Finance (No.2) Bill

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman is now being completely stupid, is he not? There are two rates of tax that will raise no money—0% and 100%—and there is a curve between the two, which, as he rightly said, was first drawn by Mr Laffer, I believe on a napkin. Most people, including the Treasury, accept that there is a Laffer curve, and that it is a question of judgment where the rate is that maximises revenue. It is quite clear from the evidence in this year’s Revenue and Customs figures that 50% was too high a rate to maximise revenue, and that 45% gets us more revenue than 50%. I believe that 40% would get us more revenue than 45%. I am pleased to hear today that a Liberal Democrat, of all people, is writing a book on the subject. I welcome that and look forward to more progress in coalition talks about the maximising rate of income tax. If it were taken down to 20%, we would clearly lose a lot of money, so somewhere between there and where we are now is the maximising rate, and getting it right is partly science and partly trial and error. We can be sure that we are now moving in the right direction, having gone in the wrong one previously.

It is interesting that the previous Prime Minister, during all his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, never took the top rate above 40%. I do not think that was because he liked rich people or wanted to be unkind to the left wing of the Labour party. I believe it was his judgment that anything over 40% would have cost him revenue. As a modest man, I therefore accept that there was something about which he was absolutely right—he was correct in not raising the top rate of tax above 40%.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made a case about corporation tax and about the top rate of income tax being reduced from 50p to 45p. Would he apply the same logic of Laffer to indirect taxation? It would be interesting to hear his comments about the raising of VAT to 20%.

[Mr Redwood]

It is clear from the figures that the raising of the rate to 20% increased revenue. Yes, there is a Laffer effect in VAT, and 20% is clearly below the optimising point if our only interest is in increasing revenue. Going from 17.5% to 20% has not got us to the point where it costs us revenue. If it had, I would have been the first to tell Ministers that it was a ridiculous idea. I understand their need for more revenue, because they inherited such a huge deficit.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Of course, companies often pay VAT before they even make a profit.

[Mr Redwood]

Indeed, there are timing issues with VAT, as the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not really see how that affects the argument about whether putting the rate up brings in more money. That is in the figures.

I fear that we are drifting a bit far even from the wide subject of the amendment, but I suppose the alternative options to help business could include cutting VAT. However, it is clear that if we cut the rate of VAT again, there would be a substantial loss of revenue, whereas we have just cut the income tax rate and there has been a colossal revenue gain. We should learn from those points.

I think the shadow Minister suggested that there would be no loss of revenue to local government from cutting and then freezing business rates. I do not know whether she wants to intervene, but that was my understanding of what she said. I think the Labour party has been converted to the Laffer effect. It now asserts—I do not know on what evidence—that if we cut and then froze business rates, we would collect the same amount of revenue. I would need persuading about that, because I am not sure that business rates are at that point yet, but if they were, it would be a sensible proposal for the coalition Government to take up. It would make it an even bigger pity that Labour has not bothered to table a proposal along those lines for us to vote on today, which might even have drawn me into the Lobby against my own party’s Front Benchers if the case had been well made and I felt that the Laffer effect of lower business rates was well established. I have profoundly shocked my Front-Bench colleagues now, having earned myself a brownie point through my earlier remarks. As they are well aware, they are quite safe, because there is no proposal on the amendment paper to cut business rates. [Interruption.] The Whip has just found that out—she needs to do a little more homework before coming to these debates. [Interruption.] Now she is complaining that she did not say that. As she will be in the record as having said nothing, who am I to disagree?

Before I get into any more trouble, I will conclude my remarks by saying that I will not support the amendment. I do not believe that a review would help, and I do not understand how it would be judged. Nor does it seem that it would have any impact on Labour policy. I am perplexed by the fact that when Labour has a clear policy for once, it has not tabled a proposal so that we can debate it fully and vote on it. I strongly support lower corporation tax rates, which will be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a review would be important? A corporation tax cut would be welcomed by the business community, but it is not the priority in certain sectors. For example, energy-intensive industries are more concerned about capital allowances—the Government have had to U-turn on getting rid of them—and the carbon price floor, which affects the chemical and steel industries.

[Mike Kane]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Government Members have said that amendment 2 would create uncertainty, but if the Committee agreed to it and to a review, businesses would welcome it, because a review would be part of the ongoing debate.

The amendment would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the planned cut in corporation tax in the 2015-16 financial year from 21p to 20p. The amendment calls for the assessment of the impact specifically on SMEs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that Conservative Members are talking about a 20% rate of corporation tax, which is a direct tax on profit, but have no qualms about how a review might interplay with things such as value added tax, which many, if not all, small businesses pay and is paid prior to profit?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Value added tax has been a difficulty for a lot of individuals and for small businesses. The amendment is an opportunity for us to review these matters. If Conservative Members are right that such a change would be harmful, a review would show that. It has to be demonstrated to the small businesses of this country why a proposal of this kind is thought to be harmful to our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Again, we are seeing movement in the right direction. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced additional support for exports through the expansion of the direct lending scheme. Moreover, in 2012-13 British business received £4.3 billion of support from UK Export Finance, which was a 12-year high.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I think I am right in saying that the UK current account deficit has not been as bad as it is now since 1955, when records began. The Minister may wish to correct me, but I am certain that that is the case.

[Mr Gauke]

The Government are taking steps to ensure that we can export more. We recognise that we need to export more, and that we need more business investment. However, the way in which to ensure that that happens is not to try to avoid a competitive tax system, or to turn our back on the progress that we have made. All that would put the recovery at risk, and I fear that it is what we would get from Labour.

Amendment of the Law

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I have calculated that this is the 18th Budget to which I have responded in some capacity, and the fourth directly to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls). However, since he wrote many of the others, I was probably responding to him indirectly. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman over the years, I have picked up on some traits. First, he obviously has a capacity for a crunchy, memorable soundbite that often turns out to be wrong. I think he was the author of the phrase “No more boom and bust”, the consequences of which we are still living with. I also think he was the author of “triple-dip recession”, which of course we never had.

