Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way any more times, I should draw his attention and that of the House to the fact that a very large number of colleagues wish to speak in this important debate. The hon. Gentleman has taken well over half an hour of the time so far, in contrast to the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind before considering taking further interventions.

[Mr Umunna]

I think my generosity in taking interventions perhaps got the better of me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me finish by dealing with trade. In 2010, we were promised that an export boom would fuel the recovery. The Government set a target of tripling exports to £1 trillion by 2020 and getting 100,000 more small businesses exporting. What has happened since? The current account deficit widened to 5.9% of GDP last year —the largest peacetime deficit since at least 1830 according to the OBR. Frankly, I am not surprised given the degree to which we have seen various initiatives fail. Ministers have to sort out what is happening at UK Trade & Investment. UKTI’s own surveys show that more than a quarter of businesses that use its services saw no business benefit in doing so, and it is little wonder when we consider the range of different schemes and the failure to command the attention of Ministers. Records are not even kept of the trade missions that Ministers go on.

We are a great country. We have a great history and great people. We have a tradition not only of ensuring that those who can get on are able to realise their ambitions and aspirations, but of looking after those who cannot. That is one of the big problems with the Budget: it is unfair and regressive. Ultimately, if we really want to get the economy powering on all levels, we have to ensure that our people have the wherewithal and the tools to do that, particularly the skills and business investment needed, but they come up short as well. This Budget is unfair and not equal to the challenges we face as a country, and that is why I ask all hon. Members to support us in opposing the Budget today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in such an important debate. I want first to pay tribute to my predecessor, Douglas Alexander, who served the constituency for many years—I was only three when he was elected. It is for that reason that I want to thank him for all he did for the constituency. I especially commend him for the dignified way he handled himself on what must have been a very difficult election night for him. He did himself proud, and he did his party proud. I wish him the best for the future.

When I discovered that it is traditional for a new Member to speak about the history and legacy of their constituency in their maiden speech, I decided to do some research, despite the fact that I have lived in mine all my life. I am at the tail end of Scottish National party colleagues making their maiden speeches, and I have noticed that they tend to mention Rabbie Burns a lot. In particular, they have tried in their maiden speeches to own him for themselves by claiming some intrinsic connection between him and their constituencies. I feel no need to do that, because during my research I discovered a fact that trumps them all: William Wallace was born in my constituency, in Elderslie, which you will be familiar with, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Beyond the Hollywood film and the historic name, my constituency has a fascinating history, from the mills of Paisley to the industries of Johnstone and the weavers of Kilbarchan. It has a wonderful population with a cracking sense of humour and much to offer, both to tourists and to residents. But the truth is that things are not all fantastic in my constituency. We have watched our town centres deteriorate and our communities decline. Our unemployment level is higher than the UK average. One in five children in my constituency go to bed hungry. Paisley’s jobcentre has the third highest number of sanctions in the whole of Scotland.

Before being elected, I volunteered for a charitable organisation. There was a gentleman there who I grew very fond of. He was one of those guys who have been battered by life in every way imaginable—you name it, he has been through it. He used to come in to get food, and it was the only food he had access to and the only meal he would get. I remember sitting with him while he told me about his fear of going to the jobcentre. He said, “I’ve heard the stories, Mhairi. They try to trick you out and tell you you’re a liar. I’m not a liar, Mhairi.” I said, “It’s okay. Calm down. Go and be honest and you’ll be fine.”

I then did not see him for two or three weeks and became very worried. When he finally came back in, I asked him how he had got on. Without saying a word, he burst into tears—a grown man standing in front of a 20-year-old and crying his eyes out. What had happened was that in order to get to the jobcentre he had needed to use the money that he would normally have paid to travel to the charity in order to get his food. He needed to save the money, so he did not eat or drink for five days. He fainted while on the bus going to the jobcentre due to exhaustion and dehydration. He was 15 minutes late and was sanctioned for 13 weeks.

The Chancellor spoke in his Budget speech about fixing the roof while the sun is shining, but who is the sun shining on? When he spoke about benefits not supporting certain kinds of lifestyles, is that the kind of lifestyle that he was talking about? If we go back even further, when the Minister for Employment was asked to consider if there was a correlation between the number of sanctions and the rise in food bank use, she stated:

“Food banks play an important role in local welfare provision.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 608.]

Renfrewshire has the third highest use of food banks, and food bank use is going up and up. Food banks are not part of the welfare state—they are a symbol that the welfare state is failing.

The Government, quite rightly, pay for me, through taxpayers’ money, to be able to live in London while I serve my constituents. My housing is subsidised by the taxpayer. The Chancellor said in his Budget:

“It is not fair that families earning over £40,000 in London…should have their rents”

paid for

“by other working people.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 335.]

But it is okay so long as you are an MP?

In this Budget the Chancellor also abolished any housing benefit for anyone below the age of 21. So we are now in the ridiculous situation whereby because I am an MP, I am not only the youngest, but I am also the only 20-year-old in the whole of the UK that the Chancellor is prepared to help with housing. We now have one of the most uncaring, uncompromising and out-of-touch Governments that the UK has seen since Thatcher.

I must now turn to those with whom I share these Benches. I have sat in this Chamber for 10 weeks. I have very deliberately stayed quiet and listened intently to everything that has been said. I have heard multiple speeches from Labour Members standing to talk about the worrying rise of nationalism in Scotland. Yet all these speeches serve to do is to demonstrate how deep the lack of understanding about Scotland is within the Labour party. I, like so many SNP Members, come from a traditional socialist Labour family, and I have never been quiet in my assertion that I feel it is the Labour party that left me, not the other way about. The SNP did not triumph on a wave on nationalism; in fact, nationalism has nothing to do with what has happened in Scotland. We triumphed on a wave of hope—hope that there was something different from and better than the Thatcherite, neo-liberal policies that are produced from this Chamber, and hope that these representatives could genuinely give a voice to those who do not have one.

I do not mention this in order to pour salt into wounds that I am sure are very open and very sore for many Labour Members, both politically and personally; colleagues, possibly friends, lost their seats. I mention it in order to hold a mirror to the face of a party that seems to have forgotten the very people it is supposed to represent and the very things it is supposed to fight for. After hearing of Labour leaders’ intentions to support the changes to tax credits that the Chancellor has put forward, I must make this plea through the words of one of their own, and a personal hero of mine. Tony Benn once said that in politics there are weathercocks and signposts. Weathercocks will spin in whatever direction the wind of public opinion may blow them, no matter what principle they have to compromise. And then there are signposts, which stand true and tall and principled. They point in one direction and they say, “This is the way to a better society and it is my job to convince you why.” Tony Benn was right when he said that the only people worth remembering in politics are those who are signposts.

