Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It was not just the money—I also rattled off the numbers. I would be delighted to provide the hon. Lady with details of the projects that have been delivered, with, as I say, 300 infrastructure schemes delivered in the west midlands and 240 infrastructure schemes delivered in the north-west. Accountability depends on the specific nature of the schemes. Clearly, over the past six years we have delivered on infrastructure, but there is more to do and we are determined to do it.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the absurdities of the previous Chancellor’s tenure was the fiscal rule that forbade borrowing money for infrastructure investment even when the return on that investment would have grossly exceeded the cost of the borrowing. Instead, the former Chancellor ended up borrowing billions to compensate for low growth and the cost of failure. That orthodoxy was strongly challenged in the Conservative leadership election, so will we now see a more rational approach from this Chancellor’s team?

[Mr Gauke]

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, and as, indeed, the previous Chancellor made clear, in circumstances where there is a projection of growth less than 1% over a 12-month period, that fiscal rule does not apply. The fact is that we inherited a very high deficit, and we have shown very strong determination over the past six years to bring that deficit down. As we face the challenges that we now face in terms of Brexit, had we not taken the tough decisions on public spending over the past six years, we would be in a much more vulnerable position than we are now.

The Economy and Work

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

In the Most Gracious Speech, Her Majesty spoke of the Government’s intention to support the northern powerhouse. I welcome support for the regions and the regeneration of local economies across the country, but I particularly welcome the recognition of the importance of manufacturing to that regeneration. My constituency and the midlands have strong manufacturing traditions, and I look forward to hearing more details about the midlands engine, and not least about the £250 million investment fund. Our region has been significant in the economic recovery, and we have 96,000 more businesses than we had in 2010.

Although the economy has moved in a positive direction in recent years, particularly in terms of falling unemployment, we should not be complacent about the manufacturing sector. In that spirit, I call for the creation of an industrial strategy.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hear, hear.

[Chris White]

Thank you. There is a clear need to boost exports, and the Government’s target to reach £1 trillion-worth of exports by 2020 is ambitious. An industrial strategy would boost confidence for investors through greater stability in the system and clear direction from the Government, as well as allowing the Government to be held to account over the period to which the strategy applies. For a Minister to come to the House annually and to be scrutinised on cross-departmental support for such a vital part of our economy can only be to everyone’s benefit.

I turn to the make-up of the strategy. A central, cohesive and comprehensive document could shape clear objectives for the sector, outlining steps that the Government intend to take to provide a framework for industry to grow. In addition, there could be a clear statement from the Cabinet Office, acting across Departments, along with annual reports to Parliament detailing supportive measures taken in the interests of manufacturing.

This Government, and perhaps any Government, typically respond well to objectives and targets that give clear focus and consistency, such as a target of 3 million new apprenticeship starts by 2020. An industrial strategy would encompass a wide range of policy areas: apprenticeships, higher education, Catapult centres, innovation and the supply chain. We need to ensure that Departments do not operate in silos, and that our whole system works in harmony, so I would add energy policy, smarter procurement, access to finance and infrastructure. Implementing a strategy would be a major step forward, considering that the manufacturing sector is less able than others to respond to circumstances quickly. A long-term vision is, therefore, essential, and it will encourage investment in the UK.

Looking ahead, we will need to compete internationally in innovation. The reshoring of production must be a central aspect of our approach, and I see innovation as key to that aim. We can help innovation to flourish in the UK by supporting through-life engineering services and improving the availability, predictability and reliability of complex engineering products to deliver the lowest possible whole-life cycle cost. Initiatives such as high-value manufacturing catapults, Industry 4.0 and TES were not even on the table in 2010. I would add, however, that no matter how attractive an industrial strategy might be, we must make sure that we start with a long-term economic plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I must confess I thought the Queen’s Speech was fairly awful. It was not awful in its individual proposals on things such as prison reform or bus regulation, all of which have some merit. It was certainly not awful because of the delivery of it by Her Majesty the Queen, who even sounded reasonably excited by the news of a forthcoming state visit from the Colombians—something we can all get behind. It was awful because it lacked any sense of big thinking and any grand design for the state of our nation. As a constituency MP I see so many challenges and so many things I want to change that listening to the modest list of measures we heard last week only left me frustrated.

What makes me so impatient about those shortcomings is that I believe that with better leadership and a better Government, we could do so much better. We are a country where the divide between the very affluent and everyone else is too great, and where owning a home, having a decent job and being able to have a good family life are increasingly unattainable for too many people. Eight years after the financial crisis, our economy is still too dependent on the financial services sector, house prices and consumer spending, and is still too reliant on London and the south-east. There are obscene levels of extreme poverty and destitution, and homelessness is almost back to 1980s levels.

We have an ageing population, but core public services such the NHS and social care simply do not have enough money. Our welfare system is not fit for purpose; it gives too little support to many people while creating welfare dependency in a small group of others. We have chronic skills shortages in several major industries; that in turn fuels record immigration levels. Our lack of any kind of industrial policy has left several key sectors such as steel facing the abyss.

Some parts of our economy are overtaxed, particularly through the outdated business rates system, and other parts do not pay the tax they should. I could go on, because nothing in this Queen’s Speech made me feel as if our Government are considering these problems; in fact, nothing in it made me feel that the Government have a desire to do anything more than try to hold the Conservative party together over the next 12 months.

[Suella Fernandes]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the Queen’s Speech. Does he share the same opinion about Labour’s future as that written by a member of his party, which said that Labour lacks credibility on the economy?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the extra time, and I will come on to those wider criticisms.