When we first had these exchanges a couple of years ago, the right hon. Gentleman had a very good football chant going on the Back Benches behind him: “Growth down, inflation up. Unemployment up.” Now of course we have growth up, unemployment down and inflation down. His current favourite is the “millionaires’ tax cut”, which I would find a little more persuasive had I not sat on on the Opposition Benches for 10 years being lectured by him and his boss that any increase in the top rate of tax above 40% would be counterproductive and damaging to the economy.

One feature of the right hon. Gentleman’s speeches that we all look forward to is the annual conjuring trick, and the 10 different ways we could use a bankers’ bonus tax. The rabbit out of the hat trick gets progressively more difficult because the rabbit gets bigger and the hat gets smaller as time passes, so I shall remind him of some of the figures.

When the right hon. Gentleman was City Minister and presiding over all of this, the total bankers’ bonus pool was something in the order of £11.3 billion, and it was £11.5 billion the following year when the Labour Government brought in a bankers’ bonus tax. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which monitors these things, the bankers’ bonus pool was £1.6 billion last year. In the current year, it is estimated to be £1.3 billion. That is one-tenth of the size of the bonus pool on which the original tax was placed. We are then left with the question that is at the core of his fiscal policy: how is he going to get £3 billion in tax out of a £1.5 billion bonus pool? The charitable way to describe that is as a mathematical puzzle. We ought to refer it to the new Turing institute to investigate.

I should perhaps declare one self-interest. I do not have an interest in the millionaires’ tax, but compared with both the shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor I am more likely to take advantage of the relaxation in the annuity rules. It is worth recalling that over many years I came to this House on many Friday mornings, with Back Benchers from my own party and Conservative Opposition MPs, to try to achieve this reform. We were confronted with relentless stonewalling by the Labour Government of the day, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a part and in which he participated directly, with the very simple message that pensioners were far too stupid and irresponsible to be trusted with their own pension savings. This is one of the really big, major positive changes to come out of the Budget.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I hope the Secretary of State can explain to me and my constituents, who have seen their average gross weekly earnings decline by £160 since the general election, when adjusted for the consumer prices index, how they will be able to afford to exploit the new annuities rules on pension savings?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman poses an issue that I am coming on to immediately, which is why we are a poorer country. There are people who have saved and have annuities, and there are many middle-income occupational pensioners who will take advantage of that. The central economic question raised is this: why are we a poorer country and how has that affected our living standards?

The question goes back to the financial crisis, which occurred when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were in government. The Chancellor reminded us yesterday of the brutal fact that the British banking collapse and rescue was the biggest in the world. It was the biggest collapse in our history, going back not just decades but centuries, and it has done enormous harm. It has made the country poorer. The immediate after-effects of the collapse were to reduce output in this country by 7.5%, which is more than in the great depression. Not surprisingly, that has affected living standards in a radical way. It has impaired our capacity to recover from the damage inflicted on the banking system. It has required our country and the United States, but particularly here, under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and the coalition Government, to resort to very unorthodox monetary policy. That has had a major impact on savings—which the Chancellor is now trying to remedy—asset prices and other factors. Opposition Members are surprised and indignant when they tell us that people are poorer than they were before the financial crisis. What are they comparing it with?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

I have taken an intervention.

Let me start with employment. What could well have happened, as a result of the financial crisis and its aftermath, was mass unemployment of the kind we had in the 1930s. We could very easily have got up to 20% unemployment, but we did not. We now have the lowest unemployment of any major country except Germany—lower than France and Sweden. This is partly a reflection of Government policy, but it is mainly a reflection of the common sense and flexibility of British workers, who accepted that in this crisis it was most important to be in work. We are now seeing the success of employment policy in the fact that we have had an enormous growth in employment, with 1.25 million net of public sector job losses and a gross increase of 1.75 million. Roughly five private sector jobs have been created for every one lost in the public sector. These are predominantly, in fact overwhelmingly, full-time jobs. The Opposition’s argument has been, “Well, okay, there are lots of jobs but they are part time,” but last year, in 2013, there were 460,000 new jobs, of which 430,000—95%—were full-time jobs.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Since this Government came to power, the number of zero-hours contract jobs has trebled to more than 500,000. In 2012-13, some 3.48 million people had an average national insurance liability of £172 and were earning less than the lowest income tax threshold. That is an indicator of the type of work that people are having to take now, and they are still having to pay national insurance contributions on income below the income tax rate.

[Vince Cable]

We are well aware of some of the problems that arise with zero-hours contracts. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman knows, some months ago I commissioned a full consultation on dealing with abuses. What has come out of that consultation suggests that it is actually a very complex story. A lot of workers benefit from being on zero-hours contracts and want them to continue. Many do not and do encounter abuse. I am sure that before the end of this Parliament, Members will have an opportunity to vote on measures designed to deal with those abuses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right: compared with other institutions, RBS is particularly remiss in its lending policies, and that relates to the seriousness of its balance-sheet position and its failed attempt to become a big global bank. I meet the chief executive from time to time and I think he is trying to change the culture of the bank in a positive way, and move it in the direction of some of the other banks, such as Lloyds, which have already achieved that transformation.