Yes, we will have political differences; and yes, in other Parliaments we may be opposing parties, but within this Chamber we are not. No matter how much I may wish it, the SNP is not the sole opposition to this Government—but neither is the Labour party. It is together with all the parties on these Benches that we must form an Opposition. In order to be effective, we must oppose, not abstain. So I reach out a genuine hand of friendship which I can only hope will be taken. Let us come together; let us be that Opposition; let us be that signpost to a better society. Ultimately people are needing a voice and people are needing help—let us give them it. [Applause.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has just made an excellent speech—particularly her reference to William Wallace and Elderslie, where I was also born—but the House will show its appreciation in a way other than clapping. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The House—[Hon. Members: “Aye!”] Yes, the House can show its appreciation vociferously—just do not clap.

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Cox]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree with the Resolution Foundation analysis that for a hard-working single parent with one child in my constituency working 16 hours a week on the national minimum wage, if some of the cuts go through she can expect an annual loss of earnings of £1,500, which will take 12 years of incremental 2% pay increases to recoup? What is his plan to help her to get a faster pay rise?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This does not apply only to the hon. Lady: when an intervention is made, it should be short and sharp and address one point. It should not be a written script to be read out in the House. I am not addressing these remarks specifically to the hon. Lady. Everybody has been doing that this afternoon. The Front-Bench speeches have therefore taken a very long time, and there are people who have asked to speak this afternoon who will be here all day and will have only two minutes at the end of the debate, whereas people are making interventions and will then leave the Chamber and not take part in the rest of the debate. That is not fair play in this Chamber and we expect better.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to make a little progress. In response to that intervention, I will not speculate about announcements that might or might not be made tomorrow, but I will say that universal credit is a sensible reform that comes alongside a whole raft of other measures by which the Government are helping hard-working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next colleague to speak, let me say that it is obvious that there are far more people who wish to speak than there is time available. If I were to put a time limit on now, it would be some four minutes. I consider that that is unfair to people who are making their maiden speeches. I trust that everyone else in the Chamber will wish to give a decent amount of time to people who are making their maiden speeches, as they themselves have had. I therefore ask other Members to limit their speeches to some five minutes or less in order to show courtesy to the other Members of this House who wish to speak, and especially those who are making their maiden speeches. That stricture does not apply to the Front-Bench spokesman for the Scottish National party, Mr Ian Blackford.

Productivity

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I am delighted to hear it. I only wish that the Chancellor would come and talk to the rest of us about productivity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, it is not normal practice, although I will forgive the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on this one occasion, for the performer at the Dispatch Box to ask questions of the other side’s Back Benchers. In case anyone who is new to the House thinks that this is how we do things, I should say that it is not. However, on this occasion, I will allow some leniency.

[Chris Leslie]

Thank you for that sage advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect that the Chancellor will be forced to address the question of productivity in the forthcoming emergency Budget on 8 July. Let us dwell for a moment on why productivity matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

What the Chief Secretary is saying does not meet the reality of what has been happening for the past seven years. Productivity in the UK has fallen and the Government have failed to deliver prosperity. The root of that has been the failure of macroeconomic policy. Your big idea was quantitative easing, with £375 billion of new assets being created, but none of that has fed through to bank lending. That is why we have not seen the underlying investment in our economy that is required. You need to address that and make sure that we see investment in infrastructure, industrial investment and a plan for growth, not some meaningless productivity, which is just hot air and words, but no reality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Several people this afternoon, not just the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, have used the word “you”. When one uses the word “you” in this Chamber, it refers to the Chair. I have not done any of the things I have been accused of this afternoon. I do not want to pick on individual Members at this early stage of the Parliament, but please let us use the correct language.

[Greg Hands]

I dispute the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Productivity in this country is rising, albeit at a relatively low level. We would like it to be higher. It has risen by 0.9% this year. The OBR’s projection is that productivity will increase by between 2.1% and 2.5% per annum in the coming years. We need it to increase by even more than that, but it is certainly not the case that productivity has collapsed over the past couple of years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak, including some who will make maiden speeches this afternoon, and I have therefore to impose a time limit of six minutes?

Landfill Tax (No. 2)

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

I beg to move,

That the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Fines) (No. 2) Order 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1385), dated 12 June 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.

It—[Interruption]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are all very enthusiastic to welcome the Minister to one of his first outings at the Dispatch Box, but I will allow my introduction to take another few seconds and ask Members leaving the Chamber to do so swiftly and silently to allow the Minister to be heard.

[Damian Hinds]

This statutory instrument implements the loss on ignition testing regime for landfill tax. Landfill tax was introduced in 1996. It has been successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill by more than half, and has encouraged reuse and recycling of waste. However, we want to eliminate tax evasion and ensure a level playing field for all operators. This testing regime assists landfill operators in determining the correct rate of tax when accepting waste that results from mechanical waste treatment processes.

The regime was introduced on 1 April 2015 by way of legislation included in the Finance Act 2015 and an order—statutory instrument 2015 No. 845—was made under it using the affirmative procedure just before Dissolution. Unfortunately it was not possible to secure time for the order to be scrutinised and approved by the new Parliament before it lapsed on 14 June 2015. Therefore, we have made a new order, which came into effect on 15 June, ensuring the provisions introduced on 1 April continue uninterrupted. Today’s debate gives us the opportunity to scrutinise the order and vote on confirming its status in law. [Interruption.]

There are two rates of landfill tax: a lower rate of £2.60 per tonne for the least polluting waste and a standard rate of £82.60 per tonne for other taxable waste. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but this is not a place for general conversation. The Minister is making an important speech. I am addressing the people behind the Chair.

[Damian Hinds]

Operators pass on the cost of the tax to those using their site to dispose of their waste. For some types of waste it can be difficult to determine visually which rate of tax should apply. This is particularly true of the so-called waste “fines”, which are the residual materials produced by the mechanical treatment of waste at waste transfer stations and similar facilities. In recent years this type of waste has increased significantly in volume.

Some businesses sending waste to landfill have deliberately mis-described this waste to evade the standard rate of landfill tax. When landfill site operators raised concerns, we responded by working closely with the wider waste industry to devise a testing regime. The testing regime provides an objective way to determine the rate of landfill tax that should be paid on fines from mechanical treatment, while at the same time protecting compliant landfill operators.