In some respects the Queen’s Speech was frankly dishonest. Whatever one’s view of the necessity of austerity, or the success of the Government’s deficit reduction programme, it is simply not true to say that public services are being reformed to help the hardest to reach—they are being reformed to remove them from the hardest to reach. It is also not true to say some of the deepest social problems in society are being tackled when some—homelessness, for example—are clearly getting worse. In Greater Manchester, one of the most dynamic parts of England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has said, an entire community of people are now living in tents in Manchester city centre. That is not what success looks like. I am all for measuring life chances better, but we do not need a new set of indicators to understand that taking money from people who have serious disabilities—as the Government have repeatedly tried to do—will make their lives harder, not better.

If I were writing the Queen’s Speech, I would ask for it to include three things. First—this was echoed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White)—we need a formal industrial strategy in the UK that is focused on making British industry as globally competitive as it can be. Secondly, we need a royal commission on the welfare state, to consider what will be required in an age of rapid technological change and digital self-employment. Thirdly, we need serious democratic reform, so that future Queen’s Speeches are much better than this one.

The tail-end of the Queen’s Speech contained a miserly reference to the supremacy of the Commons. If the Government do not want to lose so much legislation in the Lords, they should try to make better legislation. I do not believe the Lords to be the hotbed of democratic socialism that Ministers seek to portray. This Queen’s Speech was not a programme to transform our nation or tackle our biggest problems. It was all filler and no killer—a pick ‘n’ mix of pet projects; a holding card until the next Conservative leadership contest reveals that party’s true direction. Britain deserves a legislative programme that engages our public, ignites our economy, and inspires our future. Britain deserves a lot better than this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

5. What his policy is on requiring multinational companies to disclose to the public the profits they hold in tax havens (a) in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies and (b) elsewhere.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What steps he has taken to reduce the number of tax havens worldwide.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

12. What his policy is on requiring multinational companies to disclose to the public the profits they hold in tax havens (a) in British overseas territories and Crown dependencies and (b) elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

We have published more detail on the tax gap than the previous Government and we have shown that it is at one of its lowest levels in our history. This Government have collected £26 billion more than was being collected by a Labour Government in extra compliance.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Tax havens are merely a symptom of a much wider problem, which is that too often the wrong values are at the heart of our financial system. There is too much greed. There is insufficient reciprocity. There is still too great a disconnection between the real economy and the needs of our society. Eight years on from the financial crisis, what is the Chancellor’s genuine assessment of how much has changed for the better?

[Mr Osborne]

That is a perfectly reasonable question, and it was well put. A huge amount has changed. There is much tougher regulation of the financial system, and we have better regulators. Banks are more on the case of bad action in their areas, but it is true that more needs to be done to create a proper culture in the banking system in which they treat customers fairly and seek to do the right thing. That is happening, and the banks that do it will get rewards from customers in the marketplace. Like other professions, the industry is seeking to improve its standards of conduct.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak on the first day of the Budget. Every Budget debate in which I have spoken since 2010 has had one overriding theme, which is that the Chancellor has turned up to tell us that he has failed to meet his own targets. He has then had to mask that failure as best he can. This Budget is a particularly vivid example of that. Growth has been downgraded this year, next year and every year. That is the top-line message from this Budget.

Much is always made of the claim from the Chancellor, which is repeated by Conservative Back Benchers, that the UK has the fastest growing economy in western Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said, however, the International Monetary Fund tells us that economies of the USA, Spain and Ireland are all forecast to grow faster than ours this year. I know that we are all worried about Donald Trump, but we still have to consider the US a major western economy, at least for now.

Our deficit is just below 4%, or £74 billion a year, and debt is not falling as a percentage of GDP; it is rising. So the Chancellor has broken his fiscal rule on debt almost immediately after we had the row about it. He has done that after already breaking his rule on welfare spending just after we had the row about that. The obvious conclusion is: so what? This surely proves that those rules are fairly absurd. At the very least, it proves that they are all about politics and not much about economics—which, to be honest, is a fairly apt description of the Chancellor himself. From the figures that we have had so far, the Budget appears to add up as a result of a £3.5 billion cut being made to Government Departments by 2020. However, as no details have been given, that is a purely illusory budgeting cut.

The remaining fiscal rule—that we must hit a surplus by 2019-20—seems fairly ludicrous. Indeed, it seems already to have unravelled. The Chancellor appears to be saying that he will borrow £40 billion more until 2018-19 and then, as if by magic, he will borrow £30 billion less the following year. Already it appears that most of that is a result of messing around with the accounting figures relating to the receipts of corporation tax. Frankly, if a Labour Chancellor had made such a claim in a Budget, they would have been destroyed in the papers the following day. This Chancellor deserves no less.

When we are discussing debt and the deficit, I always like to remind Conservative Members—or at least the ones who turn up on the first day of the Budget—that Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and many other Conservative Prime Ministers all ran deficits. It is a fallacy that the Conservatives run surpluses while in office. In fact, the surpluses that we have had since the war have usually been under Labour Governments —although frankly that was by chance. There is nothing wrong with the principle of running a deficit so long as our creditworthiness is such that our interest payments are manageable and that the return on our investment is greater than the cost of borrowing.

That brings me to the set of sensible fiscal rules proposed by the shadow Chancellor, which are to balance day-to-day spending over a period of time while retaining the freedom to invest in our economy to make it more prosperous. They do seem like the same fiscal rules we had at the election, but let us pass over that. Considering all aspects of our economy, transport and energy in particular, the need for substantial investment in order to sharpen our competitiveness is undeniable. From what I see in my constituency surgeries, the situation regarding funding for social care is as dire as it could be. The cut in employment and support allowance to fund this Budget’s giveaways is unconscionable, even for Conservative Members, to tolerate. My local council’s budget has essentially halved since 2010, and I cannot believe that the declining percentage of GDP that we are spending on the NHS is sustainable with an ageing population.

