to find out from the Minister why that is so. I hope he will accept the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn has made and, even at this late stage, accept the amendment.

[Joan Ruddock]

I think my right hon. Friend is providing the answer to the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). This is not about rebalancing between the south and the north; it is about rebalancing within London and the south-east where people are put out of public sector jobs and we hope that they might go into new businesses.

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also agree with the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) about the importance of high-speed broadband for bringing about this kind of change. Of course, at the moment we do not know which Department in Government is responsible for broadband—we were attempting to clarify that earlier.

In his speech on 4 November, the Prime Minister went on to spell out how his vision could be achieved. He said that experience

“teaches government some simple things. Go with the grain of what is already there. Don’t interfere so much that you smother. But do help out wherever you can. Help to create the right framework, so it’s easier for new companies to start up, for venture capital firms to invest, for innovations to flourish, for businesses to grow.”

That is what the Prime Minister has said he wants to happen in the east end tech city initiative.

[Gavin Williamson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman feel a sense of responsibility, as a former Minister, for the 11,000 pages of tax code which, every single day and every single year, stifles new businesses in setting up? Does he accept a responsibility for that stifling of innovation and industry?

[Stephen Timms]

I take a good deal of satisfaction from the progress that we saw with the development of high-tech business spin-outs from universities under the aegis of the previous Government. That was one of their very significant achievements.

[Gavin Williamson]

Do you not accept that the 11,000 pages of tax code, which doubled under the last Labour Government, is stifling British industry, and that that is partly your responsibility and your party’s responsibility?

[Stephen Timms]

I do not think that it is the Deputy Speaker’s responsibility.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

In fairness, some may hold me responsible, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not.

[Stephen Timms]

This is what the Prime Minister called for in November:

“The right framework, so it’s easier for new companies to start up”.

That is what he wants to happen in the east London tech city initiative. My question to the Minister is why is the Bill not doing that which the Prime Minister has so clearly called for? If it were my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn appealing to the Minister to do that, I could understand why he would not be willing to do it, but it is the Prime Minister, who appointed the Minister to his job. Why is the Minister not doing what the Prime Minister said?

I commend to the Minister the Prime Minister’s speech of 4 November, in which he went on to describe what different parties are doing to help to secure this vision of a new high-tech city in east London:

“But what about here—in the heart of east London where there’s already so much to work with? We’re working with business to make sure the infrastructure and advice you need is in place. Imperial Innovations, the venture capital arm of Imperial College London”—

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the coalition Government’s reintroduction of the enterprise allowance scheme, which we have opened to people the length and breadth of the UK who have been unemployed for six months or more to help them get into self-employment?

[Stephen Timms]

I have always taken the view that self-employment is a very important vehicle for helping people not in work to get into work. That is why the new deal for self-employment, as an element of the new deal in the past, was so valuable, and I welcome other initiatives to achieve the same thing.

The Prime Minister went on to say that Imperial Innovations

“is going to advise on making sure this accelerator space is attractive to spinout companies from academia and beyond. Indeed, they will be encouraging some of their own brilliant companies to be based here.”

I very much welcome that. I look forward to those start-up companies being established.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I was not in the Treasury. I am getting a lot of your blame, and I do not like it.

[Stephen Timms]

I reassure the hon. Lady that when I was in the Treasury, I put an enormous amount of effort into supporting exactly this kind of initiative. I supported the Thames Gateway initiative specifically, as well as other regeneration initiatives.

The Government are now saying that they will not give grant funding, but instead will provide incentives. This is our one opportunity to boost the incentives for establishing the kind of business that the Prime Minister wants in east London, and it will be forgone unless the amendment is agreed by the House this afternoon.

I do not know exactly how things work in the Conservative party. Who speaks to whom, and who is on whose side is all closed to me. It may be that the Exchequer Secretary feels that he does not need to take much notice of what the Prime Minister says. Perhaps he speaks to other people in his party. Let me therefore point out that it is not just the Prime Minister who wants the initiative to go forward. I point him to what the Mayor of London said—perhaps he takes more notice of him than the Prime Minister, I do not know. The Mayor said:

“we can and must do more to cement our position as a global magnet”.