The loss on ignition test is a laboratory test that involves heating a sample of material in an oven to see how much the mass reduces. This provides a highly reliable indicator of the percentage of waste that is degradable, with the higher the percentage the more polluting the waste. Each year, the operator has to take a minimum number of samples from each of its customers for testing. The frequency increases if certain risk categories are triggered, such as when a sample from a customer has previously failed a test. An operator can also instigate a test if it suspects that a load is not eligible for the lower rate of tax. Only qualifying fines that produce laboratory tests at or below a 10% rate are eligible for the lower rate. However, to allow for the adaptation of processes, there is a 12-month transitional period—we are now in that period—during which we will allow waste with test results of up to 15% to be subject to the lower rate. The testing regime has been welcomed by landfill operators because it gives them more certainty over the correct rate of tax to pay and to pass on to their customers.

The order does not apply in Scotland, as the tax was devolved to Scotland on 1 April 2015—the same day the new regime came into force. One of my very first visits in this role was to a landfill site—no one can say that life is not glamorous—and I have seen for myself that the test is already working in practice, providing certainty and fairness to all parties. The test will help to address the tax evasion in the waste sector and provide a level playing field across the waste industry. It has been developed with, and supported by, the wider waste industry. I shall be happy to answer any questions that right hon. and hon. Members might have.

The Economy

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to deliver my maiden speech following such distinguished contributions, including from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), and to have such an illustrious predecessor in representing my seat, which is such a beautiful part of the country. First elected to represent Loughborough in 1979 and becoming the right hon. Member for Charnwood in 1997, following the seat’s creation, Stephen Dorrell served for an astonishing 36 years in this House. Upon his election, he was the baby of the House, often described as “permanently boyish”—a trait that, as hon. Members will see, eluded my grasp, I fear, many years ago. Stephen served in a string of offices, from the Whips Office to the Cabinet. His commitment to serving his constituents was formidable and the respect in which he is held locally never ceased to be apparent to me as I campaigned.

But the man is so much more than a list of the offices that he held. He was once described in The Guardian as

“exuding sweet reasonableness and being recognisably a member of the human race.”

He combined this with intellectual rigour, diligence and genuine decency. While I may not be able to emulate his length of service or swift progression through ministerial ranks, I will continually strive to emulate his values, humanity and hard work.

Although a relatively new seat, Charnwood is in the ancient heart of our great country, sandwiched between Leicester and Loughborough. It also, in its short history, has a strong tradition of re-electing its Member—something I hope will continue. It is a mixed, beautiful but oddly shaped constituency, curving around Leicester from Glenfield and Leicester Forest East in the west in a large arc to the rural villages of Barkby, Beeby and South Croxton in the east, taking in historic Kirby Muxloe with its castle, through Groby and Anstey—reputedly the furthest point south reached by Bonnie Prince Charlie’s Scottish army before its swift retreat back north—and picture-book rural villages like Woodhouse Eaves, then passing Bradgate park, containing the ruins of Lady Jane Grey’s family estate and the ancient Charnwood forest.

Heading east, we pass through Cropston, Swithland, Rothley and Mountsorrel, with Thurmaston and Birstall to the south, before reaching Syston, the home of Pukka Pies. I fear that my post-election figure suggests that I have taken my support of local industry a little bit too far. Finally we reach Queniborough, East Goscote and the rural idyll typified by villages such as Cossington, Seagrave, Thrussington, Rearsby and Barkby, where, with the summer approaching and the nights getting shorter—not, I hasten to add, a reference to my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan)—many a sunny evening can be spent at the excellent Barkby United village cricket ground.

In the past five years the Chancellor has already laid the strong economic foundations for creating the one nation we all aspire to. Now, with the proposals in the Gracious Speech, we will make that a reality for everyone in this country. I look forward to being in my place to support him in doing this.

Charnwood is a success story and it has achieved much since 2010. It is a constituency blessed with extremely high ownership rates, low unemployment and successful businesses, although there is always more to do. That success does not just happen—that it happens is down to the hard work of the people of Charnwood, the sort of people who are the backbone of this country, working hard, doing the right thing, and building a better future for themselves and their family. They are exactly the people this Government are pledged to continue to support with our focus on opportunity and aspiration.

I will always fight for my constituents and constituency—for example, in continuing to campaign for fairer funding for my county of Leicestershire and for its schools—but there are a number of broader causes that I will particularly seek to champion in this House. While we have made significant progress in recent years, we still need to go further in vigorously and energetically focusing on improving dementia care and mental health provision; both are causes on which I will be vocal. I will not, I fear, be able to emulate the moving eloquence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on this subject, but he will always find me shoulder to shoulder with him in his commitment to improving this country’s mental health care for children and adults and giving a voice to those whose cause is too often not heard.

I am here to represent the whole community in my constituency but particularly those on the fringes of our society who may not have the voice or ability to speak up for themselves. Every day I will strive to help build the one nation the Prime Minister has spoken about and in which I passionately believe, and every day I will humbly endeavour to repay the honour and trust that the people of Charnwood have placed in me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am sorry that it has not been possible to find time today for every new colleague who sought to make their maiden speech. I hope you will all be reassured by the thought that if you have sat here all day partaking in this excellent and important debate, should you seek to catch Mr Speaker’s eye again in the near future you will be looked on favourably.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Thank you and congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you have said, we have had a good debate, which has demonstrated the seriousness and commitment with which we are ready to take up our duties as Opposition Members.

It has been widely acknowledged in this debate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the former leader of our party, made a fine and powerful contribution. It was especially welcome for being so soon after our bruising election defeat. He addressed the topic of one nation, which was the theme of his leadership as well, drawing attention to the problem of rising inequality across western democracies. He spoke of the rungs of the ladder getting further apart and reminded the Prime Minister of his 2006 commitment to address relative poverty. I think the whole House will look forward to my right hon. Friend developing those ideas in the months ahead.

We have had valuable contributions from both sides of the House. I particularly congratulate everyone who has made their maiden speech today, including the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), the hon. Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) and for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), my hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), the hon. Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Charnwood (Edward Argar). I congratulate each of them and wish them well for their membership of this House. The whole House will look forward to hearing more from each of them in the years ahead.

At the heart of this debate is the security of working families. Many families feel deeply insecure at the moment, in ways spelled out in a fine maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. How is the programme that has been announced going to affect them? We have yet to hear clear answers from the Government on how they plan to strengthen the foundations of our economy so that we can deal with the deficit, control social security costs and secure better living standards and a better future for the working people of Britain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) began by highlighting the fragility of our economic recovery. Productivity continues to stagnate, leaving output per worker far behind that of comparable advanced economies—a point that was highlighted by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie).

