Industry (Government Support)

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

I agree completely. Many companies made the point vigorously that if they went down now, future tax revenues would be lost, and the prospect of us going into a deeper and further recession would be much greater. The previous Government’s short-term measures to sustain local manufacturing were therefore essential.

I looked at what the coalition document says about the coalition Government’s commitment to manufacturing. I was disappointed to find that the only reference to manufacturing was in the section on business:

“Our aim is to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20, while protecting manufacturing industries.”

Although that is laudable and welcome, it is hardly the most robust commitment to sustaining our manufacturing industries. The previous Government’s measures to sustain demand and provide selective support, such as the car scrappage scheme, contributed to the current deficit, which, we are told, it is essential to eliminate if our manufacturing industry is to survive. However, the fact is that without incurring that debt our manufacturing industry would not have survived and would be in a far weaker position.

The title of the debate on the Order Paper is “Government Support for Industry”. The first thing the Secretary of State could do to support industry would be to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, “Stop making apocalyptic utterances about the state of our public finances.” I am happy to say that the report of the Office for Budget Responsibility on Monday demonstrated that our public finances were very much as reported by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in no way conform to the current Chancellor of the Exchequer’s scaremongering portrayals. That is a serious matter, as it not only has implications for investment in industry and the public services, but for the public climate, which might be very damaging to our industries. Literally millions of public sector workers feel that they could be affected by decisions about investment in our public services. As a result, they are likely to decide to save rather than spend, which will reduce demand and potentially precipitate that double-dip recession.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I understand the passion felt by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of public sector workers in particular, and I think that it is shared across the House. Does he not recognise, however, that the debt interest payments that we shall soon be making will affect every worker, and every non-worker, in the country?

[Mr Bailey]

I am committed to public sector workers, but I am equally committed to those in the private sector. My point is that unless we sustain our private sector in manufacturing industry, it will be far more difficult to pay off our debt in the long term. We need to sustain our base. That, I think, is a better strategic position, and it is the position taken by the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have spoken in a debate when you have been in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to it. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). He has a truly charming constituency—it is perhaps not quite as charming as my own—with a distinctive pioneering heritage. Given the eloquence of his speech, I believe that he will be doughty champion for people in his constituency.

My speech follows a long line of maiden speeches made today. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) referred to miners and former miners. He may be aware that the Government Chief Whip was also a miner, so he may add him to his little club. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) also spoke eloquently, as did the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), and our friendly doctor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), even though his joke was the worst that I have heard in a maiden speech. [Laughter.] I am sure he will thank me for that later.

I was terribly surprised that the first debate called by the Opposition was on Government support for industry, because these are the same people who have just been in government while we witnessed the loss of 1 million jobs in the manufacturing sector. I shall bring my personal experience to this debate, because I worked in manufacturing for 13 years for a company—not as a trade union official, but right in the thick of it. I should have said that I also worked for the BBC for six months and I saw where they filmed—I can assure hon. Members that they were the flashiest offices.

I worked in industry only under a Labour Government, and I am sorry to say that I learned the Labour litany “Regulation, regulation, regulation”, “Tax, tax, tax”, and “Reporting, reporting, reporting”. To sum up, I encountered a lot of bureaucracy and complexity wrapped up in red tape. There has been talk today about capital allowances, refunds and rebates, but for me, as a finance director of one of the subsidiaries of the company that I worked for, all I can say is that it got more and more complex. The only people who truly benefited were the tax accountants from PricewaterhouseCoopers and other firms. They were the people who had to take on the job, if we wanted to do it, of reclaiming the money. Better still, I think, is the attitude that we should stop telling industry how to invest and that we should reduce corporation tax instead. I praise the former Government, because they undertook that during their term of office. That was the right thing to do and I hope we will go further.

I want to share two small examples. I am sure that people will have sampled the excellent produce of Adnams, a company in Southwold in my constituency, which built a special new building that required no equipment to keep the beer cool. Because Adnams did not buy old-fashioned technology, it could not get capital allowances for it. It even pressed the former Prime Minister on this point, but people still cannot get capital allowances for a new building. Adnams has suffered as a consequence.

Let me use another example from my personal business experience: car tax. There are a lot of unintended consequences. The health and safety aspects, which I thought were important, meant that we insisted on estate cars for all our field-based employees. We tried to encourage them to buy or lease British-made cars, but the sad reality was that the extra costs of preparing for £600 or £700 of car duty meant that we had to think through the options of recommending that they no longer buy cars from manufacturers that made cars in Britain or to remove two or three jobs to pay for that. That is the unintended consequence of some of the legislation, which might sound good at the time, but in the real world means that jobs go.

Both sides of the House are united in believing that the private sector will lead the recovery—or, at least, most of us are. Of course, we disagree on how to do it. I see the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on the Opposition Front Bench; he is a great advocate for businesses in his constituency. I know his constituency quite well, not just because he soundly beat me five years ago when I stood for election there, but because I have cousins who live and work there in Kellogg’s and other businesses. For me, it is an example of a one-business town—mining was a big part of it—that has diversified. It needs to broaden its base and I welcome that, but we need to see that more across every region—every county, I should say—in our great country.

The RDAs were one of the flagship policies of the last Government and I am delighted that they are having their sails trimmed—indeed, that they are being scuttled. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is not with us at the moment, referred to a report. I am not sure which one he was talking about, but the National Audit Office published its report just three months ago and it was not rosy reading when it came to the effectiveness of the RDAs in helping business. The net cost was £60,000 per job created, which is a hefty introduction fee for trying to get jobs into our economy. The NAO was unable to say that there was value for money and could not conclude that the return for money was optimal. It blamed aspects of poor project analysis, pervasive optimism bias—that is, very rose-tinted spectacles were worn in considering how particular projects would generate benefits—and weak evaluation. Indeed, it made the point that most RDAs were unaware until 2009 of the types of projects that yielded the best and most enduring benefits.

The fact that in a number of cases RDAs struggled to identify market failure and, where an intervention was made, they could not justify why they had done the project, speaks volumes to me. It gives a feel of money being thrown at projects, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) mentioned, and throwing money does not solve a problem. That might be backed up by the statistic given by the NAO—30% of RDA funds were spent in one month, the last month of the financial year, when RDAs were desperate to get rid of their budget, no matter where.

I shall not cry to see the RDAs go. I am not saying that everything they have done was bad, but for me they are not necessarily the best way to deliver the support that businesses need. The key point that the National Audit Office uncovered was that targeted business support generated the best return. I hope that the new local enterprise partnerships will focus on that and will learn that lesson.

I welcome the amendment to the motion, because it mentions the college places and apprenticeships that are necessary to rebuild the skills needed to get Britain back on its feet. Local businesses of mine, including EDF at Sizewell and BT at Martlesham, already run apprenticeship schemes that are oversubscribed, and I hope we can encourage more to do so. Companies such as Brafe Engineering in Woodbridge want more technically skilled people coming through—not just people with degrees in any subject, no matter what. We have to do this and it is absolutely imperative to have appropriate Government support and not just the blank, scattergun approach that is the legacy of the previous Government. I support the amendment.