The first priority has been to develop business investment and the Chancellor’s initiatives help with that. The second, and extremely important, priority, which has already been hinted at in interventions by Government Members, is in relation to manufacturing industry. It is important to take stock of the context here. We have had a catastrophic decline in manufacturing industry over a long period of time. Some of that is driven by technology and some of it is driven by international trade over which we have relatively little control, but certainly in the period after 1997 we saw the share of the British economy accounted for by manufacturing shrink from 20% to 10%, a decline that was even more rapid than in the mid-1980s, when policies were considered to be unfriendly to manufacturing. We lost 1.6 million jobs in that period.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the work force at the Redcar steel plant in Teesside fell from 25,000 to 5,000 between 1987 and 1992, with several on-site plants being closed, but what is different now is the carbon price floor. Would the Secretary of State like to take credit for the Chancellor’s policy on that, which this Government brought in and which has led to the closure of Alcan in Northumberland and has put severe pressure on the steel industry in particular? In this context, will he bring the programme forward by two years so we do not have to wait another two years?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the point I was about to make. One of the really positive announcements the Chancellor made yesterday recognises the difficulties facing the energy-intensive industries. I am aware that the Alcan smelter closed. I was there; I talked to the management about it and they acknowledged that although energy prices in the UK were one factor in their decision, it was by no means the only one. However, our energy-intensive industries are crucially important and it is not clever for them to close and migrate overseas, as we then simply get carbon leakage and do not do anything to improve the environment. It is therefore very important that they are protected from the increased costs that result from green taxation. The interventions the Chancellor made yesterday, which are very radical and meet the concerns of the industry, primarily centre on the renewables obligations and the feed-in tariffs and giving the industry effective compensation for those costs. I shall now be pursuing that with the European Commission, trying to ensure we get state aid clearance. The feedback we have had this morning from the engineering employers and other manufacturers suggests they are satisfied that the Government have taken a radical step that overwhelmingly meets their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

First, I want to discuss the effects of the Budget on the steel industry. I welcome the news that the Government have announced their intention to introduce relief against the rapidly rising costs of carbon levies, and the mitigation of the renewables obligation is a particularly good step forward. As chair of the all-party group on steel and metal related industry, I, along with colleagues from the group, trade unions and the steel industry, have been campaigning hard on that for a long time. Having said that, however, I do have some concerns. The compensation is still two financial years away and the steel industry will continue to face considerable challenges in the interim given that the international demand for steel is still at mid-financial crisis levels and is probably worsening. Will the Minister clarify whether state aid clearance will take those two years and is there any way that the Treasury can bring the compensation forward so that the steel sector and other foundation industries do not have to wait?

I remind the House that the carbon price floor, which hits UK manufacturing four times as hard as our EU competitors, was introduced by this Chancellor and this Government. That has led to a number of jobs being lost, particularly at the Tata Steel site in Newport where 200 jobs were highlighted for potential redundancy last week. We have also seen the loss of Alcan in Northumberland as well as other manufacturing sites in the foundation sector.

I am similarly cautious about the Government’s proposals to increase the personal allowance. Although on the face of it that is an attractive policy, I am wary as increasing the personal allowance for income tax will do nothing for the millions of low earners who earn less than the current personal allowance.

It has recently been reported in the press that the Chancellor is considering renaming national insurance in the run-up to a potential merger with income tax, so I am surprised that the Budget does nothing to address the anomaly faced by millions of people who earn less than the annualised primary threshold and still face a class 1 national insurance contribution liability. For example, despite earning less than the annualised primary threshold in 2012-13 some 3.48 million people had an average national insurance liability of £172 simply because of the distribution of their earnings across the year. The anomaly is caused by the fact that national insurance liability is calculated per pay period rather than annually. That is particularly problematic for the 583,000 people working on zero-hours contracts—a figure that has trebled since the general election—whose pay varies significantly week to week. I urge Ministers to revisit this subject in addition to considering raising the personal allowance, as it would be a positive step to take those very low earners out of an unpopular and regressive tax. I also want to see an update from the Chancellor on his 2011 proposal to merge national insurance and income tax.

I also have some concerns about the Government’s proposed changes to ISAs and the proposed introduction of a pensioners savings bond. I have tabled a number of written questions on these issues, but I hope that Ministers will be able to address them today. As many hon. Members have stated, increasing the ISA limit does little to help those who could not dream of saving £15,000 a year. I think that is a legitimate concern, but I am also somewhat concerned by the removal of the distinction between a cash ISA and a stocks and shares ISA. My fear is that it might nudge savers to move investments from stocks and shares ISAs, the contents of which often include the more speculative investments necessary to allow for innovation and growth, to low-yield cash ISAs. Although savers have differing personal risk appetites, it would be interesting to see what assessment the Treasury has made of the effects of ISA simplification on capital markets.

I am also concerned about the pensioners savings bond. Although of course we all want pensioners to get the best possible deal, I am curious about how, at a time of austerity and cuts, the Treasury can fiscally justify paying 4% annual interest on a three-year bond for pensioners when a three-year gilt yield is less than 1.2%. I am also curious about how the Chancellor feels that it is justifiable to offer the product only to those who are over 65 and not to younger hard-working families who might want access to such a market-beating preferential interest rate or who, for reasons such as early-retirement caused by workplace injury or other anomalies, might financially depend on income from savings. I have tabled questions to ask how the Government will account for that and whether they will consider the 4% annual interest they will pay on the debt under the debt interest headings they use in their analyses. Furthermore, has the Treasury considered whether it will crowd investment out of the private sector by offering such an interest rate when banks and building societies are offering, at best, a 2.7% fixed annual interest rate on three-year bonds? In previous Budgets from this Government, we have heard arguments about the public sector crowding out the private sector. I would like to see a Treasury assessment of how the policy might crowd out the private sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It sounds very tough, campaigning in Hereford.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing those businesses to the attention of the House, and congratulate him on the support that he has given to the economic policies that are helping them to grow. He is absolutely right: we must continue to support firms of that kind. High street shops, pubs, cafés and the like will, of course, benefit from the £1,000 rate relief which will be introduced this spring, and which will be a huge help to all—or most—of the businesses on the high streets of Hereford.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Average weekly gross pay in my constituency has fallen by 32.5% since 2010. Why?