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was right to point out that employers are struggling to find people with the right skills for their jobs. Many employees have roles that do not make full use of their talents and potential, and we have heard a great deal in the debate about the grave challenges relating to infrastructure and the need for more progress. Those underlying weaknesses will make it harder to get the public finances in order and to get social security spending under control.

Fragility in the economy translates into insecurity for working families, who have seen their living standards go backwards over recent years and still worry about whether they will be able to keep on top of their bills. Working families are struggling to balance the demands of work with the rising cost of childcare. They wonder whether the NHS will still be there for them when they need it in future and want their children to have a decent career and a realistic prospect of getting on the housing ladder. Too many at the moment are stuck in low-paid, insecure work and a growing number are depending on housing benefit to make ends meet. Those families all want to know what difference the measures in this Queen’s Speech will make to them.

There are welcome commitments in some areas, but questions remain about how some of them will be paid for. It is, however, what has been left out that gives the greatest cause for concern—actions not taken, details not provided—and makes many families less secure and fear for the future.

We all support any cut in taxes for low-paid workers, but we also need a serious plan to tackle low pay and boost wages for the majority by raising investment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central pointed out in her excellent speech. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton also rightly called for the adoption of a living wage in the UK. We need to raise the levels of skills and productivity across the economy, securing sustainable tax revenues and reducing the reliance on in-work benefits.

It was disappointing to have sprung on the House this afternoon, without any proper detail or explanation, a series of spending cuts in the Chancellor’s speech. There is a press release that outlines what they are, but there is no proper information. We should have had a statement so that the House could scrutinise the cuts. They include a significant cut to the skills budget.

We will welcome any help for working parents with childcare, but families can be forgiven for believing it when they see it, after five years in which it has become harder, not easier, to afford the childcare they need. There is a worry that the proposals in the Queen’s Speech are likely to result in fewer affordable homes and bigger housing benefit bills for taxpayers.

Britain succeeds only when working people succeed. Hard work should be rewarded, prosperity should be shared and we should protect the most vulnerable. Those elements, which are vital for our society, need to be underpinned by a strong social security net. The Opposition support the work that local authorities are doing under the Government’s troubled families programme, but we are aware that a majority of the families involved still have nobody in work and that the Work programme is not doing enough to help them. We will be glad to see additional money for apprenticeships.

We have made clear our support for the principle of a benefit cap to ensure that people are better off in work and for reforms to ensure that young people are earning or learning, and do not become caught in a benefits system that at the moment does too little to improve their skills and prospects. We will scrutinise—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. There is no heckling or bad behaviour going on, but there are an awful lot of private conversations. He has a difficult job to do and he should be given peace in which to do it.

[Stephen Timms]

We will scrutinise those proposals with great care. The well-meaning rhetoric on apprenticeships needs to be matched by action on the quality, as well as the quantity, of the apprenticeships that are being created. When the rules are changed on benefits for 18 to 21-year-olds, we will look carefully at the safeguards for the vulnerable young people who will be included. We need to ensure that reducing the benefit cap does not end up costing more than it saves.

Those measures amount to only a fraction of the £12 billion reduction in social security spending that the Government promised. We want to see savings where they can sensibly be made. We have argued consistently for keeping the system affordable. We have said that that requires a readiness to take tough decisions on low-priority spending, alongside action to tackle the underlying drivers of rising benefit bills, such as low pay and high housing costs. The unwillingness or inability of Ministers to explain to this House or the public how they intend to make the reductions that they have set out is adding to the insecurity that is felt by many working families today.

There will be widespread relief that the Prime Minister has, reportedly, overruled the Secretary of State on child benefit. However, working families need to know whether the tax credits and other in-work benefits that they depend on will be taken away. The Prime Minister yesterday declined my invitation to reaffirm his election campaign commitment that benefits for disabled people are safe. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it will be virtually impossible to achieve a £12 billion saving without hitting low-income working families hard.

When he gets to his feet, the Secretary of State needs to assure those who are clearly not well enough to work that support for disabled people and their carers will be protected. Government failures in that area—the failure of the rushed and ill-prepared incapacity benefit reassessment exercise and the failures of the Work programme for people in receipt of employment and support allowance—mean that the Government are spending nearly £5 billion more this year on employment and support allowance than they forecast five years ago. That is a serious failure.

We heard a Queen’s Speech five years ago that promised

“to simplify the benefits system in order to improve work incentives”.

That was a worthy aim, but there has been very little progress since then. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) touched on the problems with the IT for universal credit. In 2011, the Secretary of State told us that universal credit would be complete in six years; now he is telling us that it will be complete in another six years. In four years, completion has slipped by four years.

The Opposition will continue to stand up and speak for the working people of this country, who have endured years of falling living standards and economic uncertainty. They now need assurances and action from the Government to promote their security and to secure their finances and the public services that they rely on, and on which all our futures will depend.

Amendment of the Law

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) who is the authentic voice of Conservatism in this place, and blue in tooth and claw. He will be sorely missed, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do in the future—somehow I cannot see him retiring quietly to a rocking chair.

When I listened to the Business Secretary introducing this debate, at times I wondered which Budget he was talking about since he seemed to flip between the Budget presented by the Chancellor yesterday, and the fantasy Budget presented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury this morning, and it was a bit difficult to follow his line of thinking. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), he spoke about possible changes in banking and protection for the “last bank in the village”, as he put it, but I am afraid that in many communities that ship has long since sailed.

Banks have been pulling out of rural communities for many years, and substantial communities in my constituency no longer have a bank. Indeed, the Royal Bank of Scotland recently closed a branch and when questioned about it said, “Well you can use the post office”. Unfortunately, the Post Office is also undergoing a procedure at the moment. There may no longer be closure programmes, but many post offices are “changing”—or rather closing—and business is being transferred to other local businesses. In many ways I see the logic of that from its point of view, but it means that many businesses are now running the “post office local model”, which is a much reduced service. In many communities in my constituency, including substantial communities, that is the only post office service left—a counter in another business, which is a small shop or, as in one case, a card and paper shop. That does not give confidence in the service—notwithstanding the service that such shops can provide and the extent they go to—especially for business banking, and that needs to be looked at.

If we contact any of our major banks, they will try to get us to go online and work through the computer. That is fine, but many of our elderly people cannot do that, and many people with small businesses do not want to invest in the extra equipment. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), there is also a serious problem with broadband provision in many parts of our country.

In my constituency many of the towns now have a good broadband service that has been upgraded, but one does not have to go far outside the town for it to disappear altogether. Part of the reason for that is that many small exchanges that serve the country in village areas desperately need upgrading and can no longer take any more broadband lines. I have had situations where people have moved house, cancelled their broadband contract, and when they went to get a contract for their new house they were told they could not get one any more because the line they used had been allocated to someone else.