It is, however, not all bad. I welcome the Chancellor’s pro-EU tone. Looking at the challenges he set out, who on earth would add greater uncertainty in these conditions? The sugar tax is interesting, but it feels like a distraction when compared with the top-line economic news. Small business assistance is also welcome, but, as the income from business rates has already been devolved to local authorities, is that not a further cut in funding for public services? We need more detail on that.

Returning to investment, the Government really do not have an energy policy. They have a project in Hinkley Point C that will never be brought online in time. Nuclear power is essential, but the project will not do us much good because of the incredible underlying economics. The Government have undermined renewables and abolished carbon capture and storage for UK, which is incredibly short-sighted. They should be looking to cut UK energy consumption radically through energy efficiency measures, which are readily available and do not need to be invented and which, frankly, just need Government funding. We could then further protect energy prices for industry to ensure that manufacturing is still strong and to reduce our emissions. We could also reduce bills. It would require a much less burdensome amount of new capacity to be brought online. All that requires investment, which could strengthen our economy and help to reduce debt.

On transport, I like many of the things that the Conservative Government have tried to bring online, but such infrastructure clearly requires funding and fiscal rules to proceed. Under this Government’s tenure, infrastructure spending as a proportion of GDP has declined starkly, but I want the projects to go ahead and if the Government are serious too, they must provide the necessary fiscal framework. I am particularly pleased about the money that will allow the trans-Pennine tunnel scoping study to go ahead, because the project would not only massively reduce congestion in my area, but bring about enormous economic benefits by linking greater Manchester with south Yorkshire in a way that is mutually beneficial for both economies.

To conclude, I want a Government who not only believe in public services and public infrastructure and honestly and genuinely care about inequality, poverty and life chances, but understand markets and how to foster innovation and appreciate the contribution that business can make. That would be a real long-term economic plan, but it is clear that it is not available from this Government. I hope that the Opposition will be able to offer the alternative that the country sorely needs.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I appeal to colleagues to have regard to each other’s interests. We do not keep a formal list on Report, but I suspect there will be intense interest in these exchanges, so colleagues should look after the interests of each other.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will certainly endeavour to do so.

I rise in support of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), to which I have added my name, as have many other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am completely opposed to any changes to Sunday trading regulations, whether it is their extension or their devolution to local councils. I am sceptical of what benefits, if any, it would bring to our economy but, more importantly, my concern lies with retail workers and my desire to keep Sunday special.

As a Greater Manchester MP, I am a huge supporter of devolution, particularly to a city as great as ours. However, to me the measure does not feel like beneficial devolution; rather, it feels like a dishonest manoeuvre from a Government who seem obsessed with introducing the policy even though there appears to be no public demand for it. I also have concerns about how the Government have gone about the process, in particular their flawed consultation, which I will address.

I am happy to declare an interest, in that I am an USDAW-sponsored MP, which I am particularly proud of. USDAW has led from the front in this campaign, representing the concerns of ordinary retail workers and ensuring that their voice is heard.

Lots of good, strong arguments were put forward in the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. I, too, intend to focus my speech on the family and faith aspects of Sundays but, first, I want to express my serious concerns about how the Government have gone about attempting to introduce the change. I believe it is at best mischievous and at worst a borderline fantasy when the Government say that the Bill in itself will not enact any changes to Sunday trading regulations, but leave that open to local councils to decide. They know as well as all hon. Members do that the measure will result in extended opening hours on Sundays. As soon as one council does it, neighbouring councils will soon fall, one after another, until extended hours are uniform.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will not give way because of the time constraints.

The Government should stop insulting the intelligence of the House and treat the clause as what it is: an explicit attempt to extend Sunday trading hours. I believe that devolution should be used to give councils the powers that they want and need. It should not be a way for the Government to abdicate responsibility for changes that they do not want to be blamed for, when they feel that the changes they intend to make will be unpopular and controversial. If the Government want to extend Sunday trading regulations, they should have the courage to introduce explicit legislation, so that Members of the House can have a proper debate and scrutinise the proposals. Instead, the Government have chosen to hide behind the veneer of devolution.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I have been a district councillor for the past eight years. Facing a constant slew of demands on what district councillors must do is uninspiring. I would advocate the policy as a measure that will get more people into local government. They will have the optionality to decide. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that would occur.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I admire the attempt to get more people involved in local government by giving councillors more power—all hon. Members would celebrate that—but my point to the hon. Gentleman is this is not real power. It is an attempt to introduce a national liberalisation through the back-door veneer of devolution.

Another disappointment in the process was the Government’s consultation, which hon. Members have mentioned. It has been described to me on numerous occasions as a whitewash. The consultation concludes that the majority of responses were in favour of the proposal to devolve the power, yet in answer to a written parliamentary question to me on Monday, the Minister could not tell me how many of the 7,000-plus responses were against the proposal. How can the Government conclude that the majority of respondents were in favour of the proposal when they cannot even give the House the numbers? I was very disappointed with that answer. It should not be beyond the capabilities of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to work out how many respondents are for or against a Government proposal. I hope the Minister will be able to rectify that from the Dispatch Box and provide some much needed transparency.

My fundamental opposition to the clause comes from a passionate desire to keep Sunday special. When Sunday trading rules were relaxed during the Olympics, we were promised that it would be a temporary measure only, and yet here we are not even four years later with this proposal in front of us. The proposal ignores the wishes of retail staff. A staggering 91% of retail workers in larger stores do not want an extension of trading hours on a Sunday. To them, Sunday is a special day, much as it is in my household. I have four young children and two dogs, so I cannot claim that my Sundays are particularly restful or peaceful, but they are special—a time for the whole family to spend together. That should be the same for retail workers, more than half of whom already feel pressured to work Sundays.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to keep Sunday special, but is that not a matter of personal choice for him and for me individually, and not something for Parliament to impose by legislation?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

If the hon. Gentleman approaches this with good intentions, I advise him to talk to some of the retail workers in his constituency to see how they feel about the autonomy they have to decide whether they get to work longer Sundays or not. It is worth pointing out that none of us debating this in the House has to work Sundays if we do not want to.