[Mr Osborne]

The person who had the best answer to that question was the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said very clearly that the reason why the country was poorer was the very deep recession. He said that we have had the biggest recession in 100 years and that it would be astonishing if household incomes had not fallen and earnings had not fallen. This country is poorer because of the disastrous economic policies of the shadow Chancellor. It is under this Government that the economy is growing and jobs are being created, including jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

14. What recent comparative assessment he has made of trends in real wages in the UK and in similar economies.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

Last year, UK take-home pay was the highest in the G7 and the third highest in the OECD. The best way of raising living standards is to deal with the economic crisis so that families can find work in a growing economy.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The United Kingdom now has the highest rate of inflation in the European Union, and has suffered the second largest fall in wages in the G20 since the Government took office. In my constituency, women’s gross average weekly wages have fallen by £12.30 a week since May 2010. Is this a deliberate attack on wages by the Government, or is the Chancellor simply incompetent?

[Nicky Morgan]

I find it unbelievable that the hon. Gentleman really has the gall to stand up and ask that question. I wonder whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who said:

“From 2004 onwards, beneath the miraculous arc of rising average incomes, families on ‘median incomes’—millions of workers grafting as small employers, sales assistants, cashiers, construction and factory workers—were feeling the strain...people were working just as hard as ever—but were not getting on”.

That was happening under a Labour Government.

Cost of Living

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members know—I am highlighting this as much as I can in the debate—just how many lives and aspirations the Labour Government destroyed in their time in office.

The House has just heard the shadow Treasury Minister. His speech was more interesting for what was not in it than for what was. There is no talk today of plan B—[Interruption.] What the shadow Treasury did not mention was predictable. Let me say what it was, because four or five months ago, we heard what he did not say today in virtually every single speech from Labour Front Benchers. We heard no talk today of plan B. I did not hear anyone say, “Too far, too fast.” There was no mention of a double-dip, let alone of a triple-dip, because Labour Members know that there has been only one dip in recent times: Labour’s dip. They have comprehensively lost the economic argument. They have no plan and no answers for the problems they helped to create.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sajid Javid]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any answers to the problems Labour helped to create?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I have no answer to the fact that we saw more growth in the last quarter of 2010 under the Labour Government than we did in the whole of 2011.

[Sajid Javid]

Let us talk about the growth in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the record 92% increase in unemployment in his constituency in Labour’s last term? I notice that he did not refer to the 18% decline under this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

The US did not have a Government as incompetent as the one we had in Britain, who boasted the sharpest decline in GDP in this country in living memory and in our post-war history. When I said earlier that Labour left this country poorer, I am sure the hon. Lady realised—if she did not, I am happy to repeat it—that we saw the sharpest decline in GDP of any major developed country during Labour’s term in office.

Our economic plan is pulling in growing inward investment, with inflows into the UK in the first half of this year greater than any other country in the world except China. As I mentioned earlier, we are increasing exports to growing economies. From 2009 to 2012, exports to Brazil were up by 49%, to India by 59%, to China by 96%, and to Russia by 133%. We have become a net exporter of cars for the first time since 1976.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the Minister please explain why, since 2011, lending to small and medium-sized enterprises has gone down by £30 billion? Long-term female unemployment in my constituency has increased by 144% since his Government came to power.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that SME lending was hit from 2010 to 2011 because of Labour’s banking crisis. We had the deepest banking crisis and the largest bank bail-out the world has ever seen. What did he think the impact was going to be? He should welcome the Government’s action to help SME lending, including the funding for lending scheme, which has helped thousands of companies.

The Opposition claim that economic growth is not felt by people across the UK and that living standards are falling. The truth is that the previous Labour Government left the country a lot poorer and, as a result, many hard-working families are finding it difficult. Our long-term plan for the economy, the plan that has put our country on a path to prosperity, will help those families. What better way to increase standards of living than by making sure that as many Britons as possible can take home a steady wage at the end of each month? With more than 1.4 million private sector jobs created in the past three years—more private sector jobs created in three years of this Government than in 13 years of the previous Labour Government—we now have more people employed than at any time in our history.

We are also taking measures that help to keep more cash in the pockets of hard-working people up and down the country, while economic confidence has helped to keep mortgage bills low. If mortgage rates rose by just 1%, the average mortgage bill would increase by about £1,000 a year. We are also letting people keep more of their hard-earned income. Our increases in the personal allowance are worth £700 each year to every average taxpayer—a tax cut for more than 25 million people—while 2.7 million people on low incomes have been taken out of income tax altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

The £7 that I mentioned is net of the £1.50 VAT increase.

Interest rates are being kept down, and council tax has been frozen for three years in many areas. Sadly, my Labour council has preferred to take money out of people’s pockets rather than taking Government money to keep the council tax down.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

As a fellow MP in the Redcar and Cleveland borough council area, the hon. Gentleman will know that, between 2003 and 2007, the coalition Lib Dem, Conservative and independent council raised council tax by more than 25%, which was more than during the previous four years or the following four years under Labour.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman has an excellent memory. I think that people will judge the council on how it is spending the money that it raises.

This Government have also scrapped Labour’s national insurance hike and, above all, implemented the Lib Dem policy of raising the tax threshold to £10,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman will agree that the hundreds of millions of pounds of tax credits that the Government have made available to the oil and gas industry will help make that resource more exploitable in future and keep the supplies on. It comes down to a fundamental issue: what do we need to do to tackle the cost of living crisis? What we do not need, and what my constituents do not want to hear, is “It’s your fault for going down the austerity route” or “The collapse of the banks is your fault.” They want to say, “Look, we know all that—we know what’s going on.” That is why in most opinion polls, a majority of people still blame the Labour Government for the economic mess we are in. [Interruption.] It is all very well the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) shaking his head—that is what my constituents tell me, and I am out on the doorstep all the time.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I have given way enough. I am sorry—I am running out of time.