He went on:

“the Olympic and Paralympic Games will bequeath to London a vibrant new business quarter in the east of our city. We must do everything we can to support its development”.

This afternoon, we have the opportunity to do something to support the Mayor of London’s call to develop the vision set out by the Prime Minister. We must not let this opportunity pass us by.

Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary does not take much notice of what the Mayor of London says, either—again, I do not know about that. If that is the case, let me point out to him the position of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Its website states:

“The Government is committed to making a success of the Thames Gateway…we will promote incentives to invest and develop in the area, instead of grant funding specific projects.”

That returns me to the point that I made a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). We understand that the Government are not now willing to contribute grant funding. We disagree with them about that, but are told that there will instead be incentives to invest and develop. Here we have an opportunity to provide just such an incentive. As far as I am aware, the Government have not come forward with any other incentive, and we can provide one along the lines of the policy that the DCLG has set out. We should take that opportunity, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will do so this afternoon by accepting the amendment, so that we can provide an incentive in an area that has been so specifically identified by the Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and the DCLG.

The DCLG website also states that the Government will

“work with other departments to identify how their programmes bear on the Thames Gateway and need to be adapted”.

The initiative in the Bill clearly needs to be adapted to fulfil the Government’s policy for the Thames Gateway. I hope that the Minister will tell us what representations he has received from the DCLG, because it is an extraordinarily disjointed approach for one Department to say that it will introduce incentives and initiatives in one area and for the Treasury to take not a blind bit of notice and send all the incentives somewhere completely different.

The previous Government used to talk about “joined-up government”, and indeed we made important progress towards achieving it, so that all the different parts of Government were pushing in the same direction towards the same goal. Here we have a case in which the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Mayor of London are on one side, and the Exchequer Secretary and his colleagues are on the other. I invite him to support what his right hon. and hon. Friends are saying, and not to stand aloof from the policies of the Government of whom he is a member. The Treasury should not be an island, cut off from everybody else and doing its own thing without talking to others or supporting what they are doing, but that seems to be the position with this Bill.

I invite the Exchequer Secretary to accept the amendment and agree that the incentive should be applied in places in which the Prime Minister has so clearly identified its importance.

[Sheila Gilmore]

As a Member from Scotland, I might be expected to give the Scottish whinge about how everything goes to the south-east and nothing comes to Scotland. I am not going to do that, because the way in which the Bill has been constructed has not been well thought through. It is not clear, at least to me, what are the intentions behind parts of it and what set of policies it is meant to fulfil.

Is the Bill about helping areas with high levels of unemployment, some of which have never fully recovered from previous recessions, or helping areas with high levels of public sector employment, which we anticipate will suffer greatly from what will happen over the next couple of years? They are not necessarily the same places. The constituency of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is at the top of the list provided by the Library of areas with the highest public employment. Most people would think that large parts of that constituency are fairly affluent, because the public employment is, I suspect, largely at the university. It is perhaps not perceived, certainly in Edinburgh or even in Scottish terms, as in particular need of employment support. My hon. Friend, who is sitting on my right, probably disagrees.

We must decide what we are trying to achieve. I am very persuaded by what I have heard from many colleagues, particularly in London but also in other parts of the south-east, which has a long history of difficulty. The south-east is by no means all affluent. It is important to create employment in the parts of London and the south-east where unemployment is high. Those places are suffering many problems and are now affected by the cuts in public expenditure. People there are being told that they may have to move because their homes are too expensive for them. Many things are coming at those areas, and I am persuaded by my colleagues’ words and by what I have seen in London that there is a need to boost employment in many places.

I am not convinced that the particular cut of the cake for which the Bill provides is the best. I am not clear about the reasons for it. On Second Reading and in Committee, it was suggested that it was done to target places that need help most. I do not think that that is necessarily the case. At other times, it was suggested that we have to do what the Bill proposes because we cannot act everywhere—that would cost too much. We are then back to the arguments about the need to reduce the deficit and the speed at which that has to happen.

However, the best way in which to get out of recession is to grow the economy and create jobs, and it is important to do that everywhere. I appreciate that, in terms of the amendment, we cannot ask for further expenditure at this stage, although we could review the position in later years. However, tax loss could be recouped quickly if new businesses grow and employment increases. It is important to build employment throughout the country. There is no particular reason for taking the route that has been suggested.