The current regulations are a good compromise. Shops can trade on Sundays and staff can work if they want. At the same time, Sunday remains a special day, different from any other day of the week. Retail workers can spend some time with their families.

I do not believe the business case for changing Sunday trading regulations stacks up. Retailers already do very well on Sunday, with lots of footfall during a relatively short time window, which makes for more effective trading. The measure will also have a negative effect on smaller shops and retailers that are not subject to the regulations. Their businesses will suffer. In the most recent example of relaxation of Sunday trading—during the Olympics—retail sales actually declined.

As well as declaring my interest as an USDAW-sponsored MP, I am likewise very comfortable declaring my interest as a practising Christian. Understandably, that forms part of my opposition to any changes to Sunday trading, which I know I share with Members on both sides of the House. Of course, we live in a diverse country—I am extremely glad that we do so—but we should recognise that Christianity is the largest religion in this country. For Christians such as myself, Sunday is a special day. Sunday is when my family and I attend church, and the opportunity to do so should not be denied to people who have to work Sundays, whether in the morning or the evening.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like my hon. Friend, I will be part of the holy alliance trying to keep Sundays special. For people of a Christian ethos, this is not necessarily about the promotion of church; it is about a deep-rooted sense of who we believe people to be. We are created with the ability to rest as well as to work. Also, our choices have an impact on other people’s choices. The freedom we seek to exercise for ourselves is paid for by other people.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I endorse those points entirely, although it is worth noting that church attendance in many UK cities, even here in metropolitan London, is steadily rising.

The Government have a responsibility to listen to faith groups on this issue, but they have failed to do so. The changes will place additional pressure on workers and families on what is still a traditional day of rest, a day of religious worship and a day to spend quality time with family members and close friends. For faith, for family and for the rights of many retail workers up and down this country, I will be voting for the amendment. I urge the House to show the courage required today to defeat the Government on this issue.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

I appreciate being called early in the debate, and I hope I can help by outlining our thinking and the journey the Government want to take on this issue.

It is important that we recall why this measure on Sunday trading hours is before the House. The laws on trading in England and Wales were last updated in 1994—back when the only time we heard of Amazon was when we talked about the river, and back when our high streets faced no external pressures. The internet is liberating and changing the way we live and work, but the pressures on our high streets are rising, and the internet plays a part in that. Our measures will help them by giving local councils the right to expand Sunday trading.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I can go broader than that. I can promise that the proposed cuts are the same as those being applied to all non-protected Departments right the way across the Government. This is not picking on any particular area at all. This is the standard cut, which every other Department that has not been protected has had to deal with. That is an important point to get across to the rest of the country.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The number of Government political advisers is up to nearly 100. The number of political advisers on the highest pay grade is up 150%. The Prime Minister’s reportable salaries have increased by 51% and the Chancellor’s reportable political salaries have increased by 277%. When the Minister told us, just minutes ago, that the Government were tightening their belt on their political budget, did he deliberately mislead the House?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think understand what the hon. Gentleman was driving at, but it is wholly disorderly to deliberately mislead the House. The notion that somebody might do so should not be put to a Minister. The hon. Gentleman is extremely felicitous of phrase and I feel sure he can find another way to convey the thrust of what he wishes to communicate to the Minister. I very politely now invite him to do so.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It appears that the facts contradict the Minister, so I just wonder if he made an inadvertent mistake in the statement he has made to us today.

[Mr Speaker]

Very dextrous.

Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

I am excited to hear the question of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. I had not anticipated that it would be that, simply on the grounds that, as I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and many Members in Committee and on Second Reading have made absolutely clear, our manifesto commitment was to end subsidies for onshore wind early. I therefore say philosophically to the hon. Gentleman that, had we meant new subsidies we would have said “new subsidy schemes”, which is the interpretation I think he wants to put on our manifesto commitment.

Let me be clear: the Government were elected with a clear manifesto commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to ensure that local people have the final say on where onshore wind is built. I hope that hon. Members will accept that it is for the Government to agree what their manifesto commitments are. We have gone to great lengths to assure all hon. Members that what we meant was to close the subsidy early; we are not referring to new subsidy schemes. Had we meant schemes, we would have said schemes.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am curious about the relationship between the two parts of the Conservative pledge that the hon. Lady has just described—ending subsidy early but also making sure that local people have the final say on projects. Of course, the wording of the amendment means that those two positions are contradictory, because any local project that receives planning consent before 18 June under the proposed grace period could not go ahead. In other words, people have approved certain projects, but they will not go ahead because of the narrowness of the grace period in the amendment. Are those two positions not contradictory?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman. I think this is the first sitting of the Committee that he has been able to attend and it is good to see him here. He will appreciate that grace periods have to be set and a line has to be drawn somewhere. We have tried to accommodate the need for investor certainty and to be fair both to the businesses building onshore wind and to the consumers who are paying for them. We will get on to that in due course.

The first part of our manifesto commitment is now well on its way: clause 79, together with supporting secondary legislation, will ensure that the Secretary of State is no longer the primary decision maker for any onshore wind applications in England and Wales. New planning guidance for England, issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Communities and Local Government, complements this change by ensuring that local people have the final say on new onshore wind planning applications.

It is imperative that we deliver the second part of our manifesto commitment—to end new subsidies for onshore wind—to protect consumer bills and manage spending under the levy control framework. These amendments will ensure that we do exactly that by reinstating the provisions that were removed in the other place. We are committed to delivering our manifesto commitment while protecting investor confidence. It is my view that these provisions, including our grace period proposals, strike a fair balance between the public interest—including protecting consumer bills and ensuring the right mix of energy—and the interests of onshore wind developers and the wider industry.