We have to tackle the core issue, and we have to do two things at the same time. The Government are achieving the first one. We have put the economy on the road to recovery following the deepest recession in the history of the nation caused by lack of fiscal control of the banking system—a tripartite system that allowed the banking industry to run wild. Even today, as we see with the Co-op bank, the Labour party is unwilling to take tough decisions with regard to banking. The only public inquiry that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to call for is into the Co-op—I wonder why, but we will find out when it takes place.

We have to grow the economy, which will lead to wage rises, but we must also have a much longer strategic look at how we supply energy in this country. I agree with the Prime Minister—whether or not what was reported in the newspapers was true, green taxes are regressive, and it is amazing that the Labour party, which has always opposed regressive taxation, says that we should keep a regressive tax and not push it into a progressive tax. At the end of the day, energy prices have gone up. [Interruption.] These are luxuries from the boom time that people can ill afford. It is a disgrace that, despite the fact that we are doing everything that we can to grow the economy, and create real jobs that will last and, I hope, be better proofed against the ups and downs of Government spending in future, people are struggling to deal with the cost of heating and the cost of food. The fundamental cause is the high price of energy. It is absolutely vital that the energy reforms and fiscal reforms introduced by the Government carry on and should only be changed as we move forward with energy policies for the long term, not short-term gimmicks. That is what people need.

Women and the Cost of Living

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

That intervention shows the extent of the collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. First, on the banking crisis the point is that the necessary reserves to deal with the unforeseen consequences were not set aside. Secondly, the last Government systematically over many years spent more than they were raising in taxes, so there were not the reserves to deal with this.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm two facts: first, that SME investment in Britain has fallen by £30 billion since 2011, and, secondly, that the Government are accruing more debt in the five years from 2010 to 2015 than the Labour Government did in 13 years?

[Nicky Morgan]

I do not agree on either point. The point about the borrowing is that it is called the automatic stabiliser, and it works. When the economy is in the situation it is in, it is helping out the very families the hon. Member for Ashfield was talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) that the Chancellor is a Goldilocks Chancellor—he goes around people’s houses nicking all their porridge. He and his colleague the Prime Minister are very much the brothers Grimm of Parliament at the moment.

I want to talk about the unquestionably disproportionate impact many of the Government’s policies are having on women. The north-east region, which includes my constituency, is particularly hard hit. I hope that Ministers take our points onboard and take the necessary steps to rectify the many issues in the region. I will focus on three areas: first, the unemployment rate among women, particularly the rate of long-term unemployment—those claiming for more than 12 months; secondly, pay equality; and lastly, the broader issue of the cost of living crisis currently facing women.

In May 2010, there were 20,657 female unemployed benefit claimants in the north-east. Last month, that figure was 25,973. That is a 25.7% increase. In my constituency, long-term unemployment among women has increased by 144% since the general election in May 2010. That is a shockingly huge amount and one that I am sure my colleagues would agree is completely disgraceful. The picture across neighbouring Teesside seats is no better. In Redcar, the figure is almost 157% worse, but worse still, in Stockton South, the increase has been a mammoth 205%. That is the increase in long-term female unemployment between May 2010 and October 2013.

While the Government might be able to present figures that show a small increase in employment, the jobs have tended to be in the south-east and clearly are not helping those unfortunately in long-term unemployment. More broadly, historically, the north-east economy has been built largely on male-dominated heavy industry, and while the more traditional industries, such as chemicals and steel, have had tough times recently, under the previous Labour Government, the area saw an increase in smaller scale, but highly-skilled industries and a diversification into other industries.

[Jim Shannon]

Is it not time perhaps that big industry, particularly the STEM industries—science, technology, engineering and maths—offered more job opportunities to ladies rather than men to make it equal?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will come to that later.

Women, particularly young women, are more likely to find themselves in low-paid work, such as customer services, retail, care work and the leisure industry—sectors offering fewer progression opportunities and lower pay.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he has already admitted that there are considerable differences in the UK—in my constituency, the situation is very much brighter—which suggests a structural imbalance. Would he agree that the last Government did nothing, in any real terms, to address that structural balance, which is one of the reasons for the situation he is describing?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I cannot agree with that at all. The structural imbalance—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the staple industries in the north-east—has had a long-term effect primarily because of his party’s record in the north-east of decimating heavy industry back in the ’80s and ’90s. The increase in female unemployment is unprecedented. I have never before seen these levels of female unemployment. Previously, we had long-term male unemployment in my region. That was difficult, but families still had a working mother. Now, these families have unemployed mothers and fathers, meaning far more significant long-term consequences for my area. That is what I am frightened about.

There is a big gender split in apprenticeships, because young women take a much narrower range of apprenticeships than young men, yet there remains a skill shortage in these new industries. It seems only logical, then, that all the stops should be pulled out to encourage young women seriously to consider these industries as a career. Increasing the number of women working—or at least taking up apprenticeships—in these male-dominated industries would go a long way to stem the flow from short-term to long-term unemployment. We must challenge the stereotypes in careers advice for young women and encourage more girls to take up higher skilled apprenticeships, but that has been made increasingly difficult by a Government who have undermined careers services. One of the Government’s first decisions was to get rid of Connexions, which was a careers advice service in schools giving children guidance on career paths.

On equal pay, the gender pay gap stands at 15%, unchanged on the year before. We know that the reasons for the persistent gap are varied and complex, ranging from occupational segregation to a lack of well-paid part-time work and, even in this day and age, discrimination in the workplace.

In August, the Chartered Management Institute found that women who have reached management positions can expect to earn only three quarters of the pay of their male colleagues. Even more staggering was the finding that the more highly skilled and highly paid the profession, the greater the gap between men and women’s pay. In modern Britain, undervaluing the talents and skills of women is a loss to the whole economy, so the issue of equal pay is a tough nut that needs to be cracked.