The Budget has missed a huge opportunity to invest in that infrastructure for the future. If we are to be a successful nation and increase business, we need the infrastructure to do that. I have talked often in the House about a rural area such as mine where many businesses are taking advantage of the internet where they can. It is not always a bad thing. A business in a rural area can get a niche market, survive on the internet and have quite a good business, but it needs an internet connection, good broadband, and a good postal service to deliver the goods to the rest of the country.

Since the privatisation of Royal Mail we have seen an erosion of that service in some parts of the country. In some parts of Scotland, as I am sure is the case in other parts of the country, it has announced that it will not be picking up so often from post boxes—there might be one pick-up first thing in the morning, but nothing else for the rest of the day. That is hopeless for a business. Furthermore, many of the new post office locals do not have sufficient room for proper business mail to be left for Royal Mail to pick up. Again, that was a missed opportunity in the Budget.

Unfortunately, the real message of the Budget is that massive cuts are coming our way, which will have a terrible impact on many of our local communities and businesses. The OBR has described the coming years as a rollercoaster for public expenditure and said it will return the level of Government expenditure to that of 1964. This morning, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who presumably had a hand in writing the Budget, as well as his alternative Budget, said it would take us back to the era of “Cathy Come Home”. That film brought home to many people the extent of the housing crisis in the 1960s, but that housing crisis is coming back to haunt many of our communities.

Many Members have talked about the need to build more houses, and I entirely agree, but I was concerned that the only specific announcement about this in the Budget was the new ISA to help get younger people on the housing ladder. That is good news for those who can afford to put money into an ISA, and I am sure that well-off parents around the country will be preparing to open such accounts for their children, but it is just another variation on the bank of mum and dad and does nothing to help the many young people who can only dream of renting their own home, let alone owning one.

The only boost to local businesses is likely to be for estate agents, as this measure fuels a housing bubble in our cities and communities—houses are expensive all over the country. If we are to tackle the housing crisis, we need a boost to build new affordable homes and homes for rent. Not only would that give young people a real chance to get a home of their own without needing well-off parents to finance it, but it would give a boost to local economies by providing work for those who build the homes and the businesses supplying the needs of new home owners.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) commented on why we had reached this situation. In Scotland, we are now building new homes and have removed the right to buy introduced by the last Tory Government. Whatever people thought of the policy at the time, it is no longer appropriate for the current market because it acts as a disincentive to councils to build new houses—because they might have to sell them off fairly quickly at reduced rates. In Scotland, new houses for rent are being built for the first time in many years. When I read the leaks of the proposed Budget, I was concerned at the suggestion that the Chancellor would introduce a new right to buy for housing associations. I think we should all be grateful that he did not do that, although it would not have applied in Scotland anyway, since we have taken a different route.

Many of the cuts, however, will make things much worse for our young people. Many people, particularly under-25s, will no longer be able to get housing benefit and will be forced to continue to live with their parents, but in many cases, either that will not be practical or for some other reason they will not be able to do it, and they will end up sofa surfing with friends and relatives. It is all very easy, as Government all too often seem to do, to announce crackdowns on welfare and go for cheap headlines in the more rabid tabloids. As we all know, however, in reality many of those in receipt of benefits are working, and the benefits are not their income but top up the income they receive from their employment. In my constituency, on the latest figures, the unemployment rate is 2.5%. On the face of it, that is excellent news, but it is also a low-wage economy, and that is the difficulty. Many people rely on benefits to top up their income and enable them to live.

Many of us will be spending more hours than is healthy over the next few weeks knocking on constituents’ doors, and I am sure that many have had the same experience as me of finding it difficult to find people in, mainly because so many work long hours, split shifts or more than one job to make ends meet. That is the reality of modern Britain, with so many people still relying on food banks to feed their families.

The assault on the welfare state has a dramatic effect on our local businesses. Those who are less well off will tend to spend their money—and to spend it in local businesses. Cuts not only attack those on benefits, but remove a substantial amount of money from local economies, hitting businesses. Is it any wonder that so many businesses on our high streets are closing?

In Scotland, the Government have made determined efforts to halt the decline in small businesses with policies such as the business bonus scheme, which has abolished or reduced business rates for many small businesses. The Chancellor announced a scheme for business rates retention, but the Scottish Government introduced such a scheme in Scotland back in 2011. These schemes help, but more needs to be done to boost local businesses.

We already know that some of the poorest in society will bear the brunt of the misery of the austerity programme. The proportion of tax cuts to tax rises has moved from 4:1 to 9:1, and this will have a dramatic effect on many households. As others have said, we do not yet know the details of the coming cuts and benefits, but this is all money being sucked out of our local economies and will impact directly on our local businesses.

Before I finish, let me say that it is not all bad news. I welcome the Government’s changes to North sea oil taxation. I called for it, the Scottish Government called for it, and there is widespread support for it across all parties. This industry is going through a downturn at the moment—not for the first time, and I dare say it will not be for the last. It is worth noting that the reduction in the supplementary charge will take us back to the position in 2011, when the decision to increase it, taken without consultation with the industry, was hugely damaging.

On a more positive note, the Bank of Scotland did an oil survey last week, showing that 90% of firms are optimistic about the future. Many of them were looking to diversify into such things as renewables. Here, again, however, the Government have missed the chance—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) for delivering his speech in reasonable time and for not taking the allotted 12 minutes. I am afraid that the arithmetic does not allow 12 minutes per person from now on and I must reduce the time limit to nine minutes, thereby allowing everyone who has indicated they wish to speak the opportunity to do so.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

With respect to the hon. Lady, the whole scope of the Northern Ireland regime under the Bill relates to trading profits. Credit unions do not pay corporation tax on their trading profits, so this Bill does not impact on them. I am not sure how many ways there are of saying that; I feel that the different formulations of the point have probably been covered. If the credit unions did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, we would be having a different discussion. If Members wish to see a devolution regime for Northern Ireland that includes activities other than trading profits, so that corporation tax would be paid on investments, income and so forth, that is a big call to make. If provisions were to be applied but limited to credit unions alone, it would mean carving out an exception to the regime. Let me say that that goes beyond the context of the agreement struck between this Government and the Northern Ireland Executive—the agreement that we have supported and the agreement that is the subject matter of the Bill. I would have a huge amount of sympathy if credit unions found themselves caught because they did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, but that is not the case, so—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The amendment has been discussed and withdrawn. We had a lengthy debate on it and we do not have a lot of time for this part of the debate, so we must stick to what exactly is in the Bill—and nothing more.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on to the rest of my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—it is key. This tax is not just about investment in Belfast, Londonderry or key cities; it is about investment in the whole of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister recently stated that he wanted to make the United Kingdom the “factory of Europe” and attract more jobs into the UK, and I hope he was speaking for every part of the UK. I hope he wanted to see those investments coming across not just to London and the south, but to all of the UK, because that is what we really need—we need more investment. I know that the hon. Lady wants to see investment in her constituency. My constituency is carrying what is going to be the single largest job loss in Northern Ireland in several years, with the closure of the JTI Gallaher factory in 2017. I want to see those jobs filled. I want to see opportunity created whereby more investment will be happening in my constituency and more factories will be brought there. If the current Government are returned, I hope that they will add meat to the bones of that call to turn the UK into the factory of Europe by bringing jobs, not only to the hon. Lady’s constituency, but to mine and, indeed, to all our constituencies. I hope we see a balance in the investment that is going to be made.