At the end of April 2015, there were already 490 operational onshore wind farms in the UK, with an installed capacity of more than 8 GW—enough to power the equivalent of more than 4.5 million homes when the wind is blowing. That significant achievement was made possible only by providing consumer-funded subsidies. The Government estimate that in 2015-16, £850 million of support will go towards funding onshore wind across the UK, of which about £520 million, or approximately 60%, will fund Scottish onshore wind farms.

Recent levy control framework forecasts indicate that spending on low-carbon generation in 2020 will be £9.1 billion in 2012 prices. The Government previously set a limit of £7.6 billion, so the current forecast is already £1.5 billion above that, and additional costs would need to be met through increases to consumer energy bills. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said on 18 January,

“New, clean technologies will be sustainable at the scale we need only if they are cheap enough.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1152.]

When costs come down, as they have for onshore wind and solar, consumer-funded support should, too.

Let me reassure all Committee members that we already have enough onshore wind in the pipeline to meet the projected 11 to 13 GW needed to meet our ambition of generating 30% of electricity from renewables by 2020. That 11 to 13 GW is the deployment range clearly set out in the electricity market reform delivery plan. It is our best estimate of what we need to meet our 2020 targets, compared with what we can afford under our low-carbon spending cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I guess that the hon. Gentleman makes the reasonable point that one could be traded for another, but the object of our renewables policy is not merely to avoid getting fined by the EU. I am quite sure that he does not mean to imply that that is the case. The idea is to decarbonise the UK economy. Yes, we could decide to take one route only and therefore not worry about other sectors such as transport and heat, but I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that. Even if he were, it is absolutely still the case for the renewables sector that if we continue to offer generous billpayer subsidies, costs to consumers will continue to rise.

The policy was well thought through and had deployment ranges that forecast the achievement that we sought against our legally binding targets. We believe that we are in a position to meet the target with onshore wind. Simply saying, “We should carry on with it because we can do more than we set out to do,” is not a way to run anything, so I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would make sense to continue with subsidies at the expense of billpayers. This is not free money. We frequently discuss in the Chamber the problem of people being in fuel poverty and those are the people who will have to keep paying for subsidies if we choose to deploy beyond the level that we have already set for ourselves.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister’s representation of the points is incorrect. The argument is not that we are doing well and should therefore do more; it is that there is an overall renewables target for the UK that comprises certain percentages of electricity, heat and transport and we are nowhere near the heat or transport targets. If we are doing better on electricity, doing more is essential in order to hit our legally binding target. It is not about voluntarily doing more; it is about recognising that there will have to be compensation in other sectors if we are behind on heat and transport, which is a fact under our EU target.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in making progress towards our 2020 renewables target of 15%, we have surpassed our interim target for 2013 and 2014 with an average 6.3% of final energy consumption coming from renewable sources over those two years against a target of 5.4%. The contribution of renewables to energy generation is increasing across heat, electricity and transport. Heat from renewable sources increased by 4.6% during 2014. As hon. Members have pointed out, a record 19.1% of electricity generation came from renewables in 2014. Renewable biofuels for transport also rose by 14% during 2014.

I can again say to the Committee that we have targets for each of our energy sectors, and it is simply not realistic to say that just because onshore wind benefits from a generous subsidy and other projects could come forward, we should change our deployment target aspirations, putting the ensuing costs on to consumers’ bills at a time when we are already comfortably meeting our targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

There are communities out there now that are directly affected by amplitude modulation from wind turbines. I can cite Cotton farm in South Cambridgeshire. That constituency is on the border between two local authorities, both of which have passed motions in the council chamber and written to the Government asking for stronger guidance on these points.

Noise is monitored on a regular basis by a set-up in the community to scientific standards. When an onshore scheme is mooted, noise readings are taken using the same equipment, verified by a third party. Because we can predict when amplitude modulation is likely to occur—it depends on atmospheric conditions, meteorological patterns and wind speed—and can see all those factors happening in front of us, we can predict where the noise will fall. The developer can therefore be asked to shut the turbines down so that they do not cause harm, as has happened in Cotton farm a couple of times. I can absolutely see myself campaigning with other communities up and down the country to ensure that the amplitude modulation from turbines that are already up does not cause undue concern in local communities.

Initially, 10 or 15 years ago, the equipment required to set these up was very expensive. Now, it can be done for about £3,000. Most communities, and certainly a number of developers, could afford that, which would possibly take this problem away. I am trying to make the point to the hon. Member for Norwich South that there are, as my nan would say, many ways of skinning a cat.

The Government have been particularly slow to implement these provisions. I would like them to go further. I am pretty sure I could get together a decent-sized political caucus to do that. If we seriously intend to argue against part of the Bill falling under the auspices of the Salisbury doctrine, and if we are going down the line of dancing on the head of a pin over these issues, the consequences further down the line for this industry will be a lot worse than if we accepted that the Government had a clear manifesto pledge that they are effecting today.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It is a pleasure, Mr Bailey, to be on the Committee. I had not intended to make a speech about the group of amendments but, as ever, Government Members’ contributions have led me to get to my feet. Many of their arguments have not been robust enough; many of the positions advanced have, quite frankly, been flawed and deserve further attention.

My starting point is that anyone considering the needs of our energy system right now has to admit that the most pressing priority is to ensure that our credentials for investability are maintained and strengthened. Our energy system requires billions and billions of pounds of investment, partly because so much of our generating capacity is going off line in the next few years, at the end of its natural life; partly because the capacity market has not worked as well as was hoped in incentivising new gas; partly because Hinkley C is in as much trouble as it was always going to be—we do not know whether it will ever be there when we need it—and also because we need to take coal out of the system, as a clear priority shared by all political parties. The need, therefore, to ensure that our energy structure is an attractive jurisdiction in which to invest must absolutely be maintained.