Several actions could be taken to help that situation. For example, the introduction of mandatory pay reporting, including the Equality Act 2010, would highlight the differences between what businesses pay their male and females colleagues. We should improve the law on flexible working and do more to encourage businesses to utilise flexible working practices. However, the revelation that up to 50,000 women a year could be losing their jobs while on maternity leave is a shocking one, yet far from doing anything about it, Ministers are making it worse by charging women £1,200 for challenging discrimination at an employment tribunal.

To address the specific barriers that single mothers face, we Labour Members will support women who have to juggle work and child care by restoring breakfast and after-school clubs in primary schools from 6 am to 8 pm for every child, and provide 25 hours of free child care for three and four-year-olds of working parents. Those are simple actions that the Government should seriously consider.

My final point is on the broader issue of the cost of living crisis that women currently face. As we all know, women are struggling as prices continue to rise faster than wages, and the latest figures show that working people are on average £1,600 a year worse off since May 2010.

The Government’s change to the tax credits rules means thousands of families will have lost out on their working tax credits unless they have been able to increase their working hours significantly. Any woman or any couple earning less than about £17,700 will need to increase the number of hours they work from a minimum of 16 to 24 a week—otherwise, they will lose working tax credits of about £3,500 a year. According to the House of Commons Library, this has hit 212,000 low-income families.

Of course, the situation was supposed to have been compensated for by the March 2012 Budget’s introduction of universal credit that was to come into force last month. To a certain extent, it would have restored families to a parity with what was seen with working tax credits under Labour. Due to the ongoing chaos in the Department for Work and Pensions, that has not happened. Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned the Tory Free Enterprise Group and its proposals to increase the price of food and children’s clothes by 15%.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

No.

This group of 42 Tory MPs sees it as necessary to raise VAT on gas and electricity to 15%, which would add £120 to the average energy bill. Let me remind the House that when the Prime Minister was an adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the previous Conservative Government, he advised that Chancellor to bring in VAT on fuel. He also advised that Chancellor to bring in air passenger duty and the fuel duty escalator. VAT has risen under every Conservative Government since it was introduced—another fact for Government Members to ponder. That is an illustration of the Tory addiction to indirect taxation.

For women, there is an even harsher reality. There is an increasing financial burden on women with many, particularly over 40-year-olds, prioritising supporting their children over building up a pension pot. Many have to find the money for family caring responsibilities or to pay off debts. Disproportionately stuck on pay below the living wage rate, 27% of women are not paid the living wage, compared with 16% of men. This gap is especially distressing now that mothers are either the breadwinners or co-breadwinners for their families in many households.

The future is not too bright either. Research by insurance firm, Scottish Widows found that only 40% of women put enough money aside for an “adequate” retirement—down from 50% two years ago, and the lowest amount since the number started to be tracked under Labour in 2006. On average, women who are saving are putting aside £182 each month, compared with £260 for men—a pensions “gender gap” of £1,000 in contributions each year. The continued squeeze on the cost of living has made it much harder for many women not only to live an adequate and healthy lifestyle now, but to consider saving for their future and retirement. The gender pay gap, the opportunity gap and the oncoming pensions gap have played a significant part in explaining why it is imperative to bridge those gaps sooner rather than later.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I entirely agree. That £2,000 for every business will feed through by helping businesses take on new staff, invest in their business or pay higher wages. It is a positive contribution, which contrasts with the proposals that we inherited for an increase in employer’s national insurance contributions.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Why since 2011 has SME investment and lending to SMEs fallen by £30 billion?

[Mr Gauke]

We have had to deal with the aftermath of a banking crisis that occurred, in part, because of failed regulation set up by the previous Government.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I should like to address the comments of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) about capital allowances. I, too, welcome the Government’s capital allowance proposals, but they are a U-turn—the Government reduced pre-2010 Labour levels of capital allowances to 25% of what they were, but have since returned them to pre-2010 levels.

The north-east leads the way on exports. Government Members have said that the export recovery has not occurred, but the north-east already had very good exports from industry. Compared with other regions in the country, the north-east leads the way. For example, Cleveland Potash at Boulby in my constituency today announced a £300 million investment, which will create 120 new jobs and secure more than 1,000 existing jobs in the potash pit. That occurs on the one-year anniversary of the recommencement of iron and steel production at the Redcar blast furnace at the Teesside Cast Products site, which is under the joint operation of Sahaviriya Steel Industries and Tata. That is a victory for the campaign of local people on Teesside, of which I was proud to be a part, as was the hon. Member for Redcar. Success is now synonymous with Teesside, and people in Teesside are proud to say that they are a success. We look forward to a future built upon the industrial development and manufacturing legacy of the 13 years under Labour.

Organisations such as the North East of England Process Industry Cluster were created in conjunction with the Labour Government and One North East. NEPIC centred on the north-east’s assets, particularly in the chemical and steel industries, and the heritage of shipbuilding—TAG Energy uses the Haverton Hill site, formerly a shipyard and dock, to produce monopile construction units for the offshore wind turbine market.

By contrast, the words “double dip”, “double debt” and “credit rating downgrade” are synonymous with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Government. Since the autumn statement, growth, which was estimated to be poor, has halved in just over three months from 1.2% to 0.6%. The accrual of debt by this downgraded Chancellor from 2010 to 2015 is more than the total debt accrued by the previous Labour Government in their entire 13 years. Despite that and the overwhelming evidence, the Chancellor affirmed in his Budget that borrowing is falling. Public borrowing shows that the Government books were in the red to the tune of £121 billion last year. They are forecast to improve only marginally to £120.9 billion in 2012-13.