We are constantly told that we have to act in this way because the country is in such a mess and we must reduce the deficit more quickly. Labour Members do not accept either the Government’s description of how and in what circumstances the deficit arose, or their prescription. We must build employment and provide the economic stimulus that we need in various ways—the scheme is only one method; there are many others. National insurance contribution relief is only one small, albeit important part of a bigger picture.

We need a continuation of the policies that, in early 2010, meant that unemployment did not rise as high as had been predicted and that the deficit was falling more than had been predicted before the election. It is not true to say that the deficit was increasing—it was falling under our policies. The growth in various quarters of 2010 was the result of the economic stimulus package that we put in place. We should continue the economic stimulus. National insurance contribution relief is one small way of doing that and, in my view, it should be country-wide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way on that point, but the central point I want to make is that all Labour Members fought the last election—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible—on a policy of increasing national insurance contributions throughout the entire country, which would have done harm not just to the Thames Gateway, east London and Walthamstow, but across the country.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On 6 January, the Prime Minister spoke—I think at No. 10—about

“nurturing small clusters of innovative companies and web start-ups, as we are in the new Tech City—our own Silicon Valley—in East London.”

Why is the Minister not contributing to this nurturing of start-ups in east London? This is his one opportunity.

[Mr Gauke]

The Government are doing a great deal to help London. We need only consider the transport infrastructure as well as the fact that we are protecting investment in Crossrail, in upgrading the tube and in Thameslink. We are taking a number of steps. I think it is astonishing that Labour is complaining about the fact that some businesses will not receive a reduction in their national insurance contributions when its policy at the last general election was that businesses should be paying more.

It is very helpful to look at the well-remembered interview with the shadow Chancellor on the “Today” programme on 4 January, when he said that we need to get the structural deficit eradicated and that there was no argument about that. He recognised the existence of a structural deficit and did not particularly differ from the Government’s position on the size of the structural deficit. There was a disagreement on timing—I think he disagreed with his own policy on timing, but he disagreed with the Government’s, too. He said that the balance between public spending cuts—we do not know which of our proposed public spending cuts the Opposition support—and tax rises should be 60:40. I think that the proportion for tax rises was 40%, although it was not entirely clear.

The shadow Chancellor was asked by Evan Davis:

“In principle you would like VAT not to go up and instead, at some point, not now, National Insurance to go up by more?”

The shadow Chancellor’s response was, “Yes.” He said that that was the Labour party’s argument at the general election and that it was still its argument now, because national insurance is a better tax. That is the Opposition’s position—they want to increase employers’ national insurance contributions. They oppose all the cuts and they oppose our VAT increase, but they want to increase national insurance contributions. Yet when we have a Bill in this House that provides a reduction in national insurance in some areas, their biggest complaint is that they want to do it in more areas. How incredible is that? How lacking in coherence is that policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the radio programme “More or Less”, which recently pointed out that the national insurance contributions increase would have raised only a quarter of the tax revenue that the VAT increase will raise.

[Stephen Timms]

Has the Minister received representations from the Department for Communities and Local Government about the inclusion of the Thames Gateway area in this incentive?

[Mr Gauke]

Not that I am aware of, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, tax is a matter for the Treasury. I must say that the Thames Gateway would have been hit by a much greater jobs tax if the Labour party were in power.

Both today and in earlier debates, I have understandably been asked about take-up and whether there is a plan, if take-up is lower than expected, to expand the holiday to cover the whole of the UK. Let me reiterate to the House and Opposition Members that this is not just about cost; it is also about the policy rationale for the holiday, which is to target incentives on new businesses in regions with high levels of public sector employment. In their evidence to the Committee, representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce made it clear that the south-east is more resilient than the rest of the UK and that new business formation would not be harmed significantly because the holiday would not be available there. I should also mention to the House, and particularly to the right hon. Member for Delyn that all new and existing businesses in the south-east will benefit from the increase in the employers’ national insurance contributions threshold, which I assume the Labour party will oppose when we bring it forward, and from the reduction in corporation tax rates, as compared with the increase that Labour was going to bring in for small businesses.