Much of the argument that has been advanced has been about the changes to onshore wind being clearly signposted in the Tory manifesto—indeed, demanded by the windy caucus, which is a wonderful new term to add to our political discourse. I do not dispute that; ideological opposition to onshore wind has been a part of the modern Conservative party for some time. I do not disagree with the legitimacy of the move any more than I disagree with the legitimacy of all the other bad things the Conservative Government are doing to the UK, but my point is that there is surely a duty on the Government to ensure that the decision is taken in such a way as not to damage the UK’s overall credentials as a jurisdiction in which to invest.

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman says that he accepts the legitimacy of the Government’s pursuing the measure, given that it was in the Conservative manifesto. Does he therefore accept the illegitimacy of Members of the House of Lords—Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who lost the general election—seeking to remove the provisions from the Bill, against the will of the electorate, as expressed less than a year ago?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman essentially asks whether I agree with the illegitimacy of parliamentary democracy, and I have to tell him that I am afraid I do not.

[Oliver Dowden]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the Salisbury convention, which is that if something is contained in a party’s manifesto and that party wins a majority, the other place should respect the will of the elected Chamber?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

That is not what I believe has happened; indeed, a small section of my comments will address that. I believe that two positions are advanced in the Conservative manifesto and the Bill: one is that the RO should close early for onshore wind and the other is that local communities should have the final say in the projects. When I get on to that section I will tell the hon. Gentleman why I believe that those two objectives are in competition and have led to contradictions in the Bill.

Our electricity system figures for the past 24 hours show that wind has contributed something like 14% of our overall electricity need, which is just 1% less than our traditional coal-generating capacity. The issue is not, therefore, insignificant. It is hugely important; right now, wind is keeping the lights on.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I do not want to be pedantic and I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes this point in the way in which it is meant. On Second Reading, we did not have Storm Henry passing through and wind was therefore producing just about 1% of our energy. At any one time, the figure flexes between 0% and, I believe, up to 18%, but it always needs gas turbines churning in the background as a back-up.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We are straying a bit beyond the narrow remit of the Bill, but the point is an important one. On Second Reading—the hon. Gentleman and I were there—the overall figure was 5%, not 1%. It was 1% at the specific moment that the hon. Gentleman spoke—I will give him that—but in that 24-hour period it was running at about a quarter of the energy produced by our entire nuclear fleet, which is not a small contribution.

I recommend that all hon. Members take the time to go to National Grid’s control centre to see the multitude of different generating assets that can be turned on, or brought off the system, as required to keep the system in balance. That is not done as a short-term response to the current level of wind. National Grid’s weather planning system tells it exactly what it will need on certain days, and it is tremendously effective. I do not agree with the simplistic point that every megawatt of wind energy will have to have a corresponding megawatt of traditional gas generating capacity to back it up. Frankly, the people who are skilled at running our entire network do not tell me that that is the case, and I am willing to believe them given how successful they are at running the overall system.

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman is well versed in these matters, so can he point me in the right direction? My understanding is that Ofgem gives guidance to the grid about ensuring system security and ensuring that there is enough capacity at peak times of the day. Ofgem’s recommendation is that wind is considered to have the equivalent firm capacity of 20% of a thermal plant. That Ofgem recommendation clearly states that wind is not as efficient as a thermal plant, and when it is considering system security, there must be back-up. Does he disagree with Ofgem on that point?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman is making a different point from his colleague, but for every generating asset on the system there will be a corresponding back-up percentage. Some of the greatest intermittency problems come from routine cases where things such as nuclear generating assets have to be taken off line for maintenance. All those decisions therefore have a corresponding back-up ratio, which is nothing new. One of the most frustrating things in debates about energy with the modern Conservative party is that a certain set of arguments is often applied to the renewable asset that is currently not in vogue in the Conservative party—there is a pretence that all the complexities of the energy system, whether it is strike payments or back-up capacity, only apply to things such as onshore wind, but obviously they apply to every generating asset.

[Rishi Sunak]

Looking at the numbers, does the hon. Gentleman at least agree that most other generating capacity back-ups are in the 80% to 90% range and that wind is an outlier, and considerably lower, at 20%? Is it at least true that wind is considerably less reliable than those other forms of generation?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I do not agree at all.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend might like to think about two points. First, the relative capacity margin of different forms of energy takes into account theoretical running time relative to downtime, and other factors, and therefore the figures should not be remotely near 80% or 90%. Secondly, will he speculate for a moment on the question of ramping down and ramping up? Wind is particularly good at that as far as balancing the system is concerned.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Absolutely. There is an obsession in the Conservative party with onshore wind, and often with other types of renewables, too. Arguments are applied to onshore wind that are often illogical. I simply ask hon. Members to spend some time going to see how the system is run and how all these issues apply to different assets on the grid. If they did that, some of their fears might be allayed.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily patronising. I have been to see National Grid operations. Does he have the app through which the National Grid provides real-time data? During Second Reading, 1% of our electricity was supplied by wind. Does he not accept that there are times when the wind is simply not blowing? Furthermore, does he agree that, although it is true that, in its balancing, National Grid considers the forecast for outage times, for planned outages and for wind, those forecasts are often wrong? Does he accept that it is therefore not possible to be absolutely certain how much electricity wind will contribute at any one time? He must surely accept that.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I accept that sometimes the wind does not blow—that is a reasonable point. On Second Reading, the figure was 5%, not 1%, as I said to the hon. Member for Daventry, if we take the 24-hour period in which the Bill had its Second Reading. I simply say that all generating assets have intermittency problems and require back-up. If we look at many other countries across the world, we are not the only country with an onshore wind contribution to our electricity system. Every other country in the world is investing in this in large numbers. The Minister sometimes has to respond to her own Back Benchers when they are being unfair when talking about onshore wind. Some issues are not being treated reasonably by the Government and by Conservative Back Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Boswell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Moreover from his excellent point, the sunk costs incurred, for example, on Twentyshilling Hill, currently sit at £3.5 million plus further commitments and the sunk costs incurred on Binn Eco Park wind farm currently sit at £1.5 million. That needs to be considered.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Some interesting points are being raised, which the Government would do well to treat fairly.