Tax revenues have fallen £5.1 billion short of the predictions in the autumn statement, despite the hailed employment figures. That is largely owing to the fact that, despite increases in nominal employment, productivity has fallen massively. That is matched by a huge fall in tax take. The irony is that we have always been told that the private sector is more efficient. Supposedly, we have 1 million more private sector workers, and gross domestic product is falling, so more people are doing less. That is a re-unbalancing of the economy if I ever saw one.

Similarly, the increase in the number of employed women is largely due to the fact that fewer women between the ages of 60 and 64 have retired. Women are working to a later age because state old age pensions have changed. That has undoubtedly helped employment figures. The Chancellor was able to massage his borrowing down only by persuading the OBR that Government Departments would spend £3.4 billion less than their allocated budgets this year. Only three months after the previous forecast, the budget deficit is expected to be an average £11 billion worse throughout the five-year forecast period. In cash terms, the problem lies with poor tax receipts, which have been hit by disappointing revenues this year, and vastly reduced forecasts for nominal gross domestic product, which is now at one seventh of the original growth expectations set in June 2010.

On the other hand, Robert Chote and the OBR assume the economy has the scope for rapid catch-up growth of 2.3% of national income even after April 2018. But with so much slack in the economy to be assumed for the rest of this decade, it is strange that the OBR does not show inflation falling below its target level of 2% at any time. Are Ministers concerned by that? If the OBR admitted this to be the case, it could no longer live within the Chancellor’s demands and would probably have to admit not £9 billion, but something more in the region of £17 billion a year of tax rises or spending cuts, as a result of earlier Government inaction.

The nation’s debt and the Government’s borrowing are completely dependent upon the Chancellor’s “monetary activism”. However, minutes of the Bank of England’s latest meeting show that the new Governor, Mark Carney, failed to win any support for his case for further quantitative easing. Most of the MPC look worried about the potential damage of a run on sterling, and the effectiveness in any case of further asset purchases as banks and households look to clear debts. However, without further QE, the Chancellor cannot keep his borrowing rates down, as the borrowing at low rates to buy gilts in order to borrow at low rates is the true reason for low interest rates, not the heavily front-ended, growth-strangling cuts we have witnessed to date.

Furthermore, big businesses continual deleveraging will not be turned into sudden investment with further corporation tax cuts. Corporation tax cuts will just aid business to further deleverage debt. It has never been so cheap for the state to borrow, and the Chancellor is neither using this cheap accessible capital to pump-prime the economy nor persuading banks and big business to free up their substantial reserves and corporate funds. The Chancellor’s language and tone set the mood music for the economy, and his constant message of national deleveraging has sent everyone into a deleveraging frenzy. Banks are hoarding excess capital and large corporate companies are simultaneously paying out large dividends to shareholders while sitting on excess capital, with the explicit purpose of holding it in case they need to make future debt clearances rather than investments.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he not welcome the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012, which uses low Government interest rates to underwrite £50 billion of infrastructure spending?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, certain programmes, such as the Government’s rebuilding schools programme—which has been delayed for a year in one school in Guisborough in my constituency—are dependent on PFI arrangements, which raise capital from the bond market. We had a slightly different arrangement for the Building Schools for the Future project. We now have the sudden realisation that the cancellation of such capital projects, in the first two years of this Government, has sent the economy into a spiral.

The real issue for me, especially in the north-east, is connectivity. We want to develop our economic base, but rail electrification will go only as far as York. What we want is access to capital funds to get electrification done as soon as possible. I hope that that will yield some results, but it is already too late. We have already had nigh on three years with little investment, and now the situation is desperate. Capital is still very slow in coming from Whitehall, exacerbated by the lack of agencies in the region to assist businesses, even given the regional growth fund. How we solve that, given that those agencies have been dismantled, I do not know, but we need to do more.

Added to the Chancellor’s mood music and the deleveraging frenzy, we have a Government delaying the payment of bills to hide borrowing. The delaying of these payments—largely to big businesses—leads to deleveraging big businesses, with vast sums under the corporate mattress, using smaller businesses as an extra line of credit. Current unpaid bills to small and medium-sized enterprises total £36.4 billion, with some small businesses writing off bills to the tune of £10,000. An illustration of this is the 7% year-on-year contraction in construction, which has its lowest growth rate since 1987.

The Chancellor is aware of this issue. In the north-east, according to the regional Federation of Small Businesses, banks cannot apparently give a regional figure for the take-up of the funding for lending scheme for business. We need to hold banks to account for that. The north-east has 134,000 businesses—I mentioned two of the larger ones earlier. A thousand employ more than 50 people, while 96,000 are sole traders, who by and large do not pay corporation tax. This April, real-time information will be introduced, but apparently only 25% of FSB members know what RTI is. I suggest to Ministers that small businesses should be given a proper period of slack on the introduction of RTI. The Government have allowed six months, but extending this to 12 months might be necessary so that businesses can adapt properly. However, the closure of local HMRC tax inquiry offices in the north-east—a region with a large sole trader community—means that we will be far more exposed to transitional difficulties.

The sole traders, market town traders and small businesses on our high streets will not only have RTI to contend with. The national minimum wage is lower now, in real terms, than it was in 2004. It was raised by 1.9% today, but the consumer prices index is at 2.8%, so it is a real-terms cut. Small businesses and their customers in the north-east will see working tax credit freezes from this April, meaning those working under 30 hours will lose between £303 and £428. That is £303 to £428 less to spend. Benefits being capped at 1% rather than CPI will mean that small businesses’ customers lose up to £150. That is £150 less to spend. The bedroom tax—a housing benefit cut of between 14% and 24%—will mean they lose between £624 and £1,144. That is £624 to £1,144 less to spend. The benefit cap, to be rolled out nationally from September, will mean small businesses’ customers will lose on average £4,836, which is an average of £93 a week. That is £93 less per week for their customers to spend. The council tax benefit cut—the Tories’ new poll tax—will mean that 700,000 people in employment will lose between £250 to £600 each, meaning small businesses’ regular customers will have between £250 and £600 less to spend. This will no doubt compound an already obvious demand crisis.