In an earlier intervention, the hon. Lady also called for a reduction in VAT, especially on our tourism trade, and I fully support that. Tourism is one of the key areas where we are trying to grow our economy and attract new business investment, with new hoteliers and new companies. If we can reduce VAT in that sector, we will see it grow. Again, we compete with the Republic of Ireland in that sector, but it has a lower tax rate and that damages us. We really need to try to make progress on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful in sticking to the narrow confines of the Third Reading of this Bill. I appreciate that the points he is making are tangentially attached to the Bill, but I am sure that, in concluding, he will be referring entirely to the Bill.

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you for that prompt, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was actually at the point of conclusion, and I thank you for reminding me that I do have to conclude. I know that hon. Members are captivated by my oratory today and want me to continue, but I must desist and so I shall leave those points with the House.

[Mark Durkan]

I will probably differ in some emphasis and some recollection from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but I wish to begin on a point of absolute harmony, in offering thanks to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and all the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who tilled this hard ground over quite some time, some years ago. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury has rightly been generous in acknowledging the role played by his colleague, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and I will do so, too.

The devolving of corporation tax to Northern Ireland has not always been the point of constant unanimity that it appears to be today. People did have different approaches and different concerns about it; back when we were negotiating the Belfast agreement or Good Friday agreement some of us wanted fiscal discretion as part of the devolved package, whereas most parties did not. My party was in the very small minority of those that did, and we were particularly clear about the corporation tax side of things. When we did get our institutions up and running, some of us argued the need for devolving corporation tax so that we could do more to maximise the north-south potential for inward investment on the island of Ireland, but many people resisted that idea of working with the south on inward investment. For that same reason, those people were very iffy about the idea of devolving corporation tax, as they felt that somehow it was going to separate Northern Ireland from the Union and be a chink in Unionism. I am very glad that, because of a variety of different experiences, positions have adjusted and moved on in that regard.

Reference has been made to the Varney review. When Sir David Varney was conducting the review of corporation tax issues under the previous Government, he made it clear that he was hearing different views from different parties in Northern Ireland and, in particular, from different Departments and from different Ministers. In fairness to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), he acknowledged that at times he had different views and different emphases on this issue, as it is understandable that a Minister of Finance and Personnel would have. I served in that office—I see that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is in his place, too—so I am conscious of the fact that cautionary pieces of advice need to come from that office about what some of the consequences might be. When I was in that post, I used to tell people that as the Minister of Finance and Personnel I did not suffer from depression but I was a carrier. So I can accept that Ministers of Finance and Personnel perhaps did need to sound some cautionary note, but this seemed to go beyond those Ministers; I am glad that we now have a much stronger position on the devolution of corporation tax.

We also need to be clear that the devolution of corporation tax does not put the north—does not put the Assembly—on a par with the corporation tax powers of the Oireachtas. Although it allows the Assembly to set the rates for certain qualifying businesses, it does not allow it to decide who the qualifying businesses are, and the Assembly has no control over any of the other rules that attach to that. The Oireachtas has a very different arrangement. Even when moves are made in the Oireachtas on the “double Irish” situation, which are long overdue and right, we also see a targeted use of things. A bit like this Government’s use of the patent box, the Irish Government have introduced the knowledge box. So there are other ways in which they are going to target competitiveness, and incentivise particular industries and sectors.

That is one issue I wish to address at this point in examining the overall impact of the Bill, because too often the focus in Northern Ireland has been that devolving corporation tax would allow us better to compete with the south. We need to recognise that the competition landscape within these islands has changed. I acknowledge that a regional economic dynamic has been provided under this Government, through initiatives such as enterprise zones, city deals and growth deals, which are creating some drive, regional economic traction and city economic traction. If Northern Ireland relies just on corporation tax and does not look to some of those other tools that are helping to drive regional and local economic growth, we will lose out.

I represent a city where many people go to work across the border for companies that are benefiting from the 12.5% corporation tax rate. That proximity—this is in our travel-to-work area—does not mitigate the fact that my constituency has the highest registered unemployment of all the 650 constituencies represented in this House, which shows that a reduced corporation tax rate alone is not a magic bullet and does not solve everything. As has been said, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim, the south of Ireland’s approach is not just about corporation tax alone; it is about investment in infrastructure and in education, not least in third-level education. Even this week, as we see that the Irish Government’s revenues are up and things are shifting there, and they are looking at and talking about possibly adjusting the spending and tax profile, the Tanaiste, Joan Burton, is emphasising that if money can now be spent, it has to be focused on infrastructure and on education, particularly at the third level.

We see that emphasis in the south, but not in the north. We need to recognise that, with regard to the Stormont House agreement and the wider landscape, all that glisters is not gold. The fact is that the Assembly and the Executive will have a difficult Budget landscape over a number of years and there will be a price on the block grant. That was touched on by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) when she referred to the letter from the Treasury to the Bill Committee—unfortunately, it arrived after the Bill Committee had completed its considerations. The letter, while reflecting the fact that negotiations with the Executive are ongoing, sets out a number of changes that will need to be made to the funding arrangements of Northern Ireland. I am talking about how the block grant will be set and how the Barnett formula will operate. More time needs to be taken to consider those wider consequentials and the implications for the devolved Budget.

In the Stormont House negotiations, I did question why we were not discussing the implications of a corporation tax rate cut or what the implications would be for the block grant. I was told by the First Minister that the rate cut was not an issue, that it would be modest and graduated and that it did not really need to come into our wider discussions about the strong budgetary pressures we were under. But that does not seem to be the case. His understanding and his reassurances were not reflected in the terms outlined by the Treasury Minister in the Bill Committee or in this letter and its attachments. There was an assumption that there would be a gradual working adjustment. In other words, there would not be a full hit in relation to the devolved envelope. But the Minister, both in Committee and in the letter, made it clear that the hit would be up front.