The Minister mentioned the overperformance of onshore wind and our 2020 renewables target. I must stress this point clearly: there is a legally binding overall 2020 renewables target, but it is made up of a road map of targets for electricity, heat and transport, which are not binding but form our contribution to the overall renewables target. The target is for 30% of electricity generation, 12% of heat generation and 10% of transport to be renewable by 2020. When conceding that point, the Minister said that the problem is that the subsidies required for electricity and things such as onshore wind are such that we could not possibly try to overperform and that, frankly, we are not hitting our heat and transport targets.

If the Minister is worried about the impact of electricity subsidies on billpayers, she must get the briefing on how we will hit the heat target. To do so through the renewable heat incentive alone would require a budget in excess of the entire budget for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Minister will not save money by cutting back on this important area. She will almost certainly incur a much bigger liability for the taxpayer unless she can tell us that we are on track for our heat and transport targets, but we all know that we are not.

The Bill is needed to legislate for the Conservative party’s manifesto position, but the Government should recognise the UK’s pressing situation regarding investability. There are anomalies in the way that the Government’s objectives have been drawn up in the Bill and it is reasonable to correct them at this stage. Most of all, this group of amendments strikes the right balance between the Government’s objectives, investability and the national interest. I hope that the amendments will be considered properly.

[Simon Hoare]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.

I was slightly anxious when my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry began his remarks with a clear US feel in talking about caucuses and the like. The Committee will know that today is groundhog day in the United States and listening to some of the speeches of Opposition Members, it did feel a bit like groundhog day today. Google is good for some things. [Interruption.] Trump that, as my hon. Friend says.

My heart sank when listening to an erudite but certainly groundhog day speech from the hon. Member for Norwich South, with all those surveys where this association says that and that association says the other, while 37% do such and such. As we all know, surveys can be made to say all sorts of things. “Bears prefer woods to bathrooms,” says one survey, “Turkeys don’t endorse Christmas as an annual event,” says another. The one survey that the Opposition parties seemed to neglect was the survey at the general election. That was a survey in which the British people said very clearly, among other things––particularly, though not exclusively, in rural England––that enough was enough. The survey at the ballot box demonstrated that this is an incredibly popular policy.

I have a fundamental support for how the Government are proposing to tackle the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry alluded to it. It would have been entirely within the purview of the Department––had it so wished, based on the election result––to say, “There we are. We’ve won. Any form of financial support or subsidy is going. You’ve got 12 hours to prepare and that’s it.” [Interruption.] For an Opposition Member to say that something the Government might do is very stupid takes a little brass neck. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde exhorted us all to take front and centre our duties to ensure that the investment markets had confidence in Britain. I look forward to the leaked transcripts of parliamentary Labour party meetings where he makes those points to his leader and the shadow Chancellor because I am not entirely sure that their policies do much to support confidence for investment in UK plc.

The stance that the Government have taken is to have a realistic timeframe whereby the industry, which must have been the most myopic ostrich if it did not see this coming, has time to rethink existing plans and, if it so wishes, seek alternative funding from the market. It is indicative that the Opposition say that this sector must always be subsidised. When David Davies of Llandinam literally sold the family silver––and almost the shoes on his feet––to pay the workers who were digging for coal in the south Wales valleys because he realised that there would be a market for coal to fuel the industrial revolution of which we were on the cusp, I doubt he sat down and thought, “Do you know what? I just wish there was a Government subsidy to support me doing this.” No, he realised that there was a market opportunity with profit attached to it and he went and did it. He did not need a subsidy and I do not believe wind should have one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

No, I do not, with the greatest of respect. I can recall in my own commercial career working on a project for at least 11 years, where the client had spent somewhere in the region of £8.2 million propounding a planning proposal and still was not in sight of securing a consent. This is the point that I make. If someone is in the commercial development sector—the energy sector or whatever—there are risks attached.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

There is a point that has to be stressed here. Onshore wind developers are not arguing against the closure of the RO. They are not arguing for anything that might be unreasonable in terms of the risks that they knew were involved in the planning system. They are asking for the Government’s promises on sunk costs to be honoured. That is what the group of amendments does. They are not about demanding subsidy for ever or about asking for compensation for reasonable risks that were known to be there. It is about the Government honouring their promise on sunk costs.

[Simon Hoare]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He obviously has a little more faith—I will be charitable and say faith—because I am not entirely convinced that any sector that is so sated by subsidy would ever turn round at any point and say, “Do you know what? Now is a really good time to end the subsidy.” There will always be a reason. We heard it from the solar sector: “Give us another 10 more years because we are on the cusp of doing something quite exciting with storage batteries.” Why they did not think about that when the sector was nascent, I do not know. People who receive a subsidy will always find an argument for the maintenance of the status quo.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who leads for the Opposition, is about to burst a blood vessel unless I let him in. Having listened to him for the past two and a half days, I am loth to do so, but of course I will let him in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank all members of the Committee for what has been an entertaining, informative and feisty discussion. Hon. Members of all parties share the desire to see fairness, so I take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about grace periods. We have looked at them carefully. He will have heard my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset and for Daventry saying that we could have come in on 6 May and said, “Right, you’ve got 12 hours,” but we were absolutely determined to have a measured response, and 18 June was roughly five or six weeks. We consulted widely. Although it was not a formal consultation, I can provide Members with a link—I do not have it to hand—to some of the feedback in the consultation with industry, which was carefully done to ensure that we got the balance right.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who has done so much work. I like the 101 dalmatians. I would have been one of them, but I think I was probably Cruella de Vil. I was certainly one of the signatories to his letter, and as his neighbour in Northamptonshire, I was very much aware of the grave concern of communities who felt that they were not being listened to. It was a great pleasure for me, as a new Minister in the Department, to be able to implement our manifesto pledge. Both my hon. Friend and I can assure Members that this is exactly what we meant by it. All colleagues on the Government Benches understand that closing the RO early was a clear manifesto commitment—no ifs, no buts.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent work on amplitude modulation. He came and talked to me about it with a number of experts. We are determined to address and find a solution to the problem. He reminds me frequently that I need to come back to him with an answer, but the Department is taking independent advice on the matter. We hope to make some progress on that.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised a number of points that I welcomed. He talked about fairness to investors and sunk costs. Equally, he must recognise that we, as the Government, must manage the potential upside risk of deploying up to a further 7 GW and more of onshore wind, which we know is in the planning system. As I said earlier, our deployment range in our electricity market reform estimation was between 11 and 13 GW of wind, and we believe that we will still be able to be within that range.