After the mummy tax and the granny tax, the end of the pregnancy grant, and VAT being increased again by a Tory Government, there will be obvious consequences for sole traders and small business in general. How do the Government think these reductions in the disposable income of small businesses’ most frequent and dependable customers will resolve this country’s economic growth problems? In the autumn statement, private consumption was expected to be a crucial driver of Britain’s growth in the years ahead. The OBR expected growth in 2012 to come from private consumption. Indeed, it revised it up to 37.5% of all growth after last year’s omnishambles Budget. Of course, it did not happen. The promised—albeit simultaneously derided—consumer growth was not delivered. Page 100 of the Red Book assumes a jump of 0.7%, from 0.5% this year to 1.2% next year, in household consumption, even though it simultaneously predicts unemployment increasing in 2013-14 and the claimant count increasing from 1.58 million to 1.63 million in the same period. The Chancellor also failed to inform the nation that 400,000 disabled people on severe or enhanced disabled benefits will now have to pay council tax for the first time ever.

In conjunction with what I illustrated earlier, these are demand-sapping policies on a monumental scale. Are they being taken because the Government fear that their other policies will bring about inflation? Are they attacking demand deliberately in order to control inflation? We know that Mark Carney, the new Governor of the Bank of England, will be constrained by a 2% inflation target. However, we also know that inflation crept up to between 2.5% and 3%—around the 2.8% mark between January and February—this year. That inflation rise, at the same time as pay freezes, local real-terms pay cuts and benefits reductions, has seen families subject to an unprecedented cost of living crisis. According to uSwitch, Britons collectively owe £637 million to energy firms— £159 million more than last year’s projections. Some 20% of all energy customers surveyed are in debt, a figure that has risen by 14% since last year.

In conclusion, with falling disposal income levels and increasing household outgoings, the temporary retail or consumer growth we are currently seeing is very small. As well as being derided in the first place by Government Members as the wrong type of growth, given the Government’s other policies, it is unsustainable in the medium and long term. The Budget is fundamentally unfair: it does not address growth, it doubles the debt and it does not deal with the deficit—it actually makes it worse. It fails on all the original criteria set out by the Chancellor in June 2010.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously found another version of plan B that I did not discover in my search, but I am sure he is right.

Let us consider what has caused this slow-down, which the shadow Chancellor blames on Government policy. The OBR was clear and explicit and stated that the downward revision in our forecast for 2012 is largely accounted for by a reduction in the contribution of net trade. We are operating in a difficult international context—particularly in the eurozone, which accounts for half our exports—and that largely explains the slow-down that has occurred, and the consequential impact on Government debt and borrowing.

We are giving overriding priority to developing British trade in those markets that have been neglected for many years. Over the past two years, led by the Prime Minister, I and other Ministers have gone back time and again to people in the big emerging economies to promote exports and inward investment. That is why our exports to Brazil and India have increased by more than half, and by approximately 100% to China and 130% to Russia. That diversification of our export base is fundamental to getting us out of this crisis. That is what we are doing, and we are succeeding.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments, but they appear pretty poor words for companies such as Alcan in Northumberland that is going to shut —the Budget did not come soon enough to provide tax breaks for energy-intensive industries. Furthermore, the steel industry in England and Scotland has been losing out to foreign, imported steel in bridge contracts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned today in business questions.

[Vince Cable]

That is a serious point and I am sympathetic to it. My colleagues and I have spent a lot of time talking to the EEF, the CBI and other employers groups about the higher costs of energy and how we compensate for it. A compensation package has been through consultation and is being implemented—the cash will be disbursed soon—for the higher cost of the carbon price floor and the EU emissions trading scheme. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern—he is absolutely right—and we are addressing it.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Further to that point, places such as Wilton, which has the largest chemical industry in the country—

[Helen Goodman]

It is the largest in Europe.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

As my hon. Friend reminds me, it is the largest in Europe. Wilton has lost out on the carbon capture and storage programme, which would have added 20 or 30 years’ longevity to the capital on site. The north-east is pushing more than any other region in providing exports for the country, and yet the Secretary of State is not providing the financial support for the infrastructure that was provided by the Labour Government.

[Vince Cable]

A CCS competition is taking place. As the Chancellor pointed out in his Budget, there is a recognition of the problems of energy-intensive industries in the north-east, Scunthorpe and south Wales. They will be given an extra year of support as a result of yesterday’s announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Blenkinsop Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Of course I recognise what the hon. Lady says and that unemployment is a concern right across our economy. Unemployment rates across the economy have been coming down. She refers to the experience in her constituency. Since 2008-09 the number of apprentices in Halifax doubled, so some of the measures that the Government are taking, such as the investment in apprenticeships and the Work programme, are making a difference to her constituents. The most important thing that we can do to continue to support unemployment moving in the right direction is to maintain the credible fiscal policy that this Government have put in place, and not give up on it, as the Opposition would.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of progress on the Government’s target of public sector net debt falling as a share of GDP in 2015-16.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility assesses the Government’s performance against the fiscal mandate and supplementary debt target. The OBR’s assessment is that the public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP will be falling by 2016-17.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government will have more than doubled the national debt between 2010 and 2015, and that this Government will have increased the national debt by more in five years than it increased in the entire 13 years of the Labour Government?

[Sajid Javid]

Having brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy and having set the economy ablaze, the Opposition now throw stones at the firefighters. The country will never forget that we had the largest budget deficit when we came to power. We were borrowing £5,000 a second, and that deficit began in 2001, long before the financial crisis. Since then, we have cut it by a quarter, brought back confidence to Britain and created jobs at a record rate.