I joined the hon. Member for East Antrim—I understand that his absence is to do with the unfortunate bereavement experienced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—in questioning the arrangements. We asked about the working implications of the Executive’s Budget year on year and of the setting of the block grant. We wanted to know whether adjustments would have to be made to reflect higher or lower tax takes. In the letter from the Minister, which was sent on 16 February, we see that those adjustments may be made two or three years later, whenever the full tax yield is made. That creates uncertainty. Given that corporation tax is, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, sometimes volatile, there could be further implications that we should acknowledge. We should not say that we do not understand them or that they were someone else’s fault. We need to go into these things with our eyes open.

Let me turn now to the wider position of the Executive in relation to the operation of corporation tax. Under the Bill, the Treasury retains not just ownership of all the rule-making and interpretive powers, but the commencement power in relation to corporation tax. We know that the timetable is 2017, but, as we heard from the Minister in Committee, the Government will exercise that commencement power when they are satisfied that the Executive has a sustainable Budget.

Over the past couple of years, the Treasury has made it very clear that it judged the sustainability of the Executive’s Budget on whether the Assembly would pass welfare reform legislation. That legislation may not have been to the Assembly’s taste or of a devolved design, but they would have to pass it as a way of proving that they had a sustainable Budget. In 2017, the issue will be whether the Treasury will use that same power to impose policy choices on the Executive. In the Bill Committee, I specifically asked the Minister that question. Let us take the example of water charges. We know that the Executive have consistently tried to prevail on the Administration in Northern Ireland to move to direct water charges in one form or another. When I was a Minister, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, wrote to us at the Executive twice, asking that we make that commitment. The Executive, on my proposal, refused to do that. Various other ruses have been attempted. During the period of direct rule, Northern Ireland Water was essentially set up on a conveyor belt to privatisation. The question is whether the Treasury would abuse that power and say, “Just like we used to say that you had a sustainable Budget only when you had absorbed what we wanted you to do on welfare reform, we are saying now that you only have a sustainable Budget when we see you levying water charges, raising revenue in other areas or changing your policy in relation to student finances.” It could be linked again to welfare reform. After all, we are now locked into a welfare cap. Luckily, we are being given a lot of leeway in how the welfare cap operates at the minute. If the truth be told, the deal that was reached on welfare reform as part of the Stormont House agreement—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I will say to the hon. Gentleman the same as I said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who spoke immediately before him: I have not been very strict in keeping him to the exact words of the Bill, but, as he knows very well, he is beginning to stray a little. I trust that, in concluding, he will address precisely the points in the Bill that relate to Third Reading.

[Mark Durkan]

I am sticking very much to the thrust and the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is presented as part of a suite of measures coming from the Stormont House agreement. That suite of measures included issues in relation to welfare reform. After all, we were told that there would be no Corporation Tax Bill unless there was agreement on welfare reform, so what I am saying is entirely consistent. Ministers have referred to these other measures when they have addressed this Bill, as have other hon. Members. The point goes to something that is in the Bill, which is the control that the Treasury will have over the commencement of this power and whether it uses that to impose other policy choices on the Assembly. Given that the welfare cap will be in place in the next Parliament—if it is supported both by the Government and the Opposition—it could well be a part of the working reference of the Treasury when it comes to make a judgment on Budget sustainability. In fairness, the Minister made the point in Committee that the judgment would be made on the sum of the Executive’s Budget parts and on a range of issues, but not on specific measures. He would not rule out it being used in that way. Again, in terms of due legislative diligence, all of us must have regard to how this might operate in practice. I am talking about not just some of the detailed rules as they affect businesses but how the overall Budgetary situation of the Executive is affected. There is no point in our popping corks about the legislative power over corporation tax that the Executive and the Assembly will have if we are not also alert to the very real budget constraints and the hard choices that might be imposed with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

The hon. Gentleman has said on a number of occasions that, as a result of the Stormont House agreement, one obligation was to sign up to welfare reform. Does he not agree that, more correctly, what was agreed was that we had to come up with a package on welfare reform that we could pay for? As it happens, that package was parity with a little bit of flexibility—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions are meant to be short. The hon. Lady has already spoken. It is perfectly in order for her to make an intervention, but it must be short, especially as she has, quite rightly, taken up the House’s time this afternoon. I politely indicated to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor that he might consider drawing his remarks to a close. He chose to argue with me on the points I had made. I will speak less politely to him if he does not adhere to what I have said. He has spoken for a considerable time this afternoon. He is in order. He has the opportunity to conclude his speech. I am not saying that he must finish immediately now, but I am sure that he will give thought to other people in the Chamber.

[Mark Durkan]

I have no wish to argue with you now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must say that I was not arguing with you previously. I was simply clarifying the position and the background, as you have not had the privilege of sitting through all the debates on what was deemed relevant to the Bill and the wider Stormont House agreement.

The Executive and the Assembly will have to absorb the Bill’s wider implications. There are implications for the economy and for businesses, too. We have heard from many hon. Members that businesses are well seized of the need to try to take advantage of that. We have no problem with the regime on the balance between the rates and the rules, but we want to ensure that there is no undue assumption that the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland alone will transform our economy. We need more investment in infrastructure and higher education and following the decisions in the Stormont House agreement it is not clear whether our borrowing power, which was originally designed for strategic capital, is now being used to pay for a voluntary exit scheme. There is an opportunity cost as regards the wider economic investments.

I do not wish to use the term long-term economic plan, but without addressing some of the other issues, including providing tools that compare with city deals, growth deals, enterprise zones and so on, and without a new level of commitment on third-level education and infrastructure, the Executive might well be getting the novelty of devolved corporation tax without strategic economic perspectives that are other than short term in nature.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and for not arguing with me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you confirmed how this House could express our condolences to the family of Konstandinos Erik Scurfield, a constituent of mine who has been reported killed in Syria. Erik was a former Royal Marine who travelled to the region because he was horrified by Islamic State’s brutal atrocities. His parents have asked me to pass on this brief message:

“We are devastated to confirm the death of our son in Syria where he went to support the forces opposing Islamic State. His flame might have burned briefly, but it burned brightly, with love, courage, conviction and honour, and we are very proud of him. We would like to request that we be allowed to grieve in peace as a family, without intrusion at this difficult time.”