Developers build risk into their decision making. Even before the changes were introduced, there was never a guarantee that the projects will build out. There are all sorts of risks involving planning permission— access to grid and issues with military radar. There are all sorts of reasons why projects do not come to fruition. Equally, the Government have been clear that our absolute No. 1 priority is energy security, and then decarbonising at the lowest possible cost to consumers. That means that we need to get the balance right between the costs on bills and our decarbonisation targets, to which we remain absolutely committed.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Of course there are risks in any field that must be built in, but our point is that the greater those risks—and the Government are making those risks greater—and the higher the cost of capital, the less investment will come to the UK. It is as straightforward as that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure, then, that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted about our commitment to further deployment of offshore wind and to the new nuclear programme, both of which are a low-carbon future for the UK. Targets for decarbonisation and new gas, and a big decarbonisation away from coal and into gas, are the bridge to a low-carbon future. I am sure that he will welcome the certainty that we have given investors with that, and the opportunity for UK plc to get more jobs, more growth and more business in the supply chain as a result of our changes in policy.

I will come specifically to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, whom I thank for his excellent portrayal of the intention behind them. I hope to give him some reassurance on some of those points. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is absolutely right to point out that the survey of the ballot box, which is the best survey, has entirely supported our policy on wind. He raised the question of appeals and judicial reviews. The appeals process is still in place for onshore wind. However, any appeal in England on a decision taken after 18 June will need to take into account the clear statement made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 18 June, which sets out the new considerations to be applied to proposals so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto. Importantly, it also makes it clear that planning permission should be granted only if the development site has the support of the local community and that it can be demonstrated that any planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point and I hope he is reassured.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

UKTI has an ambition to increase the number of exporting businesses by 100,000. There are a number of aspects to that: moving to more direct support as well as advice; learning from some of the leading export promotion agencies in the world; and, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was saying just now, making sure that we leverage existing Government relationships with firms and sectors through a whole-of-government approach to supporting exports.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. The slump in manufacturing exports at the end of last year has to be proof that the UK economy is still too dependent on consumer spending to drive growth, and the Government must stop being so complacent and so self-congratulatory in sessions such as this. With the risk of Brexit this year only making things worse, what are they going to do to expand manufacturing exports?

[Damian Hinds]

Exports are a challenge; there has been a long-term change in the UK’s share of world trade, the majority of it coming before 2010. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about investment expenditure and consumption expenditure, business investment has grown by two and a half times that of consumption since 2010.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on public finances of halving the disabilities employment gap.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

The Government are committed to halving the disability employment gap, which on current figures would mean helping about 1 million extra people to find work. The impact of meeting that on the public finances depends on factors that we cannot predict, such as what people are likely to be paid. However, this is about more than the fiscal impact. The Government want to help disabled people benefit from the security of employment, which is why we have announced a real-terms funding increase to help people with disabilities and health conditions to find work.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am pleased to say that a delegation of young people with autism is visiting Parliament today to discuss how we can improve the transition from school to work for people with autism. Does the Chief Secretary agree that improving the routes into work for young people with autism and other disabilities will be a great thing for our national finances but also for the young people themselves, allowing them to participate in the workforce and lead the independent lives that they want?

[Greg Hands]

I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming so many disabled people to Parliament today, and I agree with him about the importance of doing more to help disabled people into work. That is why we extended the access to work scheme and launched the Disability Confident scheme, to ensure that employers better understand the benefits of recruiting and retaining disabled workers, the specialist employability support and the Work and Health programme, which we launched this year.

The Economy

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will not give way because I want to make a bit of progress and take each of the points in the motion in turn.

I am delighted that the Labour party has remembered to mention the deficit in the motion, although it is not the budget deficit but the current account deficit. Let me remind the House about progress on the budget deficit which, as a share of the economy, has fallen by more than half from its peak in 2009-10 to 4.9% at the end of last year. We forecast that we will be in surplus by the end of this Parliament. That is what the British people asked for, and that is what we are doing.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will the hon. Gentleman welcome progress on the deficit and suggest further progress?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I love being given way to with caveats based on what I might say in my intervention. Let me ask the Minister a serious point in all this silliness. Since the end of the second world war, this country has been in surplus for only 12 financial years. Of those 12 years, 10 have had Labour Governments. Conservative Governments have hardly ever run a surplus. Is the Minister telling us that the Governments of Thatcher, Macmillan, Anthony Eden and Churchill were all spendthrift and socialist, or will she be a little more serious when addressing these issues?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a serious issue, and I hope that, as one of the more moderate and sensible members of his party, he will be able to convince those on the Labour Front Bench that this is an important issue to tackle.

The Opposition motion also mentions tax credits.