Three weeks ago, I raised this matter with the Foreign Office but I have not received a response. Given the serious nature of this issue I ask for more guidance on how I can best secure a response from Ministers so that together we can underline the grave dangers that face anyone who travels to Iraq or Syria.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Let me first say on behalf of the whole House that we send to his constituent’s family our most sincere sympathy at the loss of this brave young man. The hon. Gentleman knows that his point of order is not a point for me to deal with from the Chair. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said, and if he has not had a timely reply to a question he asked of a Minister, he ought to have. I trust that that message will have gone out loud and clear to the relevant Minister.

Equitable Life

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. There is a unanimous feeling in the House that justice needs to be done for these people. We know how much is outstanding and there is a big difference between what people are due under the existing compensation scheme and what they are actually due. Surely what we need is not a five-year plan to pay the money back, but a one-off payment that is made as soon as possible. Many of these people will die before they get their just reward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has taken a lot of interventions and I have allowed him a lot more time than is normally the case in this sort of debate. I also appreciate that there will be further interventions and I am not suggesting that he concludes his speech immediately. However, I make a plea for very short interventions, because people who say that they are not going to make a speech, but that they would like to intervene, take up the time of people who sit here all afternoon with patience and politeness, waiting to make a speech. I will not be tolerant of long interventions, but I am tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in taking so many interventions.

[Bob Blackman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to draw my remarks to a close after that last intervention.

The issue before us is one of justice and fairness. Everyone believes in ensuring that the policyholders receive proper compensation for the injustice that they have suffered. These are people who did the right thing: they invested for their future. They expected a reasonable return on their investment and to be protected by the regulator and the Treasury. The fact is that they were badly let down.

This is the opportunity for all three major political parties and the smaller parties to give a commitment on what they would do if they were elected as the Government on 7 May for the 945,000 people out there who are still waiting for 77.6% of the compensation that they are due and for the trapped pre-1992 annuitants who deserve full compensation, which at £115 million would be a drop in the ocean, and who are the frailest in our society. If parties give them that commitment, they will give them their votes; if parties deny them that commitment, they may withdraw their votes.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Given the interest in this debate and the short time available, I shall impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of eight minutes. That is quite a long time limit and I make a further plea for short interventions, if there must be any.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I may have been present at that debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in leading the campaign with other hon. Members. Like me and other Members, he will have had the experience of trying to update constituents on the issue but getting back a reply saying, “Unfortunately, my father”—or wife, or husband—“has now died”. That illustrates how important it is to take action now. Although I would like to hear pledges for after the election, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, we also need action now, ideally in the Budget. After an election, it takes time for things to happen. People need payment and good compensation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We must have short interventions. Long interventions are simply not fair, because everybody must have a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents. Members must be polite to each other and make short interventions.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

Equitable Life was established in 1762 and started selling pensions as early as 1913, but it was not until 1957 that the society started selling its now infamous guaranteed annuity rate pensions, which promised a clear and unambiguous return on capital invested. That carried on until 1988, when it realised that its rates were so good and so far ahead of the rest of the market that they were totally unsustainable. In December 2000, Equitable Life was forced to close to new business, but by that time it had more than 1.5 million members.

In July 2008, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, the parliamentary ombudsman published her first report on Equitable, entitled “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. On 11 December that year, the Public Administration Committee produced a report entitled “Justice delayed”, in which it stated:

“Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced. Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”

That is already seven years ago.

On 5 May 2009, Ann Abraham, the parliamentary ombudsman, published a second report, “Injustice unremedied: the Government’s response on Equitable Life”, in which she stated:

“I was deeply disappointed that the Government chose to reject many of the findings that I had made, when I was acting independently on behalf of Parliament and after a detailed and exhaustive investigation.”

There was certainly no shortage of reports, just a shortage of justice for those who, through no fault of their own, had suffered huge losses in their life savings, which they had accrued over many years of hard work.

How could Equitable Life have maintained a rate of return and a guaranteed annuity rate way beyond any competitor in the market? Ann Abraham addressed that question in her initial report of 2008, which took four years to complete. Her answers went to the heart of the anger expressed by investors through the Equitable Members Action Group. At the core of the problem was the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations that it had made, because it had no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It therefore declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and assets.

Following a ruling of the House of Lords in 2000, the society stopped taking new business in December of that year, which effectively spelled the end for Equitable. More than 1 million policyholders then found that they faced cuts in their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of the income on which many small investors had totally depended. After all, the average investment for the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000, which, according to EMAG, would have yielded no more than £300 a month even at its height.

In its December 2008 report, one of the Public Administration Committee’s many recommendations stated:

“We…strongly support the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the creation of a compensation scheme to pay for the loss that has been suffered by Equitable Life’s members as a result of maladministration.”

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am sorry, I will not because of time.

The Government have failed to provide answers on HSBC in a way that would inspire confidence and they have wasted money challenging the EU bank bonus cap. What can we do to turn this situation around? It is clear that we need to reconnect the level of pay and bonuses of some highly paid bankers with the wider performance of the banks and their wider economic contribution.

A Labour Government would repeat the tax on bankers’ bonuses, which we introduced in 2009, to raise £1.5 billion to £2 billion. This tax—[Interruption.] I will come to that point in a moment for Government Members. This tax, alongside a restriction on—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady must be allowed to finish her speech.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This tax, alongside a restriction on pension tax relief, would fund a compulsory jobs guarantee. Let me deal with the point made by hon. Members chuntering from a sedentary position. The tax would be spent only once and only for one measure—that is, our compulsory jobs guarantee. That has been the case for as long as we have had our compulsory jobs guarantee policy. I find it interesting that the only line of attack that Government Members have on the compulsory jobs guarantee is to imply, incorrectly, that the bank bonus tax is being spent more than once. It is a weak line of attack from Government Members who do not want to engage with the substance of the policy—a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term youth unemployed.

Only one point was made about the substance of our policy, which was about the potential scope for tax avoidance. The first outing of the bank bonus tax introduced by the Labour Government had stringent anti-avoidance measures attached to it, and we would repeat those measures to make sure that the tax was not aggressively avoided and that all the revenue that we expect to be raised will be realised in order to fund our proposals for a compulsory jobs guarantee.

Tax Avoidance

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government have allowed a derisory amount of time for consideration of all aspects of the Infrastructure Bill, particularly given that issues around fracking are so controversial. Is there any way of allowing us to speak for at least two hours, rather than the one hour designated for consideration of Lords amendments, not least because there are now substantive new amendments from the other place, and we ought to do them justice by having proper time to discuss them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I can certainly give the hon. Lady advice on that matter. I am about to put the programme motion to the House, and I do not know whether it will agree to it or not. If the House agrees to the programme motion, the amount of time available will be one hour. If it does not agree, there will be another